Thread 76538168

mentzer shit flooding my timeline is just a psyop to make me lazy right

Yes. More volume equals more growth. Progression, mechanical tension, proximity to failure are all pysops. You just need to do more volume. 5 RIR, 12 RIR, doesn't matter more=better. Preferably barbell compounds as well.

>>76538180
Retard In Reverse

sounds diabolical

in all seriousness though more volume can also mean more mechanical tension, progression and proximity to failure

>>76538186
Correct when I see the average dyel doing set after set on the cable stack, I let them know that according to Mike Israeli adding more sets is a form of progression and if they keep pumping out volume they will get big bro, it's the main driver of hypertrophy after all

>>76538190
volume with the appropriate amount of challenging weight seems pretty good

it seems israel goes unreasonably light and doesn't actually do compound movements though so maybe you were thinking of something else when you made your first post

I know its hard for traditional routine doers and volumecels to comprehend it, I dont blame you, I was the same for many years.

But the reality is, 3 FOCUSED EXTREME sets provide better results than 30 SANDBAGGED sets

You dont even need to train on a Mentzer routine, but you can test this out for yourself.

Example, instead of sandbagging through your typical 20-30 set back work out, just do 2-3 sets of EXTREMELY FOCUSED to failure weighted chinups, and 2-3 sets of EXTREMELY FOCUSED to failure rows, and u know what? do them on DIFFERENT DAYS, not even on the same day. So the 2-3 sets of EXTREME focused weigted chinups on monday, and the 2-3 sets of EXTREME focused rows on thursday.

You'll find those 4-6 sets give you way better results than your typical 20-30 sandbagged back days, and yes, when you do tons of sets in a single session, you're literally forced into sandbagging your sets just to simply complete the workout

>>76538198
I actually train my back pretty similar to that, because I don't like machines for back stuff and I don't really mechanically like doing rows

I do like 4-6 working sets of pullups at what I'm capable of, for 5-10 reps each

then I have a deadlift day where I basically just do it in place of my squat

>>76538198
>You'll find those 4-6 sets give you way better results than your typical 20-30 sandbagged

It's insane how true this is. I see great progression on 6 sets a week split into torso Limbs so like 3 sets done twice a week

Do high volume for 6 months and then do HIT.

>>76538237
>Waste 6 months

No thanks

>>76538237
I do high intensity training every workout, why would someone not workout with intensity?

>>76538343
Because they ran out of pic rel

>>76538343
"HIT" isn't high volume. You can do both starting out because you're a dyel weakling with no muscle and it doesn't drain you much.

>>76538358
cool, how big are your arms, and legs?

>>76538376
>cool, how big are your arms, and legs?
17" and 28"

>>76538400
my arms are 1 inch bigger and legs are the same

congrats

A single, continuous set taken to momentary muscular failure inroads more efficiently and deeply, resulting in a higher intensity of effort and far greater time efficiency than multiple short, disjointed sets of the same exercise.
With Multiple sets, you are retracing the same motor unit recruitment sequence, not providing any additional stimulus for growth; instead, you're only increasing the exercise volume and the demands on your body's limited resources for recovery and adaptation.

>>76538404
Penis?

>>76538437
7x5.75

>>76538434
The injury efficiency of blood vessel bursting cope sessions has to be highly efficient

Maybe Julian Fitzgerald really does have ideal training 3 reps with the 90lb dumbells with assistance and done

>>76538168 (OP)
>>76538198
Lol this
Just look at how Yates trained, or mentzer himself.
The different between their modern cultists and the way they actually trained is baffling. Everyone thinks mentzer trained like a dafodill just because he did less sets