muscle mass and tonnage

[timhayes]

Ok, to put some meat on the bone…

25 years old, 104kg, 5 foot 10

After four years of training I bled my PRs for 5’s dry. My deadlift was at 323kg. I kept my food, recovery, exercise selections and PRs for my 5’s the same (I always stuffed my face ever since I first started training and always make sure I’m very full after every feed). The only thing I changed was increasing my assistance exercise rep range from 5’s to 8-10's. 18 months later, my bodyweight was 4kg higher, my muscles looked bigger, I was no fatter (callipers) and my deadlift went up to 340kg.

My question is do you agree that it was the addition of the higher rep ranges that made my muscles bigger and stronger?

Side note: Strength is your stock in trade. Strength is a powerlifter’s stock and trade. Strength is a modern bodybuilder’s stock and trade. Yes they have different aims and you have different preferences but strength (force v external resistance) is a fundamental commonality here. Many advanced powerlifters program separately for hypertrophy phases. I know your interest isn’t in powerlifting nowadays but you do devote considerable publishing space in PPST to advanced training.

This is quite a bizarre thread, there’s a lack of clarity, co-author contradictions, personal insults between members, egos, doppelg¤nger posters, and some great questions!

Ps. It seems like we need Mills Lane to referee this one! Jeez!

I think the best thing to do would be for the co-authors to both clearly RESTATE their position regarding the fundamental dichotomy ZFT is banging on about, here and now on this thread. Baker is conspicuous by his absence of comment.

It would also be a good idea given the above co-author disconnect about something so important (ie. STRENGTH and physiological adaptations to rep ranges pertaining to strengthen hypertrophy) that a new edition of PPST be released given Rip has alluded to the fact it might be a good idea to leave certain sections regarding “Ex-fizz”assignations of rep ranges to physical adaptations of strength and hypertrophy out. As it stands, unless Baker and Rip both state their latest views on this particular SPECIFIC matter on this thread, the disconnect lessons the credibility of the Asgard Company which is still of high repute. But this needs to be resolved. I was surprised Sully’s post had no relevance to the specifics of the thread, it just waffled vaguely from the perspective of Master Trainees. I like a lot of Sully’s stuff, but he wasn’t great here.

[CommanderFun]

Again, your reading comprehension is lacking. I'll reproduce the quote here so there is no ambiguity

...

This does not say anything about the absolute optimality of heavy low rep training in regards to hypertrophy. It only says the resultant myofribrillar hypertrophy from this type of training decreases (or, at least, visually decreases) as the trainee becomes more advanced.

You are only taking one of the two statements I pointed to. Sometimes you have to make conclusions based on two statements combined together. This is a basic function of the reading comprehension you insist I lack. One says that training for strength does not create dramatic size improvements AFTER A CERTAIN POINT IN TIME. The other says that trying to train with the "hypertrophy" modality can interfere with strength-type training. Combine the two, and you are left with a conclusion that before A CERTAIN POINT IN TIME, training for strength IS the best way to train for size, since adding "size training" to strength training can fuck with the strength training. Are you going to go back to insisting I have "no meaningful evidence" or something again now? It seems like you have no interest in actual discussion like you insist and only interest in being a pedantic fuck and insulting people.

[Mark Rippetoe]

After four years of training I bled my PRs for 5’s dry. My deadlift was at 323kg. I kept my food, recovery, exercise selections and PRs for my 5’s the same (I always stuffed my face ever since I first started training and always make sure I’m very full after every feed). The only thing I changed was increasing my assistance exercise rep range from 5’s to 8-10’s. 18 months later, my bodyweight was 4kg higher, my muscles looked bigger, I was no fatter (callipers) and my deadlift went up to 340kg.

My question is do you agree that it was the addition of the higher rep ranges that made my muscles bigger and stronger?

Probably. Higher reps with a 700x5 deadlift is different than higher reps with a 315x5 deadlift. Have you not gathered this from your diligent study of this board?

Side note: Strength is your stock in trade. Strength is a powerlifter’s stock and trade. Strength is a modern bodybuilder’s stock and trade. Yes they have different aims and you have different preferences but strength (force v external resistance) is a fundamental commonality here. Many advanced powerlifters program separately for hypertrophy phases. I know your interest isn’t in powerlifting nowadays but you do devote considerable publishing space in PPST to advanced training.

Just because many advanced powerlifters do it doesn't mean it is either necessary or a good idea. I'm sure we can come up with things that lots of advanced powerlifters do that are not the best things in the world.

You seem irritated that the authors of a 10-year-old text might have learned things and changed their minds in the interim.

Ps. It seems like we need Mills Lane to referee this one! Jeez!

I think the best thing to do would be for the co-authors to both clearly RESTATE their position regarding the fundamental dichotomy ZFT is banging on about, here and now on this thread. Baker is conspicuous by his absence of comment.

Muscular Hypertrophy | Andy Baker

There are many many variables when it comes to training. For example:

The type of training split you use.
The exact exercises you perform.
The rep range you train within.
The total volume you perform.
What, if any, assistance movements you perform.
All of these things matter some. None of them matter at all in the absence of progressive overload. Bottom line: if you are squatting 315 x 5 today, and this time next year you are squatting 315 x 5, you will not have grown. Period. End of story.

It is irrelevant how much per-session volume you performed, whether you squatted high bar or low bar, how much rest you took between sets, how many times per week you squatted, or what assistance movements you did or did not do. None of these things matter in the absence of progressive overload.

An alternate case is also true. If you squat 315 x 5 today, and this time next year you squat 365 x 5 or 405 x 5, you will have grown.

[Mark Rippetoe]

You guys are supposed to be helping me here. timhayes is The Bull and Henry Johnson. This puts me in the shitty position of having to assume that anybody who disagrees with me is a lying sack of shit. Not good for the discourse, having to assume that all new people are lying sacks of shit.

[CommanderFun]

You guys are supposed to be helping me here. timhayes is The Bull and Henry Johnson. This puts me in the shitty position of having to assume that anybody who disagrees with me is a lying sack of shit. Not good for the discourse, having to assume that all new people are lying sacks of shit.

I can't exactly determine that without back-end information. The internet is full of guys like that, they CAN'T all just be the same guy...or can they?

[Jovan Dragisic]

You guys are supposed to be helping me here. timhayes is The Bull and Henry Johnson. This puts me in the shitty position of having to assume that anybody who disagrees with me is a lying sack of shit. Not good for the discourse, having to assume that all new people are lying sacks of shit.

You can assume that any random person who shows up and says he has got a 323 kg deadlift is a laying sack of shit.

[Sean Berry]

You can assume that any random person who shows up and says he has got a 323 kg deadlift is a laying sack of shit.

I personally KNOW one person with a 700+ Deadlift, so yeah, what he said.

[TommyGun]

The longer I have been on this board, the more I have been amazed by Rip's patience.

Absolutely.

[zft]

You are only taking one of the two statements I pointed to. Sometimes you have to make conclusions based on two statements combined together. This is a basic function of the reading comprehension you insist I lack. One says that training for strength does not create dramatic size improvements AFTER A CERTAIN POINT IN TIME. The other says that trying to train with the "hypertrophy" modality can interfere with strength-type training. Combine the two, and you are left with a conclusion that before A CERTAIN POINT IN TIME, training for strength IS the best way to train for size, since adding "size training" to strength training can fuck with the strength training. Are you going to go back to insisting I have "no meaningful evidence" or something again now?

I'm sorry, but this conclusion does not logically follow. Even ignoring the "certain point in time" qualifier, the efficacy of strength training in regards to hypertrophy as mentioned in the quote does not imply it is ideal for hypertrophy. The interference of the "hypertrophy modality" with strength training also does not imply that the hypertrophy modality itself is sub-optimal if your only interest is hypertrophy.

I don't need any evidence when your reasoning itself is inherently flawed.

[Steven Kalin]

I'm sorry, but this conclusion does not logically follow. Even ignoring the "certain point in time" qualifier, the efficacy of strength training in regards to hypertrophy as mentioned in the quote does not imply it is ideal for hypertrophy. The interference of the "hypertrophy modality" with strength training also does not imply that the hypertrophy modality itself is sub-optimal if your only interest is hypertrophy.

I don't need any evidence when your reasoning itself is inherently flawed.

Dude, for a guy who goes around saying other people need to work on their reading comprehension…..