watchnerd
Level 8 Valued Member
I agree with the thrust though: effort is more important than rep range per se.
Which fits in with the size principle and is physiologically logical.
I agree with the thrust though: effort is more important than rep range per se.
or purposes of optimization of time spent, target 9 sets within loading parameters.
For maximization of net mass gained, maximize sets per week.
So more or less, almost any and everything I've seen from StrongFirst.
Quite a bit of discussion about hypertrophy in this podcast:
#205 - Energy balance, nutrition, & building muscle | Layne Norton, Ph.D. (Pt.2) - Peter Attia
“Lean body mass is inversely proportional to your risk of mortality after age 50.” —Layne Nortonpeterattiamd.com
The key for hypertrophy though, is how *hard* are the sets?More sets means more tonnage.
The key for hypertrophy though, is how *hard* are the sets?
You could get huge tonnage but never come close to failure, doing a huge number of sets at RPE 5.
What seems to make the most difference is accumulating sets at RPE 8-9, even 10 or "10+" by using forced reps, partial reps and other stupid things.
Sometimes that will decrease the tonnage. Three all out sets will do more for Hypertrophy than 6 sets at RPE of 6. The former may have less tonnage
What he actually wrote (in his hypertrophy book) was that the last 5 reps are the ones that are effective for building muscle and, if you're using a weight that is your 5rm or above, then every rep will be effective for building muscle.
I'm just throwing this out there to see what you all think about the "effective reps" method. A few posts here, including yours, reminded me of it.
oof I might end up listening to that three-hour beast.In the Peter Attia podcast above Layne Norton talks about why "effective reps" has been replaced by "hard sets", because even ultra low reps (1-5) have some hypertrophy effect if you control for number of hard sets.
oof I might end up listening to that three-hour beast.
For awhile, I was seeing people talk online about "effective reps", the idea that the last few reps before failure are the only ones that are effective for building muscle. I wanted to learn more about it, so I got my hands on Chris Beardsley's books, who I think is one of the pioneers (or merely an amplifier?) of the "effective reps" method.
What he actually wrote (in his hypertrophy book) was that the last 5 reps are the ones that are effective for building muscle and, if you're using a weight that is your 5rm or above, then every rep will be effective for building muscle.
I'm just throwing this out there to see what you all think about the "effective reps" method. A few posts here, including yours, reminded me of it.
I think he also said it's less applicable to full-body compound movements. More applicable to isolation exercises.In the Peter Attia podcast above Layne Norton talks about why "effective reps" has been replaced by "hard sets", because even ultra low reps (1-5) have some hypertrophy effect if you control for number of hard sets.
Only if you don't utilize podcast features like "1.4x speed" and "trim silence"...3 hours! Lordy!
I think he also said it's less applicable to full-body compound movements. More applicable to isolation exercises.
My POV, nutrition and high RPE demand are the two most important factors - the current amount of muscle mass must be insufficient for the demands placed in it, its that simple
In the sense that calisthenics fit into his push pull hinge squat loaded carry formula, yes. His generator will program a whole calisthenics program if you set it to that.Dan John ever talked about incorporating calisthenics? I don't think I've ever seen him cover the topic, but I'd love to read his thoughts on it.
But I don't think he has ever written about Utah's underground calisthenics secrets to being super strong or anything like that.