Thread 76527533

>bodybuilders do high volume
>powerlifters do high volume
>olympians train 6 days a week multiple times per day
This dyel retard
>"If you don't grow with 6 sets per muscle volume is not the problem"

I only listen to people with a similar or better physique than me who are also not obviously blasting.

>bodybuilders do high volume
steroid users that can handle the volume

>powerlifters do volume
powerlifting is a technical sport, requiring emphasis on doing the moves right which then the strength follows, so practicing technique is important

>olympians do volume
again, same thing with the powerlifters, lots of technique


There's nuance to each of these that doesn't exactly say higher volume = better for muscle growth

If you aren't competing you don't need tons of volume. These people exercise as a career, so they are going to max things out. Lifting just looks different for the average person.

Muh volume.

Okay dyel. 6-10 is more than enough if you don't train like a daffodil

>>76527580
volume will grow muscle, but low volume will do it too.

If you do 3 sets a week in one session you'll get muscle growth

If you do 6 sets a week in 2 sessions, you'll grow about double compared to 3 sets a week

If you do 9 sets a week in 3 sessions, going from 2 times to 3 times a week is about 1/4 to 1/2 the gains you get from going to 2 sessions from 1.

There's diminishing returns, and the people that are competing and count on their muscles for their job are going to take advantage of everything they can do get the maximum gains.

Maximum gains is not conducive to having a life outside of lifting, the point is you can get 80-90% of the gains by doing 6 sets a week, it takes a herculean effort to eek out that last 10-20%

>>76527533 (OP)
6-10 is good enough for average people with average gym goals, 15-20 is max volume anyone realistically needs for big goals. I usually shoot for inbetween where I've found the best results

>>76527557
>>76527580
>>76527602
>>76527610
At least you admit you're just lazy and average

>>76527737
most people are average, that's why it's called an average.

Post your above average body please.

>>76527533 (OP)
His advice is for naturals

>>76527602
I actually agree but with the caveat of low volume working better for most because to hit 15+ sets per week people usually sacrifice intensity so they end up growing less. So yeah if all 15 plus are in close proximity to failure you would get slightly more but most people won't actually do that. I'd rather consistently get gains on 4-6 sets per week and never be sore, only spend 2 hours a week lifting.

>>76527533 (OP)
>powerlifters do high volume
Lmao.
And bodybuilders and Olympic weightlifters are roided to the gills.

>>76527533 (OP)
6-10 sets to failure means 30-50 effective reps per week, which is definitely enough for a natty.

>>76527764
>>powerlifters do high volume
>Lmao.
they genuinely do, mark rippletits and stronglifts has done irreparable damage to the perception of powerlifting, anyone who competes seriously is incorporating very high volume supplemental work, either thru accessories or specific hyperthrophy blocks, modern bodybuilders arent running german volume, smolov or supersquats

>>76527533 (OP)
Look again it's "to failure" that's the piece of information that contextualizes this whole thing.

In terms of effective reps that's 30-50 a week. Okay let's spit that back out with x amounts of rir.
1 rir
Number of sets rounded 8-13
2 rir
10-16
3 rir
15-25

Are you starting to see why training without intensity demands more time?

>>76527784
They do high volume because it's sub maximal loads...
You do know strength and hypertrophy are related but slightly different right

>>76527784
No, they don't. I trained with champion powerlifters for years. Their volume was nothing special and the average natty powerlifter does far less work. Taking 5 minutes between sets doesn't mean you're doing a lot of volume.

>>76527602
If you do more sets than what you can recover from, you will not get diminishing returns. You will get NEGATIVE RETURNS. You will get SMALLER AND WEAKER.

Let's say you do PPL and you want to hit 20 sets for chest per week
You have 2x push sessions, so that's 10 chest sets near failure per day
There is no way you are approaching failure at a real maximal intensity for 10 sets on one body part, with a heavy enough lift, in one session without spending 24 hours in the gym doing one set every 2 hours and eating and napping between
If you hyper fatigue a body part so that you fail with a really low weight, that set isn't going to give you any growth. Like let's say your squat 1rm is 150kg, and you jog on a treadmill for 2hours then you immediately fail a set of 60kg for 5, that set isn't going to make you grow just because you hit failure. You were too fatigued, to drive enough power into your muscles, to create enough mechanical tension to signal growth
For sets to be effective, you need to be (a) rested for it and (b) lifting enough weight. That's why when dyels post here claiming no results, every single time they also have weak lifts
And that's why volume is retarded - 95% of those sets cannot be intense enough to stimulate growth, and are therefore wasted and causing fatigue at best or actively inhibiting growth at worst.

I don't understand how a man with such basic takes can cause so much controversy. Apparently hitting your muscles twice a week with one or two variations is mind boggling stuff to people.

Using this thread to ask:

If I did just one big lift a day (i.e. squat) and I sunk 6 sets to or close to failure for it. Could I get away with just squatting once a week? Same for RDL, 6xF, once a week. Could I get away with two legs days consisting of one exercise with maximum intensity and high volume?

>bodybuilders are on PEDs
>powerlifters are on PEDs
>olympians are on PEDs

>>76527876
Maybe with leg press or something. I still probably do at least 1 set on another day to make sure it's not decaying at all before you're next session.

>>76527883
All the elite athletes roid? Based as fuck, just started my first cycle

>>76527854
>>76527867
It's so refreshing to see good takes even if it's once every 12846272 threads

>>76527904
Everyone in the top level roids. Roiding doesn't always mean big muscles.

>>76527533 (OP)
I used to train with 10+ sets and make really good gains
Now I train with 6 and barely make any

DO NOT FALL INTO LOW VOLUME

>>76527938
Skill issue/self report.

is this the new Dr. Mike bashing thing? I swear your idiots can't figure out audience and targeted recommendations.

He focuses on well trained athletes who want to minimize hypertrophy, have very special goals for their sport and/or need to maintain unhealthy weight for their sport (sports with weight classes).

"6-10 sets to failure per week" is an excellent and correct statement if you want to be a cyclist. Stop assuming every youtuber is talking to just you. Fucking schizophrenic freaks.

>>76528048
Congratulations on the dumbest post of the day! I see you over there on the cable stack, pumping away with 15lbs getting that "volume" in. Keep going lil bro!

Yep and all of your examples use drugs. Strength sports are all dominated by dopers. Even those who pass drug test. Just look at torokithy.

>>76527533 (OP)
wrt to training to failure instead of doing a standard rep range with linear progression

does it work like this?
>settle on a rep range of 5-8 reps
>pick a weight where you fail at 5
>try to push that to failing at 8
>up the weight

like a standard double progression except you're just using way harder weights?

also do people really train to failure every session on bench/squat/deadlift? deadlift is alright but could be iffy going to failure every time and bench/squat are potentially dangerous (plus a pain in the ass because you either have to take the bar back up off the safeties for bench or up off the safeties/floor for squat)

or when he says failure is it more like "failure" where you "feel" like you cant do one more rep as opposed to literally failing the rep like when you test for a 1/3/5 RM?

>>76528083
I had to do the math. I do get my volume in and at 15lbs I have done 8514 reps this week. And yesterday was a rest day.

Post volume asshat.

>>76527876
>Could I get away with two legs days consisting of one exercise with maximum intensity and high volume?
Not most people. There's a limit to the valuable stress you can do at once which is probably 3-4 hard sets, and there's also a max recovery time, which is probably about 72 hours (Once you're used to it). After that you're just wasting time.

>>76528121
Shit, I misread that, thought you said 1x/week for legs. 4 sets 2x/week, different lifts for about the same muscles is ok.

>>76527533 (OP)
I hate people who only talk about theory and never actually use it to see how correct the theory is.

>>76527533 (OP)
>6-10 sets TO FAILURE per week
I think you need to read more carefully.
>>bodybuilders do high volume
Bodybuilders and powerlifters cycle 1g+ of anabolics. Bodybuilders and powerlifters often do not train to failure since their roider tendons will snap if they do so. That being said, most Mr. Olympia contests are training with no more than 20 sets per session so there is still a limit as to what they do. A natural bodybuilder however does great training to failure with a lower to moderate volume. The caveat is training to FAILURE.
>>powerlifters do high volume
Barbell lifts such as those done by powerlifters are unsafe to train to failure generally as they are much more complicated that machine movements and hence we have a case where it is safer to hold back and do more volume with barbell lifts rather than having to bail from a low bar squat where they're in a terrible position to do so at the bottom and are more likely to crush themselves. Moreover, technique used to maximize lifts requires practice and hence it is advantageous to do power lifts more frequently as maximizing skill is required to maximize lifts and hence must train in a way that allows it.
>>olympians train 6 days a week multiple times per day
Olympic lifters are performing extremely technical lifts which require a lot of practice. Daily training and going nowhere close to failure is required. Moreover their heavy clean & jerks or heavy snatches are at most 3-5 heavy reps per session as those lifts are much more sensitive to technique than anything else.

The goal of a bodybuilder is to train a muscle not a movement. So they can train with relatively lower volume TO FAILURE and maximize size. Powerlifters and Olympic lifters are training specific technical movements and must build and maintain the skill to do so.

>>76528110
stop overthinking it like a nerd, just lift with effort

>>76528147
you're so fucking stupid it hurts

>>76528148
the nerds are the ones saying take everything to failure, im asking what they mean by that

>>76528159
When you can't complete a full concentric contraction with the weight you're using.

>>76527742
What's the point, you're going to say I'm roiding

>>76528324
No one would ever accuse you of that lel

>>76528152
NTA but you are the actual retard here

>>76527876
>Could I get away with
You're approaching this from the wrong perspective
They've done studies and found people making gains doing a lift once a FORTNIGHT
Snap out of it, stop listening to every grifter selling his own program that's just like every other program, and go lift
Literally, go lift like this and try it. Try really hard at it, take it seriously, and above all - don't enter it wondering "will this work..?", go at it with the idea of MAKING IT WORK

Volume and intensity are like the difference between people who flaunt their piety by showing up to every Sunday service and church event, versus those with a deeply personal faith who wrestle with God in their own hearts, no matter where they are. One is about ticking visible boxes; the other is about an inner dialogue that doesn’t need an audience.

>>76527742
>most people are average, that's why it's called an average.
That's not what average is. What you're describing is a mode (the most common value in a dataset). While it MAY be close to the average, it is not necessarily true. A good example is the US. There are so many hamplanets skewing results that the majority of people exist significantly above and below the average, and relatively few are actually at the average.
E.g. The average of the numbers 100, 100, 100, 100, 200, 200, 200 is 142, but literally every value isn't anywhere close to that. The mode (what you think the average is) is 100.
Think of it this way: how many women do you know, personally, that are really close to 170 lbs in the US? Almost none. But I bet you know a lot that are way under or way over, yet 170 is the average for an adult woman.

Lifting, and exercise in general, became a lot easier to gauge when I just went to a maximum limit each time once or twice and progressively made it harder when it became easier.

Fuck reps/sets
Fuck RPE
Fuck RIR
Fuck percentages

Just go hard

Who the fuck has time to do more than 8 to 12 sets per muscle?

>>76528147
>The goal of a bodybuilder is to train a muscle not a movement. So they can train with relatively lower volume TO FAILURE and maximize size.
Or they can train with more sets taken close to, but not to failure to maximize size like most bodybuilders actually do.

>>76528595
You if you didn't spend your time on 4chan or scrolling on your phone.

>>76528657
Spending a few minutes in /fit/ between sets isn't going to change the fact that you probably need to do a 6x week program to reach recommended amounts for high volume.

>Yeah but you can superset or whatever
It's basically impossible to do that on a normal gym

>>76528595
>>76528705
16 sets is one hour

>>76527533 (OP)
I would recommend low volume because hearing loss is very common

>>76529177
>5+ RIR

>>76527533 (OP)
>This dyel
Has trained multiple IFBB pros & D1 college athletes. Stfu retard. If you listen to BBs and powershitter who are most likely juicing you're a braindead waste of space.

>>76529349
>Has trained multiple IFBB pros & D1 college athletes.
Yeah like blaha

>>76527533 (OP)
At last that fraud is lowering his own volume recommendations.
Remember the "10-20 weekly sets" recommendation this literal dyel faggot fuck helped to propagate with the obvious implication that 10 weekly sets for each muscle being the "minimum"?
It's thanks to nerds like him that ppl have been overtraining for the last 10 years.
>>76527610
Retarded.
>>76527784
Some powerlifters do a ton of easy pussy sets with RPE 7 and below and the higher RPE sets are mostly like doubles or triples which are easier to recover from.
Not in any way comparable to bodybuilding "work sets".
>mark rippletits and stronglifts has done irreparable damage to the perception of powerlifting
SS already has people hardlining on recovery witth "just" 9 weekly work sets of quads, why do you think intermediate programs have lifters squat less than that?
It's already way too fucking much.
SL is an abomination, doing 5 sets of 5 squats 3x a week jflmao that's way harder than anything elite and even world class powerlifters do why do you think these programs stop working for advanced people exactly? They're way too hard for strong people.
>>76527836
This.
>>76527852
Efuckingxactly.
>>76527854
>20 sets of chest a week
>10 sets in a single session
>5 sets 4x a week
Just thinking a bit on this should make it obvious how retarded these high volume recommendations are.
No one should even try doing 20 sets of anything a week, it's retarded beyond comprehension.
>>76527876
>If I did just one big lift a day (i.e. squat) and I sunk 6 sets to or close to failure for it. Could I get away with just squatting once a week?
Yes.
You could get away with less sets if you increased frequency a bit too by doing 2 sets of squats and RDL 2x a week.
>>76527938
Don't make me post the reddit threads full of dyels doing 20 fucking sets a week.

>>76527533 (OP)
>>76529422
Okay chuddy,

How about the fact that higher volume training builds better ligament and bone density instead of higher intensity training?

>>76527554
I only listen to people who read and understand all scientific research and are at least 5'5 and not Jewish.

>>76529573
Damn is this true? I don't need more bone density but my ligaments and tendons have always been my weak point.

>>76529422
>Don't make me post the reddit threads full of dyels doing 20 fucking sets a week.

kek link?

>>76527533 (OP)
jew

>>76527533 (OP)
whats this guys body look like

>>76527533 (OP)
He's right

>>76529422
>not comparable to bodybuilding work sets
wow you pushed so hard to do all those curls that's really incredible
bodybuilders don't do shit, just pin to win lmao

>>76527533 (OP)
post body or an hero

>>76529627
Based

>>76529573
>How about the fact that higher volume training builds better ligament and bone density instead of higher intensity training?
Literally the exact opposite is true.
High volume wears out your cartilage, tendons and does nothing for bone density.
The only thing that strengthens and thickens tendons and bone is heavy weights.
>>76529627
I don't listen to leftist fat cucks who look like shit after 15 years of training and can't explain the discrepancy between real life results and their pet theories on how to grow muscles with 20+ weekly sets a week.
>>76529961
>wow you pushed so hard to do all those curls that's really incredible
At least bodybuilders train close to failure meanwhile most of these "high volume" powershatting programs have you do like sets of 3-6 reps with ~70% your max.

>>76527533 (OP)
desu I want to believe. Listening to internet fitness influencers like Rippetoe was the beginning of the end.

This is my peak doing high volume early 2023, after that i fell for the low volume scheme and i lost all my gains, i've just realized after 2 years that i was brainwashed and i'm getting back to high volume

>>76527836
>Taking 5 minutes between sets doesn't mean you're doing a lot of volume.
If you do a lot of sets it absolutely does.

>>76531659
>i lost all my gains
How did you lose contractile muscle training 4 times a week?

>>76531668
It's easy. Just do 1x5 very heavy. You'll lose muscle mass quickly.
Such training is done by athletes who need high power output with minimal bodyweight, for example decathletes.

>>76531676
This is what i've been pretty much been doing and although im strong now i lost a LOT of mass. I just don't know how to go back to that high volume training again, i was going 6 days to the gym but i got brainwashed that you needs tons of rest

>>76531668
That's what low volume gets you

>>76531732
Problem is you probably fucked your work capacity with that low volume so try to work back slowly and steadily.

>>76531659
do you have a picture of you losing all of your gains?

>>76531741
it's grim but here you go, this was a month ago i think

>>76531732
No way around it gotta build up endurance by adding sets encrementally.

>>76531749
nigger, you look the same

>>76531768
Nigger are you blind

>>76531659
>>76531732
>>76531676
>>76531732
>>76531749
>>76531750


LMAO skill issue, try training past 7 RIR and you won't need 6 days in the gym high volume. Steve Reeves went 3 days a week but you need 6, right....
I agree you should do high volume, since the intensity is lacking

>>76527554
This is the best. Do what the winners do.

>>76531826
Post body

>>76531768
You can't be serious. See a doctor.

>>76531768
Are you fucking kidding me?

>>76529422
>SL is an abomination, doing 5 sets of 5 squats 3x a week jflmao that's way harder than anything elite and even world class powerlifters do why do you think these programs stop working for advanced people exactly?
Because the intensity when you're a beginner is really fucking low. It's just a tri-plot graph of intensity, frequency and volume. As a beginner your intensity isn't high so you can push frequency and volume higher. As you get stronger and can train at higher intensity (weight) you need to drop frequency and/or volume.
As a beginner with a 160kg 1rm you could do 1x5 deadlifts at 90% every day if you wanted. At a 400kg max you'd probably only be able to hit 360kg x5 as a specific part of your training phase, so once every couple of months.

>>76527533 (OP)
You're missing the "to failure" part.

>>76531783
>>76531848
>>76531852
NTA, but you're all fucking retarded, he literally just has a good pump/is better hydrated/better lighting in the first pic. He looks the exact fucking same.

>>76531912
He has more muscle fullness and looks way more anabolic, low volume ruins physiques.

>>76531915
he looks identical

>>76531870
>Because the intensity when you're a beginner is really fucking low
In the context of muscle growth/recovery I prefer to use % of 1RM and proximity to failure as indicators of intensity.

I get the gist of what you are saying though, the stronger you are the harder it is to recover from muscle damage because you are able to activate more muscle fibers and you have more overall muscle mass that gets damaged and needs to be repaired.
It's also a pain to have to load a bar with more than 300kg just to do 1 or 2 sets, the leadup is basically a workout itself, and also the hands get hurt a bit + mixed grip bicep tendon tear risk + possible cartilage damage on the spine.

lyle is a little too fatalistic imo ("you're done growing in 2 years without drugs"), but he's probably more correct than any other youtube fitness goobers. his australian buddy is a fucking idiot, but I do enjoy his non-stop seething about mike israel kek

>>76531642
>At least bodybuilders train close to failure
wow you did curls to failure that's so hard and taxing
I don't think you have a clue what actual strength sport programming is like but it's a lot more difficult than doing baby weight isolation movements to failure
bodybuilding is such a fucking joke, you think doing several submaximal sets is easy because you've never pushed your max at all

>>76531842
4-6 sets a week per muscle group for my entire 18 months of lifting has me growing just fine. 157lbs to 190lbs

>>76532001
>he thinks hitching and jerking an extra pound every week while remaining a fat fuck is impressive
its not, powershitter

>>76532001
yes when I think of elite sportsmen pushing their bodies to absolute limits I think of the guy who takes 15 minutes of rest between sets and can't walk up a flight of stairs, and not, I don't know, Tom Platz lmao

>>76528442
FORTNITE MENTIONED

>>76527533 (OP)
They want to sell workout to lazy people who think you can grow anything by doing less than 1 hour workout. The least gains I had when I tried to cramp my workout in 1 hour the most gains I had when I train as long as I need to.

>>76532001
>wow you did curls to failure that's so hard and taxing
it IS objectively harder on contractile tissue and more productive for said tissue than using warmup weights on your "work sets" and stroking your own ego over how much volume(meaningless metric) you did on a micro/macrocycle.
> it's a lot more difficult than doing baby weight isolation movements to failure
Cookie cutter powerlifting programs have people use literal warmup tier weights and proximity to failure for 50%+ of sessions.

Bodybuilding training is objectively harder than powerlifting.
A bodybuilder's RPE is always higher than that of a powerlifter, and they have to train their entire bodies too not just curls.

>>76532011
How do you grow your delts like that with just 6 sets?That is like 2 sets per head

>>76532011
Lookin good

>>76531662
No, five sets of 3 is not a lot.

>>76531749
You did not lose any size but you clearly put on body fat which makes you look not as muscular

>>76527825
What does intensity mean? How close to failure you go in a set?

>>76532204
More or less. They tried to quantify it will bullshit like RPE (rating of perceived exertion) which really fell about because of how subjective it was but it still stuck around in conversations repackaged as "intensity" which is instead expressed as rir (reps in reserve) because that's more consistent and we can tell reliably where that is by either taking a % of one-rep-maxes or converting that to another rep range and testing it. It's often hard to tell because there's almost never true 0 reps in reserve left more like fractions of one. And you might not know you had a whole 'nother one or two left unless you test it throughly.

how do you train squats to failure beyond dumping the weight every set or doing them inside a cage

>>76528442
Could you post the study for me?

>>76532273
you do it in a cage

>>76532273
How do you train bench press till failure without a spotter?

>>76532171
i was literally heavier on the leaner pic

>>76532088
yeah you are absolutely clueless and have never trained hard in your life
keep thinking your sets of 20 on calf raises are hard tho big guy

>>76527533 (OP)

noob here; does this mean that in an upper/lower programe, going 4 times a week (so 2 days of upper, 2 days of lower body), this means that I should be going to failure in basically every set that I do? I've only been going to failure in the last set of each exercise, I actually find it difficult to believe I could possibly go to failure in every single set (6 sets in total for each exercise every week) ?????

>>76532769
the idea is you limit the amount of sets you do going to failure on each exercise to 1 or 2 exercises per body part and 4 sets per week

basically maximum intensity but way fewer sets

4 sets per week to failure per body part nets you the greatest return on investment

>>76529422
>At last that fraud is lowering his own volume recommendations.
>Remember the "10-20 weekly sets" recommendation this literal dyel faggot fuck helped to propagate with the obvious implication that 10 weekly sets for each muscle being the "minimum"?
>It's thanks to nerds like him that ppl have been overtraining for the last 10 years.
So true.

>>76532689
Hey asshole I do sets of 20 for calf and it works. Burns like fucking hell.

>>76532769
Look here is what all these idiots dont tell you and I am only going to say it once because I like the pic you posted.

Do 3 sets in a hypertrophy tep range. That means 8 - 12 reps. 1st set you should be able to complete, think of it as an activation set. 2nd set should be harder and you should be at 1 - 3 RIR when you hit your reps. 3rd set you should be zero RIR when you hit your reps. Thats ideal and gives you 2 good sets where the last 5 or so reps of those sets are close to failure and will trigger MPS.

>>76533783
The idea that that's somehow harder than grinding heavy work sets on squats is what is retarded
If you can do multiple sets to failure in a week on a regular basis and not be completely fried is proof that those sets are not really that taxing

>>76534528
NTA but why would someone powerlift if it's so hard and you end up looking like a bag of smashed assholes? Seems like the worst of both worlds

>>76534601
This is more of a how question. It's competitive sport is the why. But powerlifters don't really do a whole lot diffent from bodybuilders. Lot of isolations and low fatigue work. In addition they practice competition lifts at high load but well away from failure and gradually work up to strength peak going closer to failure for the competition but this by design is not meant to be a sustainable training practice. Most of why they're ugly is the diet and and not really working the muscles that aren't involved in their main lifts often. Those big lifts have to be practiced a lot even with form cheating meta shit it doesn't stop being a technically complicated lift that demands as much skill as strength.

>>76534619
>But powerlifters don't really do a whole lot diffent from bodybuilders

Ah okay, stop reading there and just going to disregard everything you've said ITT

>>76534677
So you can't stand truth?
The very existence of the majority of modern competitive lifters training like this invalidates your 4chan doctorate. Can't have that now can we?

>>76534601
>>76534619
>It's competitive sport
It's a cope sport. Supposed to be a test of general strength but because ohp is too hard to judge it's a test of ass density. 2/3 of the lifts are lower body. People start lifting for a dozen reasons, and if they get kind of strong but still aren't drowning in vaginal lubricant, think "Maybe I could compete" and powerlifting is how you do that. Well, there's strongman now too, but getting to the top in either isn't worth bloating or destroying your body if you have a lot else going for you.

I was watching a Fazlifts video and he acted like bodybuilding and strength were opposites and powerbuilding is a joke, when bodybuilding is mostly training for strength at about 10 reps, except you neglect compounds so you have weak points--like big arms weak waist. Powerlifting is 1rm at three lifts. At least strongman is training general ability, but powerbuilding is the non-extreme, sensible version, so you're capable and look pretty manly.

Get pretty strong at a lot of lifts and don't compete at anything and you win. Ironically.

>>76534703
Whatever you got to tell yourself. I'm no more offended by someone lifting more than me than someone spelling better than me. Point of the matter you introduce competitive criteria into anything most people are going to be at the bottom of the barrel are the higher you go the more fierce it gets. It could competitive orange peeling and it would still have elites who put in more time and effort. If you care about peeling oranges that fast is entirely on you. You're just upset about it because they lift more than you and that matters to you for some asinine reason.

>>76534723
>You're just upset about it because they lift more than you and that matters to you for some asinine reason.
Completely missed the point award. If you dedicate yourself to being the best at anything that requires physical exertion, that means you have to be better than not just people who casually do it, but everyone else who also dedicates themselves to it. That means taxing your body beyond what's normal. Now add to that that powerlifting is an ass muscle contest and you're all destroying yourselves to see who has the biggest buttocks, which is only valuable in that one competition. Which if it was a major sport maybe it would be worth it for the $50 million, but you don't even get that.

It's a comedic downward spiral from deciding to start going to the gym one day years ago.

>>76534732
You're just attempting to rephrase something I said as smoke screen you're not even in control of yourself at this point. To use a meme you've gone into "damage control mode" rather asking yourself why you give a shit? Why is how much you lift a such a cornerstone of your self worth?

>>76534745
>Why is how much you lift a such a cornerstone of your self worth?
How can you possibly be serious when how much I lift is far less important to me than it is to you. And I can tell you why it is to you, which is because you didn't excel at anything else.

>>76534753
I'm not a powerlifter or body builder. It means nothing to me. I don't have to contextualize how they lift to suit my self worth or my aspirations. I show neither of them antipathy because I can appreciate what they do even if it's not for me.

>>76534761
>I don't have to contextualize how they lift to suit my self worth or my aspirations.
I do. My self worth revolves around contextualizing shit. Not squatting.

>>76531981
>It's also a pain to have to load a bar
fixed
even before people leaving the plates all over the damn place its annoying to load up 8 45s, when you factor in assholes it makes me not even want to fucking lift
i'm fine with the effort but fuck me i loathe inconvenience

>>76527533 (OP)
I'm 100 kg at 6 foot, every morning and evening I do 50 push ups (30 with perfect form), 20 sit ups, 10 reverse crunches, 20 weighted squats (20kg db), 1 min plank and a bunch of curls and overheads with the same 20 kg dumbbell (like 20 curl, 10 overhead, then 10 more curls). Done this everyday for the past month or so and lost 10 kg. Any tips?

>>76527533 (OP)
you are stupid and retarded

>>76531987
>you're done growing in 2 years without drugs
he says 4 is most you're gonna get without dedicating your life to lifting
I say 5 because life gets in the way

>>76534601
Honestly I don't powerlift at all, I do WL which is the vastly superior strength sport, but the point still stands. The only time I am regularly going to failure is on easy bullshit bodybuilding stuff because going to failure every week on front squats or snatch/clean will trash my cns and throw off my periodization. It's especially funny because I do actually do bb stuff to failure regularly and I'm dramatically more sore and tired from something like an 80% 5x5 squat workout than some bullshit db presses. Bodybuilders don't train nearly as hard as they think they do

>>76532135
>he thinks actualy powerlifters do 5x3 once a week and that's it
Ok

>>76535738
Let's see what the superior sport built lmao

>>76534528
>The idea that that's somehow harder than grinding heavy work sets on squats is what is retarded
Powerlifters for the most part with proper powerlifting programming do not grind.
Bodybuilders consistently use higher RPE on every single set they do, and they have to train their entire bodies too unlike powerlifters.
Bodybuilders routinely do sets of 10+ reps to failure on leg presses and squats, they train much harder than powerlifters and do they do it even when leaning out into single digit bf% it's not even fucking close but keep coping I guess.

>>76535738
You contradicted everything by admitting that you can't train to failure without it trashing your CNS and throwing off your training.

Bodybuilders train their entire body grinding reps and doing forced negatives in some too.
Powerlifters, and yes weightlifters too, who use these high volumes almost never grind any reps in their training, they don't train with the same degree of effort as bodybuilders it's just not even close.

>>76527533 (OP)
Your body adapts. As bromley preaches, you can't just make static volume recommendations. Increasing volume, decreasing volume and upping intensity are both ways to get through plateus depending on what you're currently adapted to.

>>76531987
>you're done growing in 2 years without drugs
The only people who say this are people who don't lift or retarded roiders. The only evidence of lyle mcd ever lifting is a picture of him DLing ~120kg at a PL meet decades ago...

>don't do the big 5
>no reason to focus on lifting for more than 2 years
>do 6 sets per muscle
>eat veggies with steamed chicken
>most people will never deadlift 4pl8s because of genetics
This is nu/fit/'s master lmao

>>76536064
>with an asterisk
>not true
>with an asterisk
>problem?
>yeah most won't

>Fullbody ABC or AB or AAA every other day, 1-2 sets per exercise, 6-8 exercises per session
>Upper/Lower or Torso Limbs, 2 sets per exercise, 4days week, 6 exercises per session
>ULPushPullLegs 5 days week, 2-4 sets per exercise if you hate your life
>Lift heavy, 4-8 reps or 6-10 reps if you prefer that
>2x or 3x frequency for each muscle group
>do reverse pyramid training if joints start aching, lower the weight 10-15% each set
>put priorities first in the session and dedicate more sets to them, max 1-2 priorities
>train close to failure RIR 1-2 on first sets, last sets to failure
>forget all intensifiers and finishers, that’s fuckarounditis
>use Double progression model and if possible micro loading weights
>try to beat the log book every week

That’s it. That’s what works and needs to be done for 99% natty lifters. Just pick exercises you enjoy and you will get gains, be patient. If you are a genetic freak or serious competitor, you will probably need more volume.

If you are roided, then just do whatever, doesn’t matter. If you want to be Rich Piana big, hope you are a hyperresponder to drugs and pray you are not dead or seriously crippled in like 10 years.

>>76533049
>>76533791

Thank you anons, I will start working out applying your advice from now on.

>>76535877
Training light weight bullshit to failure is not taxing on your CNS. Your muscles are tired but the level of neurological recruitment is so low that you can wait a few minutes and do it again. You just do not understand because you have never actually trained heavy & hard like most bodybuilders
>>76535847
I don't really mean grind as in barely complete them, just a euphemism for pushing through hard sets. Bodybuilders train at "higher rpe" because they don't ever actually push their maxes, 90%+ means nothing when you've never done less than 10 reps in your life. There is really nothing difficult about bodybuilding training other than surviving the sheer boredom of all the volume, and your results are almost entirely dependent on your drug use anyways but keep coping about how hard it is to do your gay muscle fetish pageantry I guess

I like Lyle, but phrases like...
>Realistically? Leg extensions are all you need.
...really tell me how much of a dyel book nerd he is. I don't care about your theory, if you've ever tried different exercises for the same muscle you know how insanely different they can be in feeling, development and even DOMs.

>>76528447
This was strangely insightful, anon

>>76536429
but leg extensions are all you need..... for quad hypertrophy

>>76536413
>Training light weight bullshit to failure is not taxing on your CNS
It is literally harder to recover from and you can feel it yourself, there is no way you don't know what I'm talking about.
A set of 10+ reps to failure on squats, pendulum squats, or even leg presses is much harder on a muscle and CNS level than a triple with 75% of your 1RM.

>>76528447
Show vs go

>>76527883
Yes. What is your point, smug redditor?

>>76527533 (OP)
this is the nigga you guys are all listening to

>>76536226
>If you want to be Rich Piana big, hope you are a hyperresponder to drugs and pray you are not dead or seriously crippled in like 10 years.
You also have to inject liquid filler into your muscles.

>>76527533 (OP)
nobody here is an athlete. There is no reason to optimize. Go to the gym, lift heavy, eat more protein, progress will come.
These optimizations don't make any difference and even if they do you will never be able to prove it.

>>76536737
Lifetime natty 50+ it checks out

>>76527533 (OP)
Pro athletes are on steroids, you are not, or if you are you're a dumbass if you're bot a pro athlete. I wouldn't destroy my body unless I was at least being paid.

Natty peak is the best physique and it's ridiculously easy to achieve. I do the one set thing and still make gains despite being at elite level on some lifts.

>>76536737
Good point. I guess I'll listen to Sam Sulek instead since he's huge and lean.