Muscle gain

[bluejeff]

Imma push back on this a little. Personally I believe what works best might vary from person to person, but I stand close to Thib when he (paraphrase) says to do enough to trigger muscle synthesis and then get out of the gym.

Have also seen a huge difference between lower load approaches and ones that utilize a high % of one's repmax for at least 1/3 of my volume.

And topping it off I got my best hypertrophic response using relatively low weekly volume but hammering in the last set per exercise. More to it than just that.

My interpretation is that you got “enough hard sets” to accomplish what you needed. Same difference imo.

 

[North Coast Miller]

My interpretation is that you got “enough hard sets” to accomplish what you needed. Same difference imo.

Yeah, but at 15 hard sets per week that's pretty low.

 

[GovernorSilver]

Actually, research (e.g. Schoenfeld et al.) shows that similar hypertrophy can be achieved with a wide range of load (>30%1RM), as long as the reps are done "close to failure", mostly 0-5 reps in reserve, where going to failure (0 RIR) is very taxing on you CNS, but does not contribute much more to the hypertrophic stimulus.
So number of hard sets is more important than load. With low loads you need to do many reps, which can be unpleasant (the "burn") and with high loads you need more rest and it stresses on the joints more. So 10RM is a good middle ground.

Yes, this is the research I was referring to.

Your interpretation of the results may or may not be exactly the same as mine, but it looks close enough.

The conclusion section includes this:

From a practical standpoint, however, a case can be made that moderate loads provide the most efficient means to achieve muscle development given that light load training involves performing many more repetitions compared to the use of heavier loads, which in turn increases the time spent training. Moreover, the high levels of metabolic acidosis that accompany the use of light loads tends to cause discomfort [81], which in turn can negatively impact adherence. Alternatively, evidence suggests that heavy load training requires more sets to achieve comparable hypertrophy to moderate loads. Not only is this inefficient from a time standpoint, but the combination of heavy loads with high training volumes heightens joint-related stresses and increases the potential for overtraining.

TLDR interpretation: If you want to spend as little time as possible on training for muscle growth go with moderate load, because heavy load requires more sets and light load requires more reps to achieve similar results. Heavy load combined with high volume has higher risk for overtraining and joint stress. Light load comes with metabolic acidosis. I ran a Google search for "metabolic acidosis". It does not sound like a desirable condition to have in your body.

 

[GovernorSilver]

Do you feel like you have added muscle with easy strength?

No because I've never tried Easy Strength, the program created by Dan John and Pavel. Easy Strength and Easy Muscle are not the same program.

 

[North Coast Miller]

From a practical standpoint, however, a case can be made that moderate loads provide the most efficient means to achieve muscle development given that light load training involves performing many more repetitions compared to the use of heavier loads, which in turn increases the time spent training. Moreover, the high levels of metabolic acidosis that accompany the use of light loads tends to cause discomfort [81], which in turn can negatively impact adherence. Alternatively, evidence suggests that heavy load training requires more sets to achieve comparable hypertrophy to moderate loads. Not only is this inefficient from a time standpoint, but the combination of heavy loads with high training volumes heightens joint-related stresses and increases the potential for overtraining.

My 2 cents, use heavy loads within capacity to drive tension, and use moderate loads to develop metabolic fatigue. Relying too much on fatigue to drive tension is inefficient since metabolites (primarily inorganic phosphate) reduces force potential = less tension whether speaking of individual fibers or motor units. This partly explains why there is considerably less strength resulting, compared to heavier load training, and reduced tendon adaptive response.

Personally I am of the notion there is a minimum amount of lactate needed as part of the trigger, and anything above that is largely wasted so long as you have some other means of generating high tension as another channel of input.

 

[watchnerd]

Outside of puberty, as an adult, the most muscle mass I've ever added, in the last amount of time, has been times when:

--I was in a caloric surplus
--I was getting fabulous rest and sleep
--Had de-load weeks
--I was following hypertrophy-specific programming

The last program I did that gave great hypertrophy results started off at 2 sets per session for compounds / 3 sets per session for isolation in week 1, but by week 3 it was 4 sets per session for compounds / 5 sets per session for isolation.

3x a week gave 12 sets per week for compounds / 15 per week for isolation.

 

[watchnerd]

Yeah, but at 15 hard sets per week that's pretty low.

I can get results at 12-15 hard sets / week for body parts that I'm under-trained in (chest, biceps).

But I need waaaay more than that for prime overs that get used in WL / rowing (legs, back, shoulders, triceps) because my volume is already high.

 

[North Coast Miller]

I can get results at 12-15 hard sets / week for body parts that I'm under-trained in (chest, biceps).

But I need waaaay more than that for prime overs that get used in WL / rowing (legs, back, shoulders, triceps) because my volume is already high.

That's total. I haven't gone back to revisit this, but was using something very similar to Thib's "best darn lifting plan for natties". Two relatively easy warmup sets and pound the last one with everything. 5 exercises per session, 3 sessions weekly ABA,BAB.

I tried with fewer warmup sets and it didn't work as well. Eventually I modified the warmup sets loading but kept the RPE about 6 or so, with a 10+ on the hard set. Sessions were under 40 minutes start to finish.

 

[DanielHK]

To reiterate what watchnerd said, it seems that you are eating on the low end of the recommended range for your weight. The low end of the range is for sedentary individuals, see snip from BMR calculator below. I wasn't sure of your age so went with 25 years old. Since you are running Built Strong Minimalist and S&S then you are far from sedentary. If your goal is to gain muscle then it seems the missing link here is your overall calorie intake. It seems your training stimulus is in order so try eating more. Your protein intake seems to be hitting the mark (1g/lb BW) so perhaps try to get some complex carbs (e.g. sweet potatoes, oats, rice) or more healthy fats (e.g. peanut butter, almonds, avocado, pumpkin seeds) on training days and see if that helps.
View attachment 21564

Thank you for this ... wish I was 25 though (40 - sigh)

 

[Kirill Igorevich]

There's talk about the load, the sets etc. The person is eating much too little for any weight and height to gain anything. A little over 2000kcal? Are you kidding me? It's impossible Sorry, my attempt at being funny BUT still true. Try 3000kcal plus and get back at us. ❤❤❤ Sorry again for being aggressive, this mightbe tough issue for you. I hope I got everything right, tried to read everything.

 

[DanielHK]

Thanks everyone. So sounds like, putting all this together

- built strong minimalist OR neupert’s programs doesnt matter.. both induce hypertrophy to build muscle (but maybe barbell is faster/better)​

- 3 days of strength; 2 days of S&S or equivalent​

- tweak some lifts within the programs​

- eat a small surplus ie go from 2100-2300 —> 2600-2800

​

 

[renegadenate]

Thanks everyone. So sounds like, putting all this together

- built strong minimalist OR neupert’s programs doesnt matter.. both induce hypertrophy to build muscle​

Yep. Although, I believe BuiltStrong Minimalist is better.

(but maybe barbell is faster/better)​

Faster for strength not necessarily muscle.

You can always use the barbell for your Heavy lifts on BuiltStrong Minimalist. Use other exercises/implements for the Medium and Light exercises.

- 3 days of strength; 2 days of S&S or equivalent

- tweak some lifts within the programs​

- eat a small surplus ie go from 2100-2300 —> 2600-2800​

​

​

Yes!

 

[GovernorSilver]

Thanks everyone. So sounds like, putting all this together

- built strong minimalist OR neupert’s programs doesnt matter.. both induce hypertrophy to build muscle (but maybe barbell is faster/better)​

​

​

In the case of Geoff Neupert's Easy Muscle, the manual states the right tool for the program is the whatever tool you can access and learn to use without hurting yourself. Geoff provides instructions for training with barbell, dumbbell, and kettlebell so whichever tool you choose, you'll know what to do. He also provides demo videos for chinup and dips (on chairs/stools). He shares some thoughts on these tools in the manual but at no point does he say barbell will give you the most muscle mass.

Whatever program you choose, you need to make sure you understand the program instructions, ask questions if you don't understand, and then put in the work while staying within the program guidelines. If you all this, you should get results and not get hurt.