Goosey
.
What is the meaning of this word "light"?
Is it like a warm-up?
This is what I'm trying to work out here.
What is the meaning of this word "light"?
Is it like a warm-up?
What is the meaning of this word "light"?
Is it like a warm-up?
haha yeah, 6 months of cycling.
Fucking elite athletes.
I'm going to rewrite my entire training philosophy around this amazing protocol right before turning into a Chinese jet pilot.
Heavy set of 3-4 reps clearly doesn't work and it's all light weight and high reps for maximum tone now baby, haha
You're being quite kunty and such
sjay; said:......With your 20 years of lifting experience .......
Were you born slow or has smoking salvia concentrate damaged your brain? The participants engaged in resistance/strength training for at least 6 months prior - cycling was additional to the strength training. Perhaps it help if I typed it out in braille?
I didn't realise this thread only applied to elite athletes. With your 20 years of lifting experience I expect you would be an "elite athlete" - but then again I can bench press almost as much as you after only 3 months of training so perhaps I am "elite" too
That would be drastic don't you think? Wouldn't you just, maybe, take it on board as an interesting study? Are you a female? Because your drama-queen responses remind of my bat-shit crazy ex girlfriend at "that time of the month"
Where did you see that 3-4 reps of heavy weight is useless? You seem to have the reading and comprehension skills of a 3 year old - with behaviour to match.
And after 20 years of training I thought you would know that "tone" is dictated by body fat content which is a function of diet, not high rep training. But there you go, even elite athletes can learn something new!
Oni would be stroking his knob at your reaction.
I love that 30% vs 90% study.
It makes it sounds like doing 30% to failure is easy. I've done it on squats (during injury recovery). 60kg x 161 reps. Took 9mins. Near death haha. I'd rather do a few sets at 90% any day![]()
I do not see it that way at all. Bodybuilders look like bodybuilders for a reason, and Olympic weightlifters are powerful (and look the way they look) for a reason. In fact, for the amount of effort those Olympians/elite athletes you talk about put day in and day out, they pale into (muscle) insignificance when compared to the specialists in muscle building; the bodybuilders. Sure they have muscles; you can pin that to the high frequency of their training rather than specifically training for muscle hypertrophy.haha, actually believing that study is worth shit
I actually Googled it to see who else mocked the shit out of it and it turns out that Jamie Lewis also thinks you're an idiot. To wit:
"Next, bodybuilders need to drop their belief in the 1-5 reps for strength, 6-12 for hypertrophy, and 12+ for endurance. It’s fucking preposterous.
Clinical evidence supports that, but the vast majority of those studies are conducted on machines, with detrained fuckers who’ve never lifted before.
Of COURSE they’re not going to get results from singles. They’re fucking weak, they’re on machines, and they generally suck.
Hypertrophy can be induced from singles, in my experience, from reducing rest periods to 60-90 seconds, maximum. 90-95% 1RM singles with those rest periods will induce hypertrophy because they recruit so many muscle fibers.
It’s almost like a rest-pause set, if you’re going by Weider principles.
I don’t have my notes in front of me, but a decent part of Science and Practice of Strength Training will corroborate this, as will just about every strength athlete on earth – it’s not as if Olmypic lifters are bereft of muscle. And they primarily stick to 1-3 reps per set."
It's not as if I am deliberately trolling this guy or playing Devil's advocate- it's fucking stupid, everyone knows it's stupid and everyone is laughing
Wrong...., very wrong indeed. However if you want to believe it, then that's your prerogative.Plenty of weightlifters have legs that rival bodybuilders from lots of singles. Read my post again and apply some logic to it.
haha, actually believing that study is worth shit
I actually Googled it to see who else mocked the shit out of it and it turns out that Jamie Lewis also thinks you're an idiot. To wit:
"Next, bodybuilders need to drop their belief in the 1-5 reps for strength, 6-12 for hypertrophy, and 12+ for endurance. It’s fucking preposterous.
Clinical evidence supports that, but the vast majority of those studies are conducted on machines, with detrained fuckers who’ve never lifted before.
Of COURSE they’re not going to get results from singles. They’re fucking weak, they’re on machines, and they generally suck.
Hypertrophy can be induced from singles, in my experience, from reducing rest periods to 60-90 seconds, maximum. 90-95% 1RM singles with those rest periods will induce hypertrophy because they recruit so many muscle fibers.
It’s almost like a rest-pause set, if you’re going by Weider principles.
I don’t have my notes in front of me, but a decent part of Science and Practice of Strength Training will corroborate this, as will just about every strength athlete on earth – it’s not as if Olmypic lifters are bereft of muscle. And they primarily stick to 1-3 reps per set."
It's not as if I am deliberately trolling this guy or playing Devil's advocate- it's fucking stupid, everyone knows it's stupid and everyone is laughing
Wrong...., very wrong indeed. However if you want to believe it, then that's your prerogative.
Bodybuilders must be a sadist group then, who like nothing better than to inflict some serious punishment upon their bodies using higher reps than just a single one (rep) that would be sufficient to get the job done..., or perhaps they know damn well that it won't get the job done, hence they train differently than Olympic weightlifters, applying more repetitions in their sets. We should tell them that all they need to do is sets of high intensity singles! I don't think so. Perhaps I would have believed you had I myself not been a weightlifter.
Here are the legs of our own magnificent Lee Priest:
View attachment 11733
And here are the legs of one of the sport's biggest legs, belonging to Jacques Demers, a Canadian weightlifter from the 80s known amongst Olympic weightlifters for his huge legs.
View attachment 11734
He was a 75kg lifter, whilst Lee is a 100kg muscle beast. Both are virtually the same height (my height at 5,4"), yet one weighs about 30kg more than the other. Personally, I've never met nor have I known a weightlifter my height weighing even close to 100kg. The most I ever weighed as a weightlifter was about 78kg, which meant I would have always had to lift as a middleweight weightlifter (75kg back then, or if I really pushed it, I may have gotten up to the light heavy weight at 82kg). I'm digressing, but the point here is simply this: there really is no comparison to be made between an Olympic weightlifter and a bodybuilder, period!
And the sooner some in (either sport) start to believe this solid fact, the less confused would be the average gym goer.