stop doing high reps
>>74135389Define high reps.And why shouldn't we do them?>That said, I kind of agree, and limit myself to 10 reps or under, but I'd like to know your reasoning.
>>74135389okay boomer.
Can't make me>t. 10-20 rep ENJOYER
>>74135409>Define high reps.anything beyond 10 reps is high reps>why shouldn't we do them?they aren't any better than 4-8 rep sets and produce way more fatigue>That said, I kind of agree, and limit myself to 10 reps or undergood>>74135476enjoy your fatigue with 0 additional benefit
>>74135512>enjoy your fatigue with 0 additional benefitkek I restarted making gains doing this, so fuck off.I have no joint pain now too.
>>74135389I've found 2 sets to failure with the last set being a drop set has given me the best growth.
>>74135389I've already done 100 pull-ups and 100 dips today, fuck you.
>>74135517>I restarted making gains doing thisplacebo>I have no joint pain now toogets worse with higher repetition work anyway>>74135521and how exactly did you find that?muscle gain is very slow and almost impossible to measure on a weekly and even monthly basis unless you're a beginnerthere is no benefit to drop sets, just more fatigue>>74135524enjoy your extra fatigue
>>74135524How often so you do these?
>>74135713>enjoy your extra fatigueEnjoy having zero endurance>>74135729Twice a week
>>74135776I do muscleups everyday and i see gaiz on a weekly basis.
>>74135512Measuring strength after the workout seems meaningless, all you've demonstrated is that higher rep work is more fatiguing (it clearly is). We'd need to compare over a period of weeks and see whether muscle/strength gains are comparable.
>>74135776I'm doing chins and dips 1.5x a week with skateboard squats. It's low volume but I'm gonna take it slow and steady to avoid injury. I wonder why chin+dips are never shilled?
>>74135776>Enjoy having zero enduranceimagine doing 100 pullups or dips twice a week for endurance>>74135955>Measuring strength after the workout seems meaninglessit's the best measure of recovery we have>all you've demonstrated is that higher rep work is more fatiguing (it clearly is).yeah that's the pointthey are more fatiguing and provide no extra stimulusthey are inferior>We'd need to compare over a period of weeks and see whether muscle/strength gains are comparable.understanding why this extra fatigue exists will answer whether or not they should be usedit's all muscle damage + CNS fatigue, both limit gains
>>74135389Who's this pencil neck?
>>74135955>Measuring strength after the workout seems meaninglessThat's a limiting factor for the workout itself tho.If you lose strength 'after the workout', it means that you're losing strength between sets too.It means you can only do so many high reps sets to failure, while if you're doing like sets of 4 at 85%, you have only a minimal loss of strength after each one.
>>74136065The best strength and conditioning researcher around, Lord Chris Beardsley.>>74136091>If you lose strength 'after the workout', it means that you're losing strength between sets too.truethe strength loss between high rep sets is always much higher than between low-moderate rep sets, same is true between workoutsit is even more important to understand where this strength loss comes frombecause with the understanding that it's due to fast twitch muscle fibers dropping off completely and not being activated even if training to failure it becomes impossible to justify high rep training when the goal is purely hypertrophy
>>74135409>>74135512>>74135521>>74135524>>74135776Post physique.
>>74136217
Hit dudes are always scrawny little fucks despite not even being natty.
Doug McGuff (superslow/body by science) before trt.
>>74138339>>74135389You fundamentally cannot separate the fact that the vast majority of HIT adherents are either:>pretentious high end midwits who buy into HIT because it lets them feel like they are smarter than everyone else>lazy people who trick themselves into thinking that doing less will give better results From the methodology. If you have what it takes to get a great physique you usually have to love working out and working hard. Therefore you’re not likely to buy into an ideology that says you should do less. The kind of person who is likely to buy into HIT is simply not the kind of person who makes it, which is why Dorian Yates continues to be a singular anomaly
>>74138339500k view video giving tutorials on superslow bodybuilding. Sells coaching.
Drew Baye, severe grifter constantly nipping at the heels of every youtuber he can find. Took tren eventually and finally got big but also aged 30 years in 5. Does HIT, low reps, low frequency and sells "masculine" coaching.Something common with HIT is that it's the same grift every conservative minded youtuber uses. They pretend to be some macho dude on youtube and then inject liquid masculinity themselves. They'll start selling "how to be a man" courses and "business" coaching scams. Jay Vincent, Drew Baye, Elliott Hulse...
>>74138378Are you upset because you're a scrawny little bitch too? If I see another slack jaw retard cite Dorian Yates one more fucking time... He took a shitload of roids and was a hyper responder to it. Drugs turn on your anabolic pathways 24/7 so they're constantly growing past their natural limits with just the smallest amount of training stimulus. This is why there are big people on every training system you can think of but when you copy these guys you end up a tiny little bitch who doesn't look different from a guy who just does push-ups and chin-ups every now and then. They don't know what proper training stimulus is which is why hit faggots will never, ever, ever, ever post body despite spending 24 hours a day shilling it as the cheat code.
On some exercises doing more than 10 reps makes it easier to have better execution on each rep. There's nothing wrong with doing more than 10 reps for that reason
>>74136201Why would i take advice from a pencil neck like him?
>>74138378I have lost some subtext, now not going over 10 reps is HIT?I thought HIT was about going to failure with just 1 set and training with a low frequency.
>>74138339>>74138354>>74138378>>74138383>>74138421>>74138452>>74138494Missing the point completelyI am OPI don't advocate for HIT and "super slow" meme training at allI advocate for training close to failure with maximum effort and moderate volume using low-moderate rep setsbasically how the best bodybuilders trained before the advent of anabolic steroids>>74139081>>74139179because his advice works and is easily testifiedanything that lowers motor unit recruitment is bad (high reps or high volume)anything that lowers muscle fiber mechanical tension is bad (too much damage which gets worse with longer duration exercise)>>74140775yeah people are confusing thingsbeing against high reps isn't HITHIT is doing 1 set to failure and rarely training, that's not what I'm advocating for either.1-2 sets of 4-10 reps close to or to failure with ~2 exercises per muscle 2-5x a week is what I'm talking about
For almost a decade I did a low reps (5-8) routine in some fashion. In the last 3 years I abandoned that and did more volume, lower weight, more reps.I look far far better than I ever did before. I’m sticking with more reps.
>>74142124Obviously it doesn't work if he's still a pencil neck.
>High Reps>High volume>High intensity>High frequency>High carbHow long until this catches up with me
>>74135389No thanks. High volume is the only thing that works for natties.
How's got Carter's programs from train heroic?Apparently they make all kinds of super gains.
