34 ms·

Why the conventional wisdom on how to grow muscles is wrong

238 points by wendyshu 4y ago

AlbertoGP 4y ago
Interesting read: “Now, it’s not that training to failure is a complete waste of effort. Some research finds training to failure does increase muscle growth compared to the same amount of sets not taken to failure. The benefit seems to simply be the result of the extra reps you do, as completing the same repetition volume by adding more submaximal sets can achieve the same amount of muscle growth. And there is a big cost to the beneficial effect of training to failure. Training to failure greatly increases the amount of fatigue you induce and the subsequent recovery time your muscles need.”
- raverbashing 4y ago
  This is not really 'unconventional wisdom' to be honest (maybe in the 'bro-science' circles) However, at the same time, you're not getting hypertrophy from too many reps at a low % of 1RM (let's say, under 30%) Edit: I can accept the 30% they give at the article, that's not such a low rep load (before the 50% I had there) And of course you can train to failure at 30% - the number of repetitions around 35 as it can be seen in the quoted article in fig 4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404827/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404827/
  - foruhar 4y ago
    I once had physical therapist who got quite far in the amateur natural body building world by only lifting 1lb weights. He was getting a PhD in Anatomy(!) and wanted to demonstrate that you don't need to lift heavy to get hypertrophy. Although he did not recommend this approach as the most time-efficient, he emphasized that gains can be made at the extreme end of the low weight-high volume spectrum.
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    What you say directly contradicts the article. Do you have scientific studies to contrast against theirs, since the whole point of the article is to contrast intuitive "broscience" against what studies actually show?
- jghn 4y ago
  A long time ago I remember reading, probably on misc.fitness.weights or something like that, that the lay crowds misunderstood “to failure”, and that it was intended to mean “until you can’t maintain perfect form”. No idea if there was ever a shred of scientific method behind that statement but it struck me as good common sense wisdom anyways.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    > A long time ago I remember reading, probably on misc.fitness.weights or something like that, that the lay crowds misunderstood “to failure”, and that it was intended to mean “until you can’t maintain perfect form”. That seems funny to me. While someone's form breaking down leads to inefficiencies in specific muscle targeting and / or an increased chance of injury I think that approach would end up leading to people bailing when things start to get hard. I've seen a lot of people never put additional weight on the bar because they were afraid of their form breaking down when in reality measured incremental load increases are what helps makes one big and strong.
    - debacle 4y ago
      A good example of "to failure" is when you can't perform a lift symmetrically, or you find yourself cheating by e.g. moving your elbows, lifting your heels, etc.
      - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
        So the idea is that the minute you're moving your elbows you're no longer getting any training benefit from the activity?
        vidarh 4y ago
        I believe the thinking is more that you're taking an injury risk that gain you nothing compared to stopping and resting, and doing another set once recovered if you want more volume. Because injury will set you back far more than missing out on a few reps.
- nordsieck 4y ago
  > “Now, it’s not that training to failure is a complete waste of effort. Some research finds training to failure does increase muscle growth compared to the same amount of sets not taken to failure. The benefit seems to simply be the result of the extra reps you do, as completing the same repetition volume by adding more submaximal sets can achieve the same amount of muscle growth. And there is a big cost to the beneficial effect of training to failure. Training to failure greatly increases the amount of fatigue you induce and the subsequent recovery time your muscles need.” My understanding is that there is a pretty big asterisk here: for the submaximal sets to be effective, they need to get close to failure. You're not going to be very effective doing sets with 10 reps in reserve. But the thing is that beginners typically aren't very good at gauging how may reps they actually have in the tank. There have been a number of experiments where people were asked to rate how close they were to failure. And then they were asked to actually go to failure. And everyone underestimated - sometimes by quite a lot. So, for people with experience in the gym, this is probably good advice. But I think for newbies, going to failure can be beneficial just because the directions are so robust - people are much less likely to plateau for mysterious reasons.
- goldfeld 4y ago
  I have been building large upper-body muscles with resistance body weight training on the pool. That means pushups essentially, but the steps-area of the pool let me do them with full hanging body weight and with many wide arm spreads. It's important to have variations in how to position the pushups. I do 30-70 reps depending on difficulty of arm position, usually two or three sets a day max, each set can be a different position. When I feel strong I do reps slowly both on ascent and descent. Due to my flexibiility (a very important factor in having elongated shape big muscles in pecs etc), I also do triceps also in many widths by putting my hands behind me at the pool border and lifting my weight; it is very demanding exercise, also works back and shoulders. However the most important tip no one realizes for growing muscle, for having resistance, for having tonus and for a real fast recovery comes from India. Apply oil to body (preferrably all of body, leave for 40+ minutes as you sit or meditate, listen to music; use old clothing and wash it separately, oil trashes and stains all, and it quickly ruins any stretch fiber and elastics bands on shorts etc). Coconut oil gives the most mass, good for hot season. Ginger oil good for winter, get south american Buriti oil if you can (mix some drops to coconut, use with utmost caution, observe the effects, how it makes you agitated etc, never use it in summer), brazilian indians used it for going to war, it makes muscles really bulge, The greek used oil for wrestling matches too, and for looking strong. Oil is not all about the shiny effect, it improves muscles tremendously. I would compare the effect of not applying oil to the muscle parts after a workout to not eating any protein after a workout. It's such a dramatic effect.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    You're gonna have to cite something other than the exact fallacy the article talks about
    - goldfeld 4y ago
      I thank thee, I suppose, for not engaging with a downvote like the 4 others in quick succession, and instead doing it with a reply. It seems I bristled the conventional perspective of HN with my anecdotal experience. Of course, anyone could buy some bit of coconut oil and try once, and it'd explain it better than a citation. Call it reproducing study results, I could offer many medical citations, it is true, even western ones, but the alternative focus of them would possibly attract even more condescension and people mentally labelling my comments as if I was making an argument for using black magic to attract riches into your life.
User23 4y ago
It stands to reason that motor neuron recruitment failure wouldn’t have any direct effect on muscular hypertrophy. You don’t (usually) fail your last attempt due to muscle failure and when you do it’s followed by a trip to the hospital. It’s been a while since digging through primary sources, but last I knew the understanding is that muscular hypertrophy is largely a matter of time under tension. One can, up to a point, increase the tension and reduce the time or vice versa. In terms of overall training though you have to train for what you want to do. No competitive weightlifter can skip training heavy snatches for example.
jasondigitized 4y ago
"Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder, but nobody wants to lift no heavy-ass weights." - Ronnie Coleman I have gained quite a bit of muscle mass after building out a home gym during covid. I'm no scientist but following the Reddit PPL[1] workout and eating lots of protein did the trick for me. [1] - https://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/37ylk5/a_linear_progression_based_ppl_program_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/37ylk5/a_linear_pr...
- JLCarveth 4y ago
  Been running this for over a year and I have been loving the results.
- dhr 4y ago
  I'm planning out a home/garage gym now. Is there any equipment you recommend? Or ones that people should stay away from?
  - oh_sigh 4y ago
    If you don't train to failure and know how to dump safely, or you always train with a spotter, you can get away with just a squat rack and bench. If you want more safety though you probably want a power cage.
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    I've gotten a ton of mileage out of just a dumbell set. I do all the things most people do with a full bar: squat, bench press, etc. Dumbells are a lot safer for solo workouts.
    - SECProto 4y ago
      Using dumbbells instead of a bar also builds stronger stabilization muscles, and doesn't let your strong side compensate for weak side.
      - beezle 4y ago
swayvil 4y ago
I read in a yoga book that muscle growth (and physical cultivation in general) occurs through the movement of a kind of psychic energy (called prana, sati, awareness or something). And that exercise is simply a way of moving that energy around. For what that's worth.
- scotty79 4y ago
  Do you believe what you've read?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- reef84_ 4y ago
  Well that sounds like bullshit doesn’t it?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - swayvil 4y ago
    No really, I read a book.
- poulpy123 4y ago
  Science progressed a lot since the speculation of yogis
  - swayvil 4y ago
    And yet we still orthodox like it was 1399. Hmm.
    - sixstringtheory 4y ago
      Two wrongs don’t make a right
alecst 4y ago
Another fact I came across while reading about Greasing the Groove was that the strongest predictor of muscle growth was total weight lifted over time. So, you lift 5lbs 100 times over a week, or 25lbs 4 times a week, and you get similar growth. I’m sure that there are limits here, but this is the basic idea. If you take longer rests, you can usually do more reps in a day, and lift more weight in a week. I’ve put on around 10-12lbs of muscle this way, from doing light body weight movements somewhat often. I’ve also started taking 5-10 minute breaks between climbs and I’m climbing harder than ever.
- vidarh 4y ago
  There was people doing extreme rep amounts of bodyweight exercises at one point on that logic and writing articles about it, and to test how viable some of the examples were, I for a short period of time (few weeks) aimed for 1000+ bodyweight squats a day. It was brutal. It was possible (with the caveat that it was possible because I was young and was squatting 180kg+ for reps at the time). It took doing sets of 40-100 or so whenever I had a time. I squatted in the meeting room at work. I squatted everywhere. It seemed to work to an extent (did it too short to get a meaningful idea of long term impact). The main caveat to me that made me go back to my 5 set x 5 rep of heavy weights was simply that it took way too much time. But a less extreme variant, such as what you describe is absolutely worth considering for people, especially if the realistic alternative is doing nothing instead.
  - dockd 4y ago
    I would be concerned that super high reps will eventually cause problems with your joints: repetitive motion injuries.
    - vidarh 4y ago
      Unless you make very unnatural motions I'm not convinced that'd it'd matter much relative to the increased protection from muscle gain to take more of the load. But frankly, I don't think anyone will or should keep up those extreme rep ranges anyway - it was brutal and took way too much time. Much better to load up a bar and get the same work done in a fraction of the time.
sithlord 4y ago
most sane bodybuilding programs, ie training for mass not so much strength, almost all center around 8-12 reps for 99% of exercises. Sometimes you might get to a 4 or 6 rep set if you start approaching closer to max, but generally its about how much weight you can maintain for that many reps, aka time under tension.
ravenstine 4y ago
You can build muscle on virtually any weight training program. Train at the maximum amount of intensity you can maintain tension under for N seconds, eat protein, get sleep. Even with bad form you'll build something. There are ghosts in the machine. Genetics play a big factor. Some people are genetic freaks and others are juiced, and the economic incentive is there to tell us that you too can become the Incredible Hulk. You might get lucky, but for many people it's just not true (or practical). This is especially true if you start weight training later in life and not as soon as you hit puberty. Training to failure isn't required, but it's a useful tool regardless of whether it builds more muscle or not. A lot of things about weight training and body recomposition are subjective, but training to failure is closer to being a useful metric that can help you determine progress. Going to failure does tax your CNS, but this primarily matters only if you plan on training day in and day out. Arthur Jones and Mike Mentzer weren't wrong; you can go several days and even weeks between intense workouts, build muscle, and be fully recovered for the next intense workout. It can still be debated whether the volume approach is better overall, but very short bouts of infrequent intense exercise still works. Something to be aware of when reading studies on muscle hypertrophy and sports performance is that they are often performed using individuals who are untrained. Whether the subjects are trained or not is a big deal when it comes to understanding what the study ultimately means, and often times a study means a lot less than what people believe. If a study doesn't use genetically identical individuals eating the exact same food and performing the exact same exercises, there's only so much it will be able to tell you. Good luck finding a study of that quality, because they virtually don't exist. In defense of "bro science", I think most of it is more actionable for the average person even if it's not entirely accurate. You can find studies to justify anything. Regular people just wanting to get a physique are better off simply trying different techniques and finding what works for them. A lot of people give up on weight training because they think they have to do a bunch of exercises they hate. Only do exercises you either enjoy or can tolerate. An imperfect gym routine you perform regularly is better than the perfect gym routine you give up on. Do as many reps or sets as you find effective. Learn from other people and take what they say with a grain of salt. And don't do exercises that are dangerous.
- anthomtb 4y ago
  Thank you for saying this. All I would add is that the sooner you acknowledge your genetic limitations the sooner you can start training within them. Maybe you won’t look like Schwarzenegger or Ronnie Coleman, but Brad Pitt in Fight Club is a reasonable target (assuming aesthetics are a goal - they don’t have to be!)
adamsmith143 4y ago
I don't think the consensus was ever that you had to train to failure for muscle growth...
screwturner68 4y ago
There is no mystery to getting strong it's simple physics, you must do work. The problem is most people don't want to put in the work. They don't want to come in lift a heavy bar 3-4 times a week. What they want to do is come in do box jumps and battle ropes and other cool things they see on their favorite influences tictoc video. People expect long term results from a short term effort and wonder why they don't get the results that they want. Lastly most peoples diet sucks and that decreases the results they want significantly.
- kortex 4y ago
  This completely misses the point of the entire article, which is by/for power lifter and bodybuilders. Obviously there is no way around "lift a heavy bar 3-4x a week." The whole discussion is about whether any of the folk-wisdom/bro-science of exactly how to pick things up and put them down is empirically more effective.
goalieca 4y ago
21 comments and not one person mentioned steroids. These are extremely common and are an open secret. All of these bodybuilders who share their routines and meal plans rarely mention what cycles they are on and the long term health consequences of such after their career has finished.
- vsareto 4y ago
  Correct. You can also go to a Testosterone replacement clinic and get an actual TRT prescription provided your T is actually low. If they are ethical, they will monitor to keep it within a healthy range so you don't go past an upper limit. Your results will suck ass if you have low T.
  - goldfeld 4y ago
    However pump up the T and your hairline will run away from you fast, then your hair will dropset to failure.
    - moneywoes 4y ago
      Isn’t there something you can take to prevent that from happening?
      - jeffreyrogers 4y ago
        Yes, it's not really the testosterone that causes hair loss, it's the DHT the testosterone is converted too and there are drugs and topical foams that can prevent that conversion from happening in the scalp. There are other medications and treatments that work differently as well. It's a complicated topic. Also some people just aren't very susceptible to hair loss.
      - wolongong942 4y ago
        Not really, finasteride with steroids will spike your estrogen (which was already an issue with the extra testosterone) and cause you to get permanent manboobs and other sexual issues IIRC, and if you use yet another drug to block this estrogen conversion it's even more dangerous. Basically you have the male pattern baldness gene stay away from roids. If you need more motivation, study after study show women are less attracted to bodybuilder physiques anyway.
paulvnickerson 4y ago
Much of this article reads similar to the wisdom offered by Starting Strength author Mark Rippetoe.
LanceH 4y ago
They seem to be talking about bodybuilding a lot, but then (at least some) of the discussions move to muscle growth among random groups of people. The two are not the same. Bodybuilders are trying to put on muscle, sometimes in specific places, long after they have stalled in workouts most people would do. >Going on a higher carb diet increases intramuscular glycogen stores, which attracts a lot of water into the muscles, ~3 grams per gram of glycogen. It’s not uncommon for a guy to gain 4 pounds of what looks like muscle when they go from a low to a high carb diet. This is probably the main reason high carb diets are so popular among bodybuilders and it makes it incredibly hard to see if you’re looking bigger because of your training or because of your higher carb intake. You don't eat carbs for the pump. It's right there in the paragraph -- you eat carbs to have glycogen, so you can lift more. Then you stop eating carbs to get shredded. I personally don't like bodybuilding as a sport, but this whole piece was just insulting. If you want to make such sweeping contradictory claims, you have to experiment with people who are already more than experienced in lifting. People who have put on an top percentile of muscle and are trying to eke out just a bit more. For the sedentary, or the purely cardio oriented, just about any lifting will show improvements. But it just isn't the same as what a bodybuilder needs to progress.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- CyberDildonics 4y ago
  You don't eat carbs for the pump. It's right there in the paragraph -- you eat carbs to have glycogen, so you can lift more. Then you stop eating carbs to get shredded. Your own quote just says it is an effect, not that it's the purpose.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    And he's saying the article is wrong. People love hate bro science but most bodybuilders go through a lot of trial and error to find the right diet. And they don't meassure success by looks* but by performance (eg. new PR). The article basically thinks that bodybuilders don't actually know what they are doing when most actually do. Maybe not all understand the exact science (although some certainly do) but they do know what works, because they exist as a community of millions of people all trying things are reporting what works. *some do, but the ones that do are not eating carbs
marban 4y ago
I used to run a half-marathon every single day for close to two years until a bone fracture knocked me out (obvious in hindsight). Added daily weight training after my recovery and I'm now in the best shape of my life (mid 40s). Right after nutrition and sleep, it's the best you can do for well-being and mobility in daily life — No need to go overboard with all kinds of machines, let alone stims.
- derelicta 4y ago
  Impressive. I managed to do half-marathons bi-monthly for 6 months straight and that was already great by my standards. The thing I always ask myself is: if I train too much, won't I get bored of jogging ?
  - marban 4y ago
    The question is: Is running an escape from, or into reality.
  - jeltz 4y ago
    You can always join a running group. I do 25 km every Sunday with my running group.
    - derelicta 4y ago
      Guess its a valid option. But first step is to find a running group in my near vicinity eheh
dhd415 4y ago
This article is focused on growth in muscle _size_ over growth in muscle _strength_. The two are related, but it's pretty well-established that you can bias your training towards one or the other. You can see the difference between experienced powerlifters and bodybuilders. PLs move heavier weights than BBs, but the latter generally have more muscle mass. I think training for strength has more everyday health benefits than bodybuilding and its training methodology (train large muscle groups with high weight and lower reps ~2x/week) at the novice and intermediate level is much less time-consuming.
- vidarh 4y ago
  It was a revelation for me that I could go in and do 5x5 Stronglift or similar and get it done in 40m 3x a week instead of adding on ever more volume, and I think that time saving is extremely helpful in terms of maintaining compliance with an exercise schedule. Incidentally, it also helped my muscle size significantly, likely exactly because it was far easier to stay motivated and consistent. In my experience the carry-over between different rep ranges etc. is significant enough that unless you're aiming to be a competitive lifter or bodybuilder, what matters most is what you can motivate yourself to do consistently. When I was younger that was 5x5, or later 3x5 or 5-3-1 or similar where I could keep adding weight as often as possible. Now I'm doing higher rep ranges because I know what I've been able to lift and I'm not likely to exceed it again (I'm 47; I probably could if I cared enough, I didn't lift that much, barely into competitive levels, but I don't want to spend enough time in the gym to make that happen) and maintaining my health is motivation enough.
  - dhd415 4y ago
    I've experienced a very similar effect. The health ROI on your time investment with strength-focused training is pretty incredible. If you could bottle it up and sell it, you'd be rich!
- matwood 4y ago
  This is a bit of misconception. Body builders are also very strong. If you body weight adjust, many are probably similar strength wise to PLs. The strongest PLs are just big. I focused for years only on PL and I also got as big based on how much food I allowed myself to eat. 100% agree, that everyone should just move heavy weights. Looking good, muscles, etc... will follow.
raydiatian 4y ago
There are two categories of people when it comes to discussions of weight lifting: “Everybody knows that x”, or the crowd who appeals to authority “Everybody who thinks that x has been duped”, or the contrarians. In summary, it’s all basically Counterstrike.
robviren 4y ago
I'm still curious about actual rep tempo and what role that plays in growth. If maximizing work is the measure of growth than all that really matters is how much acceleration I can put into a weight. Obviously proper form plays a role, just a difficult balance between ensuring proper form and dumping as much force into a rep. I ascribe to the possible bro science of longer eccentric motion being a useful tactic in my workouts. This is a strange part of a the rep to mechanically measure work given you are essentially going with as opposed to fighting the force of gravity depending on the exercise. This kind of stuff fascinates me because you would figure we would have solved what the ideal conditions are for a given outcome. But there is too much money is selling snake oil because the actual answers are boring and unpleasant. Loved the read.
- goldfeld 4y ago
  On the contrary, if you do it really slow it's a whole other game, and proper form is king, and number of reps is a silly measure because by doing slowly you cannot keep your normal repetitions.
  - beezle 4y ago
    This. So many guys wing stuff around using momentum or gravity. Positive and negative rep should be at similar, fully in control speeds.
wwqrd 4y ago
TLDR; More volume per session/week = more growth? So really it becomes a balance of maximising volume against sustainable recovery.
- sschueller 4y ago
  One big issue I see is all these people following programs made for people using PEDs and those programs consider the "lack" or small amount of recovery required when on PEDs. If you are natural you need to very cerfully monitor your recovery and how often you train each muscle. Especially if you get older
borroka 4y ago
I have been weight training for almost 30 years. I've tried just about every program, split and variation under the sun, and I've seen and practiced for a time fads that have come and gone. In the last six months, I have changed things up. I now train with low volume per muscle group (on average, 4-6 sets per muscle group, reps per set between 6 and 12, pushing very hard, close to exercise, not muscle, failure, which means I stop when I cannot complete 1 or 2 additional reps with proper form). I do full body workouts, averaging 4 workouts a week (I also do jiu jitsu 2 or 3 times a week, and try to run 1-2 times a week). Almost all the exercises I do are machine-based, following the path opened by the late Arthur Jones (if you haven't read his biography, I recommend you at least skim it: it's wild, disorganized and fun). With this new protocol, I have seen excellent results in terms of strength and muscle growth, with less soreness than I expected. I also increased my protein intake throughout the day to (roughly, I don't use a scale) 1 g per lb of body weight. I find it quite easy to reach this amount by mixing protein powder with Greek yogurt: it is a protein bomb. I have also started taking magnesium glycinate, about 800-1000 mg per day. As for exercise research, scientists should start, and should have started 30 years ago, adding variance measures to their results. A 3% increase vs 1% when testing competing exercise protocols says nothing. I want to know the variance, because individual variability in response to any stimulus or insult is typically high.
- moneywoes 4y ago
  May I ask your split?
  - borroka 4y ago
    Now I do full-body workouts, and all the workouts are very similar to each other. Monday, Wednesday (Friday, optional): run 5 miles at noon, jiu jitsu at night (I have a black belt, so my attendance is a bit less structured than in the past). Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday (Sunday optional): gym time--all exercises: 2 sets, 6-10 reps, close to mechanical failure. Approx 3 minutes of rest between sets. Lower body: Hack Squat or Smith Machine squat, Romanian deadlifts (with dumbbells or at the Smith Machine), Glute machine, calf raises. Occasionally: donkey kick machine, abductor machine, leg curl. Upper body: convergent chest press (or incline press or weighed dips), cable fly, chest supported rows of some kind, cable pulls for lats, machine shoulder press, lateral raises with db, triceps push-downs, some type of biceps curls.
cratermoon 4y ago
"total training volume is what matters most" That's it. That's the conclusion.
- jeltz 4y ago
  As a runner I agree. Sure there is more to it but volume is the single most important factor.
  - iamacyborg 4y ago
    I still have no idea how folks can manage 100+ mile weeks. I struggle staying uninjured hitting ~10km a day.
    - jeltz 4y ago
      I think patience. I have never myself gone above 70 km per week without injuring myself, but I always increase too fast which works fine up to 60-70 km/week but above that I injure myself.
      - iamacyborg 4y ago
        I just really enjoy running so it’s frustrating. Hitting the gym to try proactively avoid future injuries now though.
jasfi 4y ago
Eating protein regularly and consistently is more important than what your training program looks like.
maerF0x0 4y ago
As a comment addressing several comment threads here, and what I believe is a fallacy in the article. The main issue I believe at play is that non-competitive types (eg non bodybuilders) frequently are not very good at assessing how hard they're pushing themselves. Because of that working with 1lb (or very low % of 1RM) is often ineffective because they have a hard time telling if the 99th, 100th, or 120th rep is truly 1 Rep In Reserve (RIR). For a similar reason training "to failure" with a reasonably high % of 1RM means by definition that they're going to 0 or 1 RIR. Low rest makes it easier to truly hit that 2 through 0 RIR range because without sufficient rest you are essentially doing a broken up single set. Jeff nippard has a bunch of good videos on the subject that pulls from similar studies as the author: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiJKa41Fsxo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiJKa41Fsxo - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deDlhPmT2SY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deDlhPmT2SY - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQxEEjYLDI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQxEEjYLDI
- worthless-trash 4y ago
  I imagine most weightlifters possibly know their 1 RM at least after the beginner stage, I sure as hell do.
  - matwood 4y ago
    Maybe. I think it takes a long time for people to learn how hard they can actually go. There's the muscle itself, CNS, and then the mental aspect. All must be trained to hit a true 1RM.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    I highly doubt you're "most" weight lifters tbh. I would call the population of "weight lifters" as essentially anyone who does a workout involving added weight. That population I suspect ranges from someone doing a 20/20/20 workout with 5lb dumbbells on all 3 moves of overhead press, tricep extensions, and squats. ranging to the guy who keeps perfect logs, preplanned multiweek training blocks with precalculated weights for every set (eg someone running Weiders 5/3/1). But for every guy running a well crafted program, there's probably 10 guys just doing whatever he saw in mens health/Instagram that week, but with 30 seconds rest cause he wants to "tone".
Attummm 4y ago
Please be aware that scientist brad schoenfeld that is being cited throughout the article. Has changed his opinion on some topics and other topics he even did a 180. The human body is very complex system with balances and counter balances. So almost any statement can be true and false, depending on the context. Interview with Brad schoenfeld where he explains his latests thoughts on training. https://youtu.be/SUy6HwOhT3U https://youtu.be/SUy6HwOhT3U Edit: Maybe it's unclear Brad schoenfeld is a prominent hypertrophy scientist if he is still changing his mind based on newer science. Then its clearly not as simple as being stated.
- LocalPCGuy 4y ago
  Are you making a claim that him changing his opinion is a negative (real question, I could not tell if you were making a value judgement from your post). I don't know enough about that specific scientist, but in general, I tend to respect scientists more when they are willing to change their opinion (assuming it's in light of new evidence and not just on a whim) and admit they were wrong previously. That isn't a bad thing, IMO, that is a valuable trait to have, which is why I tend to listen to and respect those who have that trait more than those who dogmatically stick to an opinion regardless of new information.
  - Attummm 4y ago
    > Are you making a claim that him changing his opinion is a negative Actually the opposite. The interview with Brad Schoenfeld is great and he'll explain his thinking based on the latest research.
    - LocalPCGuy 4y ago
      Ah cool, thanks, that's why I was clarifying. I'll check it out.
- texasbigdata 4y ago
  That’s literally how science works? Hypertrophy has largely been settled and the main mechanisms and science underneath are well known by now. Call is post-2017. Source: up 40lb of Dexa scan muscle from 2014-2023, at 15lb greater body weight. Not rocket science. Strongly recommend Renaissance Periodization (the hundred of hours of lectures on YouTube if that’s your thing, the two main textbooks, the training templates, the meal books, or the meal apps) as a potential vendor if you’re on the simultaneously on the brainier/geekier and more ambitious to reach intermediate or further side of humans.
ahi 4y ago
99% of all gym goers are so far from maxing out that the answer is always "more". Unless I'm waiting for the rack you're using, in which case 3RM with 30 second rests are best.
- sschueller 4y ago
  Yes and those are the ones that actually show up consistently.
henning 4y ago
Fitness content on YouTube has improved considerably in the last several years. Check out Jeff Nippard and Built with Science as examples. They also take a more rigorous, evidence-based approach to bodybuilding and make many of the same points that are in this post. For an individual doing training, you can't do a controlled double-blind scientific study on yourself so you ultimately have to find what works best for you. Of course, aligning yourself with empirical evidence is likely to increase efficiency.
magwa101 4y ago
[dead]
codingclaws 4y ago
The article nor the comments here mention the most important factor: caloric surplus. It it possible to reduce body fat while staying at the same weight, but the muscle gains will be much slower.
- xiphias2 4y ago
  It's great, and there's another factor missing from the article: age. Both muscle recovery time and high calory count without adding on fat depends on age as the number one factor.
idlewords 4y ago
This thread is like watching bodybuilders discuss the merits of late vs. early binding in compiler design.
thenerdhead 4y ago
Why start with the "you're wrong and I'm right premise"?. The author suggests that science is the only path forward and especially that their science is the right science to follow. The best advice I've read is from Ross Edgley in one of his books who said to "Train as often as you need to, not as often as you can." I just find some of these arguments to be silly. Both groups of people obtain similar results whether one of the groups is doing more or doing it "wrong". There has to be a margin of error in this that shows these arguments largely don't matter. The body is adaptable. Those doing low intensity high volume vs. high intensity low volume is the same argument of strength improves stamina and vice versa most of the time in a 80/20 (aerobic/anaerobic) fashion. Both groups adapt.
lodi 4y ago
I think the points he makes in the article actually perfectly match the "broscience" in powerlifting and olympic weightlifting. There it's all about long rest between sets, low reps, tracking weekly pounds lifted, hitting the same muscles many times per week, etc. I was nodding along at everything thinking "this is obvious isn't it" and had to remind myself he's writing about a different field.
XFrequentist 4y ago
YMMV, but I recommend more people try High Intensity Training (HIT). HIT explicitly contradicts several of the (well-supported) claims in the article, but I've personally found it effective, and I think there's a good case that it's a better fit for most adult lifestyles. [ETA: Just to clarify, HIT is different from the more widely-known HIIT. This wikipedia article[1] is a good introduction, and the book "Body By Science" is an excellent deeper dive.] I'm a 40-ish male with a long history of resistance training, and have tried many variations of sets/reps/volume/rest etc over the years. For a few years now I've been doing a version of HIT, basically single sets (to failure), no (or little) rest between sets, full-body training once a week, supervised by a trainer. It sucks, but it's over quickly. It's great. I'm significantly stronger than I've been in many years, have remained injury-free throughout (rare for me), and play competitive basketball several times a week without issue (beyond my inconsistent shooting). The article cites its sources, has solid (for exercise science) evidence backing its claims, and is pretty convincing - if you're a college student with plenty of time, and you're seeking to maximize muscle growth, then yes there's a good case that you should do several workouts a week with more rest between sets. However, if you're a working stiff who just wants to get it done efficiently, HIT is much easier to fit in a busy schedule. I think it's worth considering for the median person reading fitness articles on HN. For most people, I suspect HIT is essentially just as effective as the type of protocol advocated in the article, but that's just a hunch and not a claim I could support with anything beyond personal experience. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_training https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_training
- matwood 4y ago
  I would add that while I agree HIIT is great, you're not just doing HIIT once/week, but also playing competitive basketball. The other thing is it's been posited for awhile now, that gained muscle/strength requires less work to keep. You have a long history of resistance training, and presumably gained strength and muscle. Now you just need to be do maintenance to keep what you have while supporting your sport. I say all this b/c I do something similar. I stopped power lifting once I got older and moved to more HIIT like workouts 3-4x/week. They take maybe 30 minutes each. But, I also train BJJ ~4x/week. Would my HIIT like workouts be so effective if I didn't start very strong and also do BJJ? IDK.
DantesKite 4y ago
One of the reasons why I love the Fitbod iOS app and a lot more "sophisticated" apps that use algorithms in general is because they can potentially detect these patterns and incorporate it into a workout. If you read the Fitbod blog, they have an article or two about some of the patterns they've picked up over the course of observing millions of data points over the past few years. It's not perfect and perhaps doesn't directly correlate to the size of one's muscles, but they have pretty good insights into what makes a human stronger. Part of my obsession with this is using algorithms and data to make our lives easier, in a seamless way, without having to constantly check or reread articles (unless it's for fun). And in such a way that's not intrusive (none of this streaks stuff or constantly checking in to an app every couple of hours).
nathanvanfleet 4y ago
You really have to respect that Hacker News now has a website offering a free course for working out on its main page. But really I get it, he's worked out in 50 countries and people ask him "how they train in Taiwan or Ecuador." This isn't just a regurgitation of anything you could find in Men's Health. It's new information.
paulpauper 4y ago
Let's not overlook the role of drugs, not just anabolic steroids, but also drugs for weight loss. Most, if not all, of these impressive physiques online are the result of drug use. Most people will never achieve results even close to that of a dedicated drug user in terms of size, leanness, strength, etc. Before the widespread use of drugs, most people appeared flat. Even a little drugs make such a huge difference.
HaveAGoodDay098 4y ago
[dead]
shard 4y ago
Seems like everything old is new again. I remember reading similar things in misc.fitness.weights about 20 years ago, and a workout routine called Hypertrophy Specific Training was the suggestion. The idea is to do full body workouts every time, starting with 2 weeks of 15 reps, each workout increasing the weight until you reach your max, then 2 weeks of 10 reps, then 2 weeks of 5, then 2 weeks of rest. This workout routine tackles many of the problem points that the article points out. Another thing I remember from the misc.fitness.weights days is the statement that nothing works for everybody all the time, which applies to diets and workouts. Just because something is working for you right now, does not mean that it will work for someone else, nor does it mean that it will continue working for you in the future as your body changes. Therefore it will always be a journey of exploration to find what works at the current stage in your life.
- YeahNO 4y ago
  >Seems like everything old is new again. I remember reading similar things in misc.fitness.weights about 20 years ago, and a workout routine called Hypertrophy Specific Training was the suggestion. The idea is to do full body workouts every time, starting with 2 weeks of 15 reps, each workout increasing the weight until you reach your max, then 2 weeks of 10 reps, then 2 weeks of 5, then 2 weeks of rest. This workout routine tackles many of the problem points that the article points out. Yes, Bryan Haycock popularized HST. It's a science-backed routine that you can pick up easily, without expensive training programs. Progressive loading increases each session for two weeks to your 15RM on the last session, the next two week cycle you progress to your 10RM, and the final, you progress to your 5RM. The last cycle is the hardest of all, haha.
joshka 4y ago
Here's a GPT-3 summary because the SNR is low in this article: SUMMARY: This article discusses optimal program design for bodybuilding by examining the evidence behind rest intervals, training frequency, and training intensity. The article concludes that while traditional bodybuilding bro-wisdom may suggest short rest periods, training a muscle once a week, and sticking to a hypertrophy range of 6-12 reps, the evidence shows that the best program design is dependent on the individual. Rest intervals should be taken according to the individual's needs, with longer rest periods generally being beneficial for muscle growth; training each muscle at least twice a week is recommended for maximum muscle growth; and training intensity should focus on achieving total volume rather than sticking to a hypertrophy range, with a wide range of rep zones potentially being beneficial for muscle growth. Training to failure is not necessary for muscle growth, as the same results can be achieved with submaximal training.

238 points by wendyshu 4y ago

Interesting read: “Now, it’s not that training to failure is a complete waste of effort. Some research finds training to failure does increase muscle growth compared to the same amount of sets not taken to failure. The benefit seems to simply be the result of the extra reps you do, as completing the same repetition volume by adding more submaximal sets can achieve the same amount of muscle growth. And there is a big cost to the beneficial effect of training to failure. Training to failure greatly increases the amount of fatigue you induce and the subsequent recovery time your muscles need.”

raverbashing 4y ago
This is not really 'unconventional wisdom' to be honest (maybe in the 'bro-science' circles) However, at the same time, you're not getting hypertrophy from too many reps at a low % of 1RM (let's say, under 30%) Edit: I can accept the 30% they give at the article, that's not such a low rep load (before the 50% I had there) And of course you can train to failure at 30% - the number of repetitions around 35 as it can be seen in the quoted article in fig 4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404827/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404827/
- foruhar 4y ago
  I once had physical therapist who got quite far in the amateur natural body building world by only lifting 1lb weights. He was getting a PhD in Anatomy(!) and wanted to demonstrate that you don't need to lift heavy to get hypertrophy. Although he did not recommend this approach as the most time-efficient, he emphasized that gains can be made at the extreme end of the low weight-high volume spectrum.
- crazygringo 4y ago
  What you say directly contradicts the article. Do you have scientific studies to contrast against theirs, since the whole point of the article is to contrast intuitive "broscience" against what studies actually show?
jghn 4y ago
A long time ago I remember reading, probably on misc.fitness.weights or something like that, that the lay crowds misunderstood “to failure”, and that it was intended to mean “until you can’t maintain perfect form”. No idea if there was ever a shred of scientific method behind that statement but it struck me as good common sense wisdom anyways.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  > A long time ago I remember reading, probably on misc.fitness.weights or something like that, that the lay crowds misunderstood “to failure”, and that it was intended to mean “until you can’t maintain perfect form”. That seems funny to me. While someone's form breaking down leads to inefficiencies in specific muscle targeting and / or an increased chance of injury I think that approach would end up leading to people bailing when things start to get hard. I've seen a lot of people never put additional weight on the bar because they were afraid of their form breaking down when in reality measured incremental load increases are what helps makes one big and strong.
  - debacle 4y ago
    A good example of "to failure" is when you can't perform a lift symmetrically, or you find yourself cheating by e.g. moving your elbows, lifting your heels, etc.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      So the idea is that the minute you're moving your elbows you're no longer getting any training benefit from the activity?
      - vidarh 4y ago
        I believe the thinking is more that you're taking an injury risk that gain you nothing compared to stopping and resting, and doing another set once recovered if you want more volume. Because injury will set you back far more than missing out on a few reps.
nordsieck 4y ago
> “Now, it’s not that training to failure is a complete waste of effort. Some research finds training to failure does increase muscle growth compared to the same amount of sets not taken to failure. The benefit seems to simply be the result of the extra reps you do, as completing the same repetition volume by adding more submaximal sets can achieve the same amount of muscle growth. And there is a big cost to the beneficial effect of training to failure. Training to failure greatly increases the amount of fatigue you induce and the subsequent recovery time your muscles need.” My understanding is that there is a pretty big asterisk here: for the submaximal sets to be effective, they need to get close to failure. You're not going to be very effective doing sets with 10 reps in reserve. But the thing is that beginners typically aren't very good at gauging how may reps they actually have in the tank. There have been a number of experiments where people were asked to rate how close they were to failure. And then they were asked to actually go to failure. And everyone underestimated - sometimes by quite a lot. So, for people with experience in the gym, this is probably good advice. But I think for newbies, going to failure can be beneficial just because the directions are so robust - people are much less likely to plateau for mysterious reasons.
goldfeld 4y ago
I have been building large upper-body muscles with resistance body weight training on the pool. That means pushups essentially, but the steps-area of the pool let me do them with full hanging body weight and with many wide arm spreads. It's important to have variations in how to position the pushups. I do 30-70 reps depending on difficulty of arm position, usually two or three sets a day max, each set can be a different position. When I feel strong I do reps slowly both on ascent and descent. Due to my flexibiility (a very important factor in having elongated shape big muscles in pecs etc), I also do triceps also in many widths by putting my hands behind me at the pool border and lifting my weight; it is very demanding exercise, also works back and shoulders. However the most important tip no one realizes for growing muscle, for having resistance, for having tonus and for a real fast recovery comes from India. Apply oil to body (preferrably all of body, leave for 40+ minutes as you sit or meditate, listen to music; use old clothing and wash it separately, oil trashes and stains all, and it quickly ruins any stretch fiber and elastics bands on shorts etc). Coconut oil gives the most mass, good for hot season. Ginger oil good for winter, get south american Buriti oil if you can (mix some drops to coconut, use with utmost caution, observe the effects, how it makes you agitated etc, never use it in summer), brazilian indians used it for going to war, it makes muscles really bulge, The greek used oil for wrestling matches too, and for looking strong. Oil is not all about the shiny effect, it improves muscles tremendously. I would compare the effect of not applying oil to the muscle parts after a workout to not eating any protein after a workout. It's such a dramatic effect.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  You're gonna have to cite something other than the exact fallacy the article talks about
  - goldfeld 4y ago
    I thank thee, I suppose, for not engaging with a downvote like the 4 others in quick succession, and instead doing it with a reply. It seems I bristled the conventional perspective of HN with my anecdotal experience. Of course, anyone could buy some bit of coconut oil and try once, and it'd explain it better than a citation. Call it reproducing study results, I could offer many medical citations, it is true, even western ones, but the alternative focus of them would possibly attract even more condescension and people mentally labelling my comments as if I was making an argument for using black magic to attract riches into your life.

User23 4y ago

It stands to reason that motor neuron recruitment failure wouldn’t have any direct effect on muscular hypertrophy. You don’t (usually) fail your last attempt due to muscle failure and when you do it’s followed by a trip to the hospital. It’s been a while since digging through primary sources, but last I knew the understanding is that muscular hypertrophy is largely a matter of time under tension. One can, up to a point, increase the tension and reduce the time or vice versa. In terms of overall training though you have to train for what you want to do. No competitive weightlifter can skip training heavy snatches for example.

jasondigitized 4y ago

"Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder, but nobody wants to lift no heavy-ass weights." - Ronnie Coleman I have gained quite a bit of muscle mass after building out a home gym during covid. I'm no scientist but following the Reddit PPL[1] workout and eating lots of protein did the trick for me. [1] - https://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/37ylk5/a_linear_progression_based_ppl_program_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/37ylk5/a_linear_pr...

JLCarveth 4y ago
Been running this for over a year and I have been loving the results.
dhr 4y ago
I'm planning out a home/garage gym now. Is there any equipment you recommend? Or ones that people should stay away from?
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  If you don't train to failure and know how to dump safely, or you always train with a spotter, you can get away with just a squat rack and bench. If you want more safety though you probably want a power cage.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  I've gotten a ton of mileage out of just a dumbell set. I do all the things most people do with a full bar: squat, bench press, etc. Dumbells are a lot safer for solo workouts.
  - SECProto 4y ago
    Using dumbbells instead of a bar also builds stronger stabilization muscles, and doesn't let your strong side compensate for weak side.
    - beezle 4y ago

swayvil 4y ago

I read in a yoga book that muscle growth (and physical cultivation in general) occurs through the movement of a kind of psychic energy (called prana, sati, awareness or something). And that exercise is simply a way of moving that energy around. For what that's worth.

scotty79 4y ago
Do you believe what you've read?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
reef84_ 4y ago
Well that sounds like bullshit doesn’t it?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- swayvil 4y ago
  No really, I read a book.
poulpy123 4y ago
Science progressed a lot since the speculation of yogis
- swayvil 4y ago
  And yet we still orthodox like it was 1399. Hmm.
  - sixstringtheory 4y ago
    Two wrongs don’t make a right

alecst 4y ago

Another fact I came across while reading about Greasing the Groove was that the strongest predictor of muscle growth was total weight lifted over time. So, you lift 5lbs 100 times over a week, or 25lbs 4 times a week, and you get similar growth. I’m sure that there are limits here, but this is the basic idea. If you take longer rests, you can usually do more reps in a day, and lift more weight in a week. I’ve put on around 10-12lbs of muscle this way, from doing light body weight movements somewhat often. I’ve also started taking 5-10 minute breaks between climbs and I’m climbing harder than ever.

vidarh 4y ago
There was people doing extreme rep amounts of bodyweight exercises at one point on that logic and writing articles about it, and to test how viable some of the examples were, I for a short period of time (few weeks) aimed for 1000+ bodyweight squats a day. It was brutal. It was possible (with the caveat that it was possible because I was young and was squatting 180kg+ for reps at the time). It took doing sets of 40-100 or so whenever I had a time. I squatted in the meeting room at work. I squatted everywhere. It seemed to work to an extent (did it too short to get a meaningful idea of long term impact). The main caveat to me that made me go back to my 5 set x 5 rep of heavy weights was simply that it took way too much time. But a less extreme variant, such as what you describe is absolutely worth considering for people, especially if the realistic alternative is doing nothing instead.
- dockd 4y ago
  I would be concerned that super high reps will eventually cause problems with your joints: repetitive motion injuries.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    Unless you make very unnatural motions I'm not convinced that'd it'd matter much relative to the increased protection from muscle gain to take more of the load. But frankly, I don't think anyone will or should keep up those extreme rep ranges anyway - it was brutal and took way too much time. Much better to load up a bar and get the same work done in a fraction of the time.

sithlord 4y ago

most sane bodybuilding programs, ie training for mass not so much strength, almost all center around 8-12 reps for 99% of exercises. Sometimes you might get to a 4 or 6 rep set if you start approaching closer to max, but generally its about how much weight you can maintain for that many reps, aka time under tension.

ravenstine 4y ago

You can build muscle on virtually any weight training program. Train at the maximum amount of intensity you can maintain tension under for N seconds, eat protein, get sleep. Even with bad form you'll build something. There are ghosts in the machine. Genetics play a big factor. Some people are genetic freaks and others are juiced, and the economic incentive is there to tell us that you too can become the Incredible Hulk. You might get lucky, but for many people it's just not true (or practical). This is especially true if you start weight training later in life and not as soon as you hit puberty. Training to failure isn't required, but it's a useful tool regardless of whether it builds more muscle or not. A lot of things about weight training and body recomposition are subjective, but training to failure is closer to being a useful metric that can help you determine progress. Going to failure does tax your CNS, but this primarily matters only if you plan on training day in and day out. Arthur Jones and Mike Mentzer weren't wrong; you can go several days and even weeks between intense workouts, build muscle, and be fully recovered for the next intense workout. It can still be debated whether the volume approach is better overall, but very short bouts of infrequent intense exercise still works. Something to be aware of when reading studies on muscle hypertrophy and sports performance is that they are often performed using individuals who are untrained. Whether the subjects are trained or not is a big deal when it comes to understanding what the study ultimately means, and often times a study means a lot less than what people believe. If a study doesn't use genetically identical individuals eating the exact same food and performing the exact same exercises, there's only so much it will be able to tell you. Good luck finding a study of that quality, because they virtually don't exist. In defense of "bro science", I think most of it is more actionable for the average person even if it's not entirely accurate. You can find studies to justify anything. Regular people just wanting to get a physique are better off simply trying different techniques and finding what works for them. A lot of people give up on weight training because they think they have to do a bunch of exercises they hate. Only do exercises you either enjoy or can tolerate. An imperfect gym routine you perform regularly is better than the perfect gym routine you give up on. Do as many reps or sets as you find effective. Learn from other people and take what they say with a grain of salt. And don't do exercises that are dangerous.

anthomtb 4y ago
Thank you for saying this. All I would add is that the sooner you acknowledge your genetic limitations the sooner you can start training within them. Maybe you won’t look like Schwarzenegger or Ronnie Coleman, but Brad Pitt in Fight Club is a reasonable target (assuming aesthetics are a goal - they don’t have to be!)

adamsmith143 4y ago

I don't think the consensus was ever that you had to train to failure for muscle growth...

screwturner68 4y ago

There is no mystery to getting strong it's simple physics, you must do work. The problem is most people don't want to put in the work. They don't want to come in lift a heavy bar 3-4 times a week. What they want to do is come in do box jumps and battle ropes and other cool things they see on their favorite influences tictoc video. People expect long term results from a short term effort and wonder why they don't get the results that they want. Lastly most peoples diet sucks and that decreases the results they want significantly.

kortex 4y ago
This completely misses the point of the entire article, which is by/for power lifter and bodybuilders. Obviously there is no way around "lift a heavy bar 3-4x a week." The whole discussion is about whether any of the folk-wisdom/bro-science of exactly how to pick things up and put them down is empirically more effective.

goalieca 4y ago

21 comments and not one person mentioned steroids. These are extremely common and are an open secret. All of these bodybuilders who share their routines and meal plans rarely mention what cycles they are on and the long term health consequences of such after their career has finished.

vsareto 4y ago
Correct. You can also go to a Testosterone replacement clinic and get an actual TRT prescription provided your T is actually low. If they are ethical, they will monitor to keep it within a healthy range so you don't go past an upper limit. Your results will suck ass if you have low T.
- goldfeld 4y ago
  However pump up the T and your hairline will run away from you fast, then your hair will dropset to failure.
  - moneywoes 4y ago
    Isn’t there something you can take to prevent that from happening?
    - jeffreyrogers 4y ago
      Yes, it's not really the testosterone that causes hair loss, it's the DHT the testosterone is converted too and there are drugs and topical foams that can prevent that conversion from happening in the scalp. There are other medications and treatments that work differently as well. It's a complicated topic. Also some people just aren't very susceptible to hair loss.
    - wolongong942 4y ago
      Not really, finasteride with steroids will spike your estrogen (which was already an issue with the extra testosterone) and cause you to get permanent manboobs and other sexual issues IIRC, and if you use yet another drug to block this estrogen conversion it's even more dangerous. Basically you have the male pattern baldness gene stay away from roids. If you need more motivation, study after study show women are less attracted to bodybuilder physiques anyway.

paulvnickerson 4y ago

Much of this article reads similar to the wisdom offered by Starting Strength author Mark Rippetoe.

LanceH 4y ago

They seem to be talking about bodybuilding a lot, but then (at least some) of the discussions move to muscle growth among random groups of people. The two are not the same. Bodybuilders are trying to put on muscle, sometimes in specific places, long after they have stalled in workouts most people would do. >Going on a higher carb diet increases intramuscular glycogen stores, which attracts a lot of water into the muscles, ~3 grams per gram of glycogen. It’s not uncommon for a guy to gain 4 pounds of what looks like muscle when they go from a low to a high carb diet. This is probably the main reason high carb diets are so popular among bodybuilders and it makes it incredibly hard to see if you’re looking bigger because of your training or because of your higher carb intake. You don't eat carbs for the pump. It's right there in the paragraph -- you eat carbs to have glycogen, so you can lift more. Then you stop eating carbs to get shredded. I personally don't like bodybuilding as a sport, but this whole piece was just insulting. If you want to make such sweeping contradictory claims, you have to experiment with people who are already more than experienced in lifting. People who have put on an top percentile of muscle and are trying to eke out just a bit more. For the sedentary, or the purely cardio oriented, just about any lifting will show improvements. But it just isn't the same as what a bodybuilder needs to progress.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
CyberDildonics 4y ago
You don't eat carbs for the pump. It's right there in the paragraph -- you eat carbs to have glycogen, so you can lift more. Then you stop eating carbs to get shredded. Your own quote just says it is an effect, not that it's the purpose.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  And he's saying the article is wrong. People love hate bro science but most bodybuilders go through a lot of trial and error to find the right diet. And they don't meassure success by looks* but by performance (eg. new PR). The article basically thinks that bodybuilders don't actually know what they are doing when most actually do. Maybe not all understand the exact science (although some certainly do) but they do know what works, because they exist as a community of millions of people all trying things are reporting what works. *some do, but the ones that do are not eating carbs

marban 4y ago

I used to run a half-marathon every single day for close to two years until a bone fracture knocked me out (obvious in hindsight). Added daily weight training after my recovery and I'm now in the best shape of my life (mid 40s). Right after nutrition and sleep, it's the best you can do for well-being and mobility in daily life — No need to go overboard with all kinds of machines, let alone stims.

derelicta 4y ago
Impressive. I managed to do half-marathons bi-monthly for 6 months straight and that was already great by my standards. The thing I always ask myself is: if I train too much, won't I get bored of jogging ?
- marban 4y ago
  The question is: Is running an escape from, or into reality.
- jeltz 4y ago
  You can always join a running group. I do 25 km every Sunday with my running group.
  - derelicta 4y ago
    Guess its a valid option. But first step is to find a running group in my near vicinity eheh

dhd415 4y ago

This article is focused on growth in muscle _size_ over growth in muscle _strength_. The two are related, but it's pretty well-established that you can bias your training towards one or the other. You can see the difference between experienced powerlifters and bodybuilders. PLs move heavier weights than BBs, but the latter generally have more muscle mass. I think training for strength has more everyday health benefits than bodybuilding and its training methodology (train large muscle groups with high weight and lower reps ~2x/week) at the novice and intermediate level is much less time-consuming.

vidarh 4y ago
It was a revelation for me that I could go in and do 5x5 Stronglift or similar and get it done in 40m 3x a week instead of adding on ever more volume, and I think that time saving is extremely helpful in terms of maintaining compliance with an exercise schedule. Incidentally, it also helped my muscle size significantly, likely exactly because it was far easier to stay motivated and consistent. In my experience the carry-over between different rep ranges etc. is significant enough that unless you're aiming to be a competitive lifter or bodybuilder, what matters most is what you can motivate yourself to do consistently. When I was younger that was 5x5, or later 3x5 or 5-3-1 or similar where I could keep adding weight as often as possible. Now I'm doing higher rep ranges because I know what I've been able to lift and I'm not likely to exceed it again (I'm 47; I probably could if I cared enough, I didn't lift that much, barely into competitive levels, but I don't want to spend enough time in the gym to make that happen) and maintaining my health is motivation enough.
- dhd415 4y ago
  I've experienced a very similar effect. The health ROI on your time investment with strength-focused training is pretty incredible. If you could bottle it up and sell it, you'd be rich!
matwood 4y ago
This is a bit of misconception. Body builders are also very strong. If you body weight adjust, many are probably similar strength wise to PLs. The strongest PLs are just big. I focused for years only on PL and I also got as big based on how much food I allowed myself to eat. 100% agree, that everyone should just move heavy weights. Looking good, muscles, etc... will follow.

raydiatian 4y ago

There are two categories of people when it comes to discussions of weight lifting: “Everybody knows that x”, or the crowd who appeals to authority “Everybody who thinks that x has been duped”, or the contrarians. In summary, it’s all basically Counterstrike.

robviren 4y ago

I'm still curious about actual rep tempo and what role that plays in growth. If maximizing work is the measure of growth than all that really matters is how much acceleration I can put into a weight. Obviously proper form plays a role, just a difficult balance between ensuring proper form and dumping as much force into a rep. I ascribe to the possible bro science of longer eccentric motion being a useful tactic in my workouts. This is a strange part of a the rep to mechanically measure work given you are essentially going with as opposed to fighting the force of gravity depending on the exercise. This kind of stuff fascinates me because you would figure we would have solved what the ideal conditions are for a given outcome. But there is too much money is selling snake oil because the actual answers are boring and unpleasant. Loved the read.

goldfeld 4y ago
On the contrary, if you do it really slow it's a whole other game, and proper form is king, and number of reps is a silly measure because by doing slowly you cannot keep your normal repetitions.
- beezle 4y ago
  This. So many guys wing stuff around using momentum or gravity. Positive and negative rep should be at similar, fully in control speeds.

wwqrd 4y ago

TLDR; More volume per session/week = more growth? So really it becomes a balance of maximising volume against sustainable recovery.

sschueller 4y ago
One big issue I see is all these people following programs made for people using PEDs and those programs consider the "lack" or small amount of recovery required when on PEDs. If you are natural you need to very cerfully monitor your recovery and how often you train each muscle. Especially if you get older

borroka 4y ago

I have been weight training for almost 30 years. I've tried just about every program, split and variation under the sun, and I've seen and practiced for a time fads that have come and gone. In the last six months, I have changed things up. I now train with low volume per muscle group (on average, 4-6 sets per muscle group, reps per set between 6 and 12, pushing very hard, close to exercise, not muscle, failure, which means I stop when I cannot complete 1 or 2 additional reps with proper form). I do full body workouts, averaging 4 workouts a week (I also do jiu jitsu 2 or 3 times a week, and try to run 1-2 times a week). Almost all the exercises I do are machine-based, following the path opened by the late Arthur Jones (if you haven't read his biography, I recommend you at least skim it: it's wild, disorganized and fun). With this new protocol, I have seen excellent results in terms of strength and muscle growth, with less soreness than I expected. I also increased my protein intake throughout the day to (roughly, I don't use a scale) 1 g per lb of body weight. I find it quite easy to reach this amount by mixing protein powder with Greek yogurt: it is a protein bomb. I have also started taking magnesium glycinate, about 800-1000 mg per day. As for exercise research, scientists should start, and should have started 30 years ago, adding variance measures to their results. A 3% increase vs 1% when testing competing exercise protocols says nothing. I want to know the variance, because individual variability in response to any stimulus or insult is typically high.

moneywoes 4y ago
May I ask your split?
- borroka 4y ago
  Now I do full-body workouts, and all the workouts are very similar to each other. Monday, Wednesday (Friday, optional): run 5 miles at noon, jiu jitsu at night (I have a black belt, so my attendance is a bit less structured than in the past). Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday (Sunday optional): gym time--all exercises: 2 sets, 6-10 reps, close to mechanical failure. Approx 3 minutes of rest between sets. Lower body: Hack Squat or Smith Machine squat, Romanian deadlifts (with dumbbells or at the Smith Machine), Glute machine, calf raises. Occasionally: donkey kick machine, abductor machine, leg curl. Upper body: convergent chest press (or incline press or weighed dips), cable fly, chest supported rows of some kind, cable pulls for lats, machine shoulder press, lateral raises with db, triceps push-downs, some type of biceps curls.

cratermoon 4y ago

"total training volume is what matters most" That's it. That's the conclusion.

jeltz 4y ago
As a runner I agree. Sure there is more to it but volume is the single most important factor.
- iamacyborg 4y ago
  I still have no idea how folks can manage 100+ mile weeks. I struggle staying uninjured hitting ~10km a day.
  - jeltz 4y ago
    I think patience. I have never myself gone above 70 km per week without injuring myself, but I always increase too fast which works fine up to 60-70 km/week but above that I injure myself.
    - iamacyborg 4y ago
      I just really enjoy running so it’s frustrating. Hitting the gym to try proactively avoid future injuries now though.

jasfi 4y ago

Eating protein regularly and consistently is more important than what your training program looks like.

maerF0x0 4y ago

As a comment addressing several comment threads here, and what I believe is a fallacy in the article. The main issue I believe at play is that non-competitive types (eg non bodybuilders) frequently are not very good at assessing how hard they're pushing themselves. Because of that working with 1lb (or very low % of 1RM) is often ineffective because they have a hard time telling if the 99th, 100th, or 120th rep is truly 1 Rep In Reserve (RIR). For a similar reason training "to failure" with a reasonably high % of 1RM means by definition that they're going to 0 or 1 RIR. Low rest makes it easier to truly hit that 2 through 0 RIR range because without sufficient rest you are essentially doing a broken up single set. Jeff nippard has a bunch of good videos on the subject that pulls from similar studies as the author: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiJKa41Fsxo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiJKa41Fsxo - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deDlhPmT2SY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deDlhPmT2SY - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQxEEjYLDI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQxEEjYLDI

worthless-trash 4y ago
I imagine most weightlifters possibly know their 1 RM at least after the beginner stage, I sure as hell do.
- matwood 4y ago
  Maybe. I think it takes a long time for people to learn how hard they can actually go. There's the muscle itself, CNS, and then the mental aspect. All must be trained to hit a true 1RM.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  I highly doubt you're "most" weight lifters tbh. I would call the population of "weight lifters" as essentially anyone who does a workout involving added weight. That population I suspect ranges from someone doing a 20/20/20 workout with 5lb dumbbells on all 3 moves of overhead press, tricep extensions, and squats. ranging to the guy who keeps perfect logs, preplanned multiweek training blocks with precalculated weights for every set (eg someone running Weiders 5/3/1). But for every guy running a well crafted program, there's probably 10 guys just doing whatever he saw in mens health/Instagram that week, but with 30 seconds rest cause he wants to "tone".

Attummm 4y ago

Please be aware that scientist brad schoenfeld that is being cited throughout the article. Has changed his opinion on some topics and other topics he even did a 180. The human body is very complex system with balances and counter balances. So almost any statement can be true and false, depending on the context. Interview with Brad schoenfeld where he explains his latests thoughts on training. https://youtu.be/SUy6HwOhT3U https://youtu.be/SUy6HwOhT3U Edit: Maybe it's unclear Brad schoenfeld is a prominent hypertrophy scientist if he is still changing his mind based on newer science. Then its clearly not as simple as being stated.

LocalPCGuy 4y ago
Are you making a claim that him changing his opinion is a negative (real question, I could not tell if you were making a value judgement from your post). I don't know enough about that specific scientist, but in general, I tend to respect scientists more when they are willing to change their opinion (assuming it's in light of new evidence and not just on a whim) and admit they were wrong previously. That isn't a bad thing, IMO, that is a valuable trait to have, which is why I tend to listen to and respect those who have that trait more than those who dogmatically stick to an opinion regardless of new information.
- Attummm 4y ago
  > Are you making a claim that him changing his opinion is a negative Actually the opposite. The interview with Brad Schoenfeld is great and he'll explain his thinking based on the latest research.
  - LocalPCGuy 4y ago
    Ah cool, thanks, that's why I was clarifying. I'll check it out.
texasbigdata 4y ago
That’s literally how science works? Hypertrophy has largely been settled and the main mechanisms and science underneath are well known by now. Call is post-2017. Source: up 40lb of Dexa scan muscle from 2014-2023, at 15lb greater body weight. Not rocket science. Strongly recommend Renaissance Periodization (the hundred of hours of lectures on YouTube if that’s your thing, the two main textbooks, the training templates, the meal books, or the meal apps) as a potential vendor if you’re on the simultaneously on the brainier/geekier and more ambitious to reach intermediate or further side of humans.

ahi 4y ago

99% of all gym goers are so far from maxing out that the answer is always "more". Unless I'm waiting for the rack you're using, in which case 3RM with 30 second rests are best.

sschueller 4y ago
Yes and those are the ones that actually show up consistently.

henning 4y ago

Fitness content on YouTube has improved considerably in the last several years. Check out Jeff Nippard and Built with Science as examples. They also take a more rigorous, evidence-based approach to bodybuilding and make many of the same points that are in this post. For an individual doing training, you can't do a controlled double-blind scientific study on yourself so you ultimately have to find what works best for you. Of course, aligning yourself with empirical evidence is likely to increase efficiency.

magwa101 4y ago

[dead]

codingclaws 4y ago

The article nor the comments here mention the most important factor: caloric surplus. It it possible to reduce body fat while staying at the same weight, but the muscle gains will be much slower.

xiphias2 4y ago
It's great, and there's another factor missing from the article: age. Both muscle recovery time and high calory count without adding on fat depends on age as the number one factor.

idlewords 4y ago

This thread is like watching bodybuilders discuss the merits of late vs. early binding in compiler design.

thenerdhead 4y ago

Why start with the "you're wrong and I'm right premise"?. The author suggests that science is the only path forward and especially that their science is the right science to follow. The best advice I've read is from Ross Edgley in one of his books who said to "Train as often as you need to, not as often as you can." I just find some of these arguments to be silly. Both groups of people obtain similar results whether one of the groups is doing more or doing it "wrong". There has to be a margin of error in this that shows these arguments largely don't matter. The body is adaptable. Those doing low intensity high volume vs. high intensity low volume is the same argument of strength improves stamina and vice versa most of the time in a 80/20 (aerobic/anaerobic) fashion. Both groups adapt.

lodi 4y ago

I think the points he makes in the article actually perfectly match the "broscience" in powerlifting and olympic weightlifting. There it's all about long rest between sets, low reps, tracking weekly pounds lifted, hitting the same muscles many times per week, etc. I was nodding along at everything thinking "this is obvious isn't it" and had to remind myself he's writing about a different field.

XFrequentist 4y ago

YMMV, but I recommend more people try High Intensity Training (HIT). HIT explicitly contradicts several of the (well-supported) claims in the article, but I've personally found it effective, and I think there's a good case that it's a better fit for most adult lifestyles. [ETA: Just to clarify, HIT is different from the more widely-known HIIT. This wikipedia article[1] is a good introduction, and the book "Body By Science" is an excellent deeper dive.] I'm a 40-ish male with a long history of resistance training, and have tried many variations of sets/reps/volume/rest etc over the years. For a few years now I've been doing a version of HIT, basically single sets (to failure), no (or little) rest between sets, full-body training once a week, supervised by a trainer. It sucks, but it's over quickly. It's great. I'm significantly stronger than I've been in many years, have remained injury-free throughout (rare for me), and play competitive basketball several times a week without issue (beyond my inconsistent shooting). The article cites its sources, has solid (for exercise science) evidence backing its claims, and is pretty convincing - if you're a college student with plenty of time, and you're seeking to maximize muscle growth, then yes there's a good case that you should do several workouts a week with more rest between sets. However, if you're a working stiff who just wants to get it done efficiently, HIT is much easier to fit in a busy schedule. I think it's worth considering for the median person reading fitness articles on HN. For most people, I suspect HIT is essentially just as effective as the type of protocol advocated in the article, but that's just a hunch and not a claim I could support with anything beyond personal experience. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_training https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_training

matwood 4y ago
I would add that while I agree HIIT is great, you're not just doing HIIT once/week, but also playing competitive basketball. The other thing is it's been posited for awhile now, that gained muscle/strength requires less work to keep. You have a long history of resistance training, and presumably gained strength and muscle. Now you just need to be do maintenance to keep what you have while supporting your sport. I say all this b/c I do something similar. I stopped power lifting once I got older and moved to more HIIT like workouts 3-4x/week. They take maybe 30 minutes each. But, I also train BJJ ~4x/week. Would my HIIT like workouts be so effective if I didn't start very strong and also do BJJ? IDK.

DantesKite 4y ago

One of the reasons why I love the Fitbod iOS app and a lot more "sophisticated" apps that use algorithms in general is because they can potentially detect these patterns and incorporate it into a workout. If you read the Fitbod blog, they have an article or two about some of the patterns they've picked up over the course of observing millions of data points over the past few years. It's not perfect and perhaps doesn't directly correlate to the size of one's muscles, but they have pretty good insights into what makes a human stronger. Part of my obsession with this is using algorithms and data to make our lives easier, in a seamless way, without having to constantly check or reread articles (unless it's for fun). And in such a way that's not intrusive (none of this streaks stuff or constantly checking in to an app every couple of hours).

nathanvanfleet 4y ago

You really have to respect that Hacker News now has a website offering a free course for working out on its main page. But really I get it, he's worked out in 50 countries and people ask him "how they train in Taiwan or Ecuador." This isn't just a regurgitation of anything you could find in Men's Health. It's new information.

paulpauper 4y ago

Let's not overlook the role of drugs, not just anabolic steroids, but also drugs for weight loss. Most, if not all, of these impressive physiques online are the result of drug use. Most people will never achieve results even close to that of a dedicated drug user in terms of size, leanness, strength, etc. Before the widespread use of drugs, most people appeared flat. Even a little drugs make such a huge difference.

HaveAGoodDay098 4y ago

[dead]

shard 4y ago

Seems like everything old is new again. I remember reading similar things in misc.fitness.weights about 20 years ago, and a workout routine called Hypertrophy Specific Training was the suggestion. The idea is to do full body workouts every time, starting with 2 weeks of 15 reps, each workout increasing the weight until you reach your max, then 2 weeks of 10 reps, then 2 weeks of 5, then 2 weeks of rest. This workout routine tackles many of the problem points that the article points out. Another thing I remember from the misc.fitness.weights days is the statement that nothing works for everybody all the time, which applies to diets and workouts. Just because something is working for you right now, does not mean that it will work for someone else, nor does it mean that it will continue working for you in the future as your body changes. Therefore it will always be a journey of exploration to find what works at the current stage in your life.

YeahNO 4y ago
>Seems like everything old is new again. I remember reading similar things in misc.fitness.weights about 20 years ago, and a workout routine called Hypertrophy Specific Training was the suggestion. The idea is to do full body workouts every time, starting with 2 weeks of 15 reps, each workout increasing the weight until you reach your max, then 2 weeks of 10 reps, then 2 weeks of 5, then 2 weeks of rest. This workout routine tackles many of the problem points that the article points out. Yes, Bryan Haycock popularized HST. It's a science-backed routine that you can pick up easily, without expensive training programs. Progressive loading increases each session for two weeks to your 15RM on the last session, the next two week cycle you progress to your 10RM, and the final, you progress to your 5RM. The last cycle is the hardest of all, haha.

joshka 4y ago

Here's a GPT-3 summary because the SNR is low in this article: SUMMARY: This article discusses optimal program design for bodybuilding by examining the evidence behind rest intervals, training frequency, and training intensity. The article concludes that while traditional bodybuilding bro-wisdom may suggest short rest periods, training a muscle once a week, and sticking to a hypertrophy range of 6-12 reps, the evidence shows that the best program design is dependent on the individual. Rest intervals should be taken according to the individual's needs, with longer rest periods generally being beneficial for muscle growth; training each muscle at least twice a week is recommended for maximum muscle growth; and training intensity should focus on achieving total volume rather than sticking to a hypertrophy range, with a wide range of rep zones potentially being beneficial for muscle growth. Training to failure is not necessary for muscle growth, as the same results can be achieved with submaximal training.