• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
The reality of many successful training protocols is backed by recent findings, in line with our own training experience and observation. A 2015 study of 10 drug-free men (mean average of 24.7 years; 90.1kg (198 pounds) bodyweight; 176cm; 14.1% body fat; 6.7 years of resistance training experience; and an average maximum barbell back squat of 172.7 ± 25.2 kg), found that similar muscle activation was achieved in both the squat and leg press exercises when the men did sets of 10-12 repetitions at 70% of maximal weight with one minute rest between sets (high volume), or sets of 3-5 reps at 90% of maximal weight with three minutes rest between sets (high intensity).

Subjects were tested for muscular activation, along with hormonal responses, after a 10-hour overnight fast having refrained from all forms of moderate to vigorous exercise for the previous 72 hours, with the two different training regimes tested a week apart to ensure adequate recovery. Both training protocols “included six sets of barbell back squats and four sets of bilateral leg press, bilateral hamstring curls, bilateral leg extensions, and seated calf raises”.
 
really? there is a whole lot of recent exercise literature out now that shows that many champions in a lot of sports only train with high intensity 20% of time and the rest under 80%.

while such studies focus on mainstream sports of longer duration than weightlifting, I believe the situation would be no different for strength.

do you go on one study? no, you read lots and make your own observations.

Yeah I reckon there pretty vague, in the second sentence I should have been more clear.
people reading these supposed studies....
 
The reality of many successful training protocols is backed by recent findings, in line with our own training experience and observation. A 2015 study of 10 drug-free men (mean average of 24.7 years; 90.1kg (198 pounds) bodyweight; 176cm; 14.1% body fat; 6.7 years of resistance training experience; and an average maximum barbell back squat of 172.7 ± 25.2 kg), found that similar muscle activation was achieved in both the squat and leg press exercises when the men did sets of 10-12 repetitions at 70% of maximal weight with one minute rest between sets (high volume), or sets of 3-5 reps at 90% of maximal weight with three minutes rest between sets (high intensity).

Subjects were tested for muscular activation, along with hormonal responses, after a 10-hour overnight fast having refrained from all forms of moderate to vigorous exercise for the previous 72 hours, with the two different training regimes tested a week apart to ensure adequate recovery. Both training protocols “included six sets of barbell back squats and four sets of bilateral leg press, bilateral hamstring curls, bilateral leg extensions, and seated calf raises”.

your or theirs interpretation of “high intensity” is not mine.
 
The reality of many successful training protocols is backed by recent findings, in line with our own training experience and observation. A 2015 study of 10 drug-free men (mean average of 24.7 years; 90.1kg (198 pounds) bodyweight; 176cm; 14.1% body fat; 6.7 years of resistance training experience; and an average maximum barbell back squat of 172.7 ± 25.2 kg), found that similar muscle activation was achieved in both the squat and leg press exercises when the men did sets of 10-12 repetitions at 70% of maximal weight with one minute rest between sets (high volume), or sets of 3-5 reps at 90% of maximal weight with three minutes rest between sets (high intensity).

Subjects were tested for muscular activation, along with hormonal responses, after a 10-hour overnight fast having refrained from all forms of moderate to vigorous exercise for the previous 72 hours, with the two different training regimes tested a week apart to ensure adequate recovery. Both training protocols “included six sets of barbell back squats and four sets of bilateral leg press, bilateral hamstring curls, bilateral leg extensions, and seated calf raises”.
If the amount of activation is the same then what are the pros and cons of one or the other?
 
Even though the activation is the same, would they get stronger over time doing the 90% max work? Would they induce more hypertrophy doing the higher volume? That's what most would expect to happen? How long did they run the program for?

They'd be moving a lot more overall tonnage doing the higher rep work if they're doing the same number of sets.
From the average 172kg max squat, 70% and 90% gives 120kg and 155kg respectively (rounded to nearest kg). Doing 10-12 reps and 3-5 reps makes it 1200-1440kg and 465-775kg per set. Pretty big difference there...
 
personally I don't think the tonnage aspect is as important as some argue. I could do a very high tonnage session and still not have enough intensity.

I think there are a number of ways that one can balance the intensity/quantity balance.

why I like the sub-maximal approach, and I also believe it improves one's maximal strength, is that a few sets with shorter rests will still activate fibres but not be as taxing on the body which leaves one fresher for upcoming sessions.

I also use flat out sessions once every 2-4 weeks, but feel that the sub-maximal set training is most important.

having said above, I have never liked training with 85% or more weights, so I would recognise that my approach suits me, although not as successful today in my late 50s.

others can also thrive on training sparingly with 80%+ plus weights.

I also do not think that many studies are perfect, but I do agree with its premise that two different ways achieve similar results.

remember, a good strength text book will still acknowledge that there is still no definitive understanding of how best to develop strength given so many factors.

hence, success will long be achieved by many approaches, just as speed and endurance sports are.
 
you may find this one interesting

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/hypertrophy-range-fact-fiction/

it concludes

"in the past 7 months, three new studies have been published that very much fall in line with the bulk of the previous literature and the analysis in the original version of this article: As long as sets are taken to failure or near failure, muscle growth is very similar between all rep and intensity ranges. There is no “hypertrophy zone.”
 
lifting weights intensely and infrequently will get you bigger muscles
Stick that up your studies and smoke it.
 
No malice here spart
Every now and then it's just good to get back to fundamental truths, it's where we all started and nothing much has changed since
 
Last edited:
No malice here spart
Every now and then it's just good to get back to fundamental truths, it's where we all started and nothing much has changed since

can't ague with that; made a lot of my gains in clean terms when I knew very little.

the basics go a very long way.
 
Top