"I trained like Mike Mentzer for 1 Year"
- Thread starter Frederick Foresight
- Start date
I like to oversimplify things. As long as you tear up the muscle by exercise and rebuild it by adding protein, I don't think it really matters HOW you tore the muscle up.
Was it heavy weight with few reps or smaller weights with lots of reps? As long the muscle was exercised to failure, I think both ways achieves the same. But hey, I am just a pizza/beer/icecream system exerciser, not an expert.
Was it heavy weight with few reps or smaller weights with lots of reps? As long the muscle was exercised to failure, I think both ways achieves the same. But hey, I am just a pizza/beer/icecream system exerciser, not an expert.
Sure, I think going to failure is best and a sure way to stimulate the muscles. But the volume and frequency needs to be worked out to your advantage. I think that was the takeaway.
I don't think the time difference between the two makes for a very meaningful difference in workout time. The relevant rep range is not that broad. Besides, most people take rest between sets that is far longer than the sets themselves. More time could be "saved" by shortening the rest periods.
If you're doing real HIT, then you're not doing that many total sets anyway. So any time saved by lower reps would be no more than a handful of minutes at best for a typical HIT workout.
the general consensus is training to failure anywhere between 5 and 30 reps the results are basically the same. There are also studies that show the same benefit going up to 100 reps as long as sets are performed to failure. The main principle is getting to the point where you’re training at a high level of effort which happens near the endpoint of a set to failure regardless of rep count. Your endurance will automatically improve with gains in strength. Which makes sense. 100lb for 10 reps. Some time in the future with consistency over time 200lb for 10 reps. 100lbs is now half of your 10 rep max so you’ll be able to do a boat load of more reps at 100lbs whatever the exercise is.
That doesn't sound quite right.
That would mean that poopy with his 11@345 would see the same size development with 100@50?
Seems off to me.
Or are you not talking growth but endurance or something maybe?
I’m not saying I totally agree w those findings on the 100 reps but it has to do w proximity to failure. The last few reps of a set to failure are the ones that stimulate the most growth as that’s when the larger motor units are coming into play. So you could do 6,10,20,100 reps and as long as you can get to or very very near that failure point then you’ve done enough to recruit the larger fast twitch motor units most responsible for growth and power etc.
As far as the loading goes I’m not entirely sure you’d see the same growth from doing 100@50 vs 11@345. I’d think there’s a possibility to have a recycling of the slow twitch fibers on those extremely high rep sets. But if both are training to failure and are progressively increasing the load over time they might both see muscle growth. That’s why 5 to 30 is the general recommendation. I personally go 8-12 reps. Loading to me is more of a time component. You’re just going to tap into the larger motor units faster by going heavier.
I think this link helps clarify the issue of rep range:
https://www.cbass.com/Carpinelli.htm
Toward the end of the piece:
...Both high and low reps are problematic. Moderate reps, 6 to 20, are probably best—for practical and scientific reasons.
From the practical standpoint, very high reps are unpleasant. For most people (me included), they’re mind-numbing, a drag. Low reps, on the other hand, are cumbersome and potentially dangerous. Except for competitive power or Olympic lifters, as we’ve seen, there’s little or no reason to do low reps.
“Very high RMs (loads lighter than 20 RM),” says Carpinelli, “may involve mechanisms of fatigue that are not conducive to stimulate optimal increases in muscular strength.”*
* Doug McGuff, of Body by Science, seems to be in agreement here. In his book, he wrote: "Time is an important factor in the recruitment process as well, in that as you fatigue through the slow-twitch motor units, you will proceed up to the next-largest motor units, the intermediate-twitch units. If you fatigue through those quickly enough so that the slow- and intermediate-twitch motor units do not have time to recover, then (and only then) you proceed to recruit the fast-twitch motor units, thereby ensuring a sequential recruitment and fatiguing of all of the available motor units. This results in the most thorough involvement (and thus stimulation) of the muscle or muscle groups that you are training.
As for specific lifting objectives, quite apart from general strength and muscle gains, let's not forget the SAID principle (Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands).
https://www.cbass.com/Carpinelli.htm
Toward the end of the piece:
...Both high and low reps are problematic. Moderate reps, 6 to 20, are probably best—for practical and scientific reasons.
From the practical standpoint, very high reps are unpleasant. For most people (me included), they’re mind-numbing, a drag. Low reps, on the other hand, are cumbersome and potentially dangerous. Except for competitive power or Olympic lifters, as we’ve seen, there’s little or no reason to do low reps.
“Very high RMs (loads lighter than 20 RM),” says Carpinelli, “may involve mechanisms of fatigue that are not conducive to stimulate optimal increases in muscular strength.”*
* Doug McGuff, of Body by Science, seems to be in agreement here. In his book, he wrote: "Time is an important factor in the recruitment process as well, in that as you fatigue through the slow-twitch motor units, you will proceed up to the next-largest motor units, the intermediate-twitch units. If you fatigue through those quickly enough so that the slow- and intermediate-twitch motor units do not have time to recover, then (and only then) you proceed to recruit the fast-twitch motor units, thereby ensuring a sequential recruitment and fatiguing of all of the available motor units. This results in the most thorough involvement (and thus stimulation) of the muscle or muscle groups that you are training.
____________________________
As for specific lifting objectives, quite apart from general strength and muscle gains, let's not forget the SAID principle (Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands).
Last edited: