Muscular Hypertrophy | Andy Baker

[k_dean_curtis]

The horror…

Hey, I didn't say it, Darden did


RE francesco.decaro: zft and co. for a week...

Hope springs eternal, maybe they will get it one day.

[Lost and Found]

Assuming this post doesn't get censored.

zft should listen to Andy Baker's podcast and just stay off this forum unless he just enjoys harassment

[Chamberlain]

I'm going to necropost here because I read Andy Baker's article, there is a link to this forum at the bottom of that article, and I wanted to ask a question about it: for hypertrophy, is it important to draw a distinction between training to failure of the muscle and training to failure of a movement in which the muscle is involved? The distinction between muscle failure and movement failure is the key reason Christian Thibaudeau advises against using compound lifts for failure training:

The big compound lifts aren't the best option for failure training because you will rarely, if ever, hit muscle failure with any one muscle involved. (The Single Best Muscle-Building Method: The New Science of Training to Failure)

k_dean_curtis mentioned that Yates (among others) trains with "low rep heavy basics all year", but Yates abandoned squatting and flat benching early in his career and trains heavy lifts such as hack squats and decline bench presses along with isolation exercises to bring specific muscles to failure either before or after reaching failure on heavy compound lifts (for example here and here).

I have re-read Ripp's article "Barbells vs Machines vs Everything Else", and I agree with the essential argument that basic barbell lifts are essential to developing strength in a way that machines are not. That said, machines are superior at bringing individual muscles to failure, and doing this is in conjunction with compound barbell lifts has formed the basis of hypertrophy training at the elite level for many decades now. This makes me wonder whether machines have a legitimate role to play in hypertrophy training, even if they do not have in strength training.

[francesco.decaro]

I'm going to necropost here because I read Andy Baker's article, there is a link to this forum at the bottom of that article, and I wanted to ask a question about it: for hypertrophy, is it important to draw a distinction between training to failure of the muscle and training to failure of a movement in which the muscle is involved? The distinction between muscle failure and movement failure is the key reason Christian Thibaudeau advises against using compound lifts for failure training:



k_dean_curtis mentioned that Yates (among others) trains with "low rep heavy basics all year", but Yates abandoned squatting and flat benching early in his career and trains heavy lifts such as hack squats and decline bench presses along with isolation exercises to bring specific muscles to failure either before or after reaching failure on heavy compound lifts (for example here and here).

I have re-read Ripp's article "Barbells vs Machines vs Everything Else", and I agree with the essential argument that basic barbell lifts are essential to developing strength in a way that machines are not. That said, machines are superior at bringing individual muscles to failure, and doing this is in conjunction with compound barbell lifts has formed the basis of hypertrophy training at the elite level for many decades now. This makes me wonder whether machines have a legitimate role to play in hypertrophy training, even if they do not have in strength training.

The main concept for 99% of the population is you need to get stronger in order to get bigger, whether you do it through the NLP or some cyclical program that also uses machines and isolation movements, you need to get stronger.
And training to failure with isolation movements does not sound like a good plan to get stronger.
All this hypertrophy stuff seems to apply only to advanced intermediates or elite lifters who need a lot of stress to be able to progress and they need to calibrate that stress carefully, so they use isolation movements or machines in conjunction with compound lifts because they have the ability to produce a lot of stress with those lifts and they can't recover from them, everyone else can just gain a few pounds of bodyweight and put 100lbs on their squat and deadlift and 50lbs to their bench and press, and they get bigger.

Anyone please correct me if I said something wrong

[Jovan Dragisic]

Dorian Yates was incline benching four plates for sets of six.

[Chamberlain]

All this hypertrophy stuff seems to apply only to advanced intermediates or elite lifters who need a lot of stress to be able to progress and they need to calibrate that stress carefully, so they use isolation movements or machines in conjunction with compound lifts because they have the ability to produce a lot of stress with those lifts and they can't recover from them, everyone else can just gain a few pounds of bodyweight and put 100lbs on their squat and deadlift and 50lbs to their bench and press, and they get bigger.

How do you know? It is entirely possible that you are correct, but I'm not sure where this perspective is coming from. The material I'm reading online is written by professional competitors and coaches who are citing research and personal experience when they state that muscular failure is an important and effective strategy for stimulating growth.

[Mark Rippetoe]

How do you know? It is entirely possible that you are correct, but I'm not sure where this perspective is coming from. The material I'm reading online is written by professional competitors and coaches who are citing research and personal experience when they state that muscular failure is an important and effective strategy for stimulating growth.

Well, if you read it online, it has to be true.

[Ham]

I'm going to necropost here because I read Andy Baker's article, there is a link to this forum at the bottom of that article, and I wanted to ask a question about it: for hypertrophy, is it important to draw a distinction between training to failure of the muscle and training to failure of a movement in which the muscle is involved? The distinction between muscle failure and movement failure is the key reason Christian Thibaudeau advises against using compound lifts for failure training:



k_dean_curtis mentioned that Yates (among others) trains with "low rep heavy basics all year", but Yates abandoned squatting and flat benching early in his career and trains heavy lifts such as hack squats and decline bench presses along with isolation exercises to bring specific muscles to failure either before or after reaching failure on heavy compound lifts (for example here and here).

I have re-read Ripp's article "Barbells vs Machines vs Everything Else", and I agree with the essential argument that basic barbell lifts are essential to developing strength in a way that machines are not. That said, machines are superior at bringing individual muscles to failure, and doing this is in conjunction with compound barbell lifts has formed the basis of hypertrophy training at the elite level for many decades now. This makes me wonder whether machines have a legitimate role to play in hypertrophy training, even if they do not have in strength training.

You're wrong on your thinking that that a "compound" movement is unable to help reach failure in a given muscle group. If I fail an overhand grip deadlift, the the weakest link wasn't strong enough. It's that simple. The differences are:

1. It's harder to tell which muscle is the weak link compared to an isolation movement. (in the deadlift example, it doesn't feel like only your grip gave out, but we know that was in fact the case)
2. The "muscle group" went to failure at a higher load than that which could be achieved with an isolation movement. I don't see how this a negative and besides, back-off sets are an option.

We don't go to failure on barbells because it's dangerous and impractical to plan (you know, train). Interestingly enough (or not), Dante, who created the dogcrapp method centered around going to failure prefers "compound" lifts over isolation movements, but doesn't program them because of safety concerns. Baker has a recent podcast on it.

[CommanderFun]

How do you know? It is entirely possible that you are correct, but I'm not sure where this perspective is coming from. The material I'm reading online is written by professional competitors and coaches who are citing research and personal experience when they state that muscular failure is an important and effective strategy for stimulating growth.

That can certainly work for smaller assistance exercises. But try doing it on something like a deadlift or a squat on a regular basis and you will have a really bad time and not make progress. Even on press and bench it can cause problems with fatigue build-up.

[Johnsonville]

That can certainly work for smaller assistance exercises. But try doing it on something like a deadlift or a squat on a regular basis and you will have a really bad time and not make progress. Even on press and bench it can cause problems with fatigue build-up.

I agree that it would run me into the ground, but there are programs out there ie 531 that use that approach and people seem to have success with them. I’d rather not do such things myself though.