Things I believe but can't prove...

[hector]

I think Ab Wheel makes a fuck ton of difference on overhead press, squat, and deadlift. Basically, everything except bench.

Absolutely agree.

I consider it a cousin of pullovers and front raises. My OHP form goes to shit when I neglect rollouts (and similar hip flexor stuff); the layback tells the tale.

@r@Renascent , do you think ab wheel is sufficient for hip flexors?
Or should I do other stuff for hip flexors too?

[Renascent]

I think Ab Wheel makes a fuck ton of difference on overhead press, squat, and deadlift. Basically, everything except bench.

Absolutely agree.

I consider it a cousin of pullovers and front raises. My OHP form goes to shit when I neglect rollouts (and similar hip flexor stuff); the layback tells the tale.

@r@Renascent , do you think ab wheel is sufficient for hip flexors?
Or should I do other stuff for hip flexors too?

In my very unprofessional opinion, possibly.

I think it likely depends on the person. Rollouts could be enough for someone whose hip flexor strength is already adequate for whatever purpose concerns said individual. If your job is to explosively come out of the offensive line position, then doing a lot of those high knee marching drills is probably a great idea. Having huge, muscular buttocks is only half the equation, I suppose.

In my case, reverse squats and knee/leg raises are good complementary movements to rollouts, and can allow for more range of motion, depending on how they're performed. My layback is less shitty when I don't skip those movements. It's also easier for me to hit depth and come out of the hole during squats without abusing my back, since the psoas supposedly assists in external rotation at the hips.

If heidikay (or anyone else doing standing rollouts on a regular basis) comes around, I'd be curious to read their thoughts. A standing rollout would be akin to a leg raise, locking the rectus femoris into active insufficiency at the start and finish, and asking more work of the psoas. I just can't do one; tried once, and almost snapped my shit up. Haven't tried since, but it'd likely be worth my while.

[aurelius]

What are the thoughts on HIT (not HIIT)?

--Dorian Yates supported doing 2-3 'warm-up' sets with one heavy set to failure doing 6-10 reps. I know, I know...drugs.
--Bill Starr recommended a similar approach with his 5x5 (do 5 sets of 5 reps of increasing weight with heavy/failure top set) for athletes to manage training volume
--Both recommended doing the lighter sets 'fast' or dynamic effort (Westsiiiide!!!)

My thoughts after 10+ years of lifting:
--Optimal is bullshit. Just stop thinking about it and train.
--Pick a program and train hard for 8+ week. Finish that and pick another. Mix up your programs. Train like a powerlifter, train like a body builder, train high reps, train low reps, train DE, train on the BB, train on the machines, and so on. Whatever keeps you motivated and training hard is the right program.
--If you need to take a break, take a break.
--If you want to get massive, eat enough and do drugs.

[Hardartery]

What are the thoughts on HIT (not HIIT)?

--Dorian Yates supported doing 2-3 'warm-up' sets with one heavy set to failure doing 6-10 reps. I know, I know...drugs.
--Bill Starr recommended a similar approach with his 5x5 (do 5 sets of 5 reps of increasing weight with heavy/failure top set) for athletes to manage training volume
--Both recommended doing the lighter sets 'fast' or dynamic effort (Westsiiiide!!!)

My thoughts after 10+ years of lifting:
--Optimal is bullshit. Just stop thinking about it and train.
--Pick a program and train hard for 8+ week. Finish that and pick another. Mix up your programs. Train like a powerlifter, train like a body builder, train high reps, train low reps, train DE, train on the BB, train on the machines, and so on. Whatever keeps you motivated and training hard is the right program.
--If you need to take a break, take a break.
--If you want to get massive, eat enough and do drugs.

HIT is mostly bullshit, but so is a lot of other stuff. Dorian Yates did not train HIT original flavour, he adapted it to him and made a program that looked more like a medium volume lifting program that most people would not have called HIT. Drugs are a side issue, all of the BBers doing the other styles also used plenty of drugs so that is really a wash as far as comparing results.

It is BB focused programming, and unlikely to yield strength gains unless you are severely overtrained and the change lets you recover. Change can be good either way and everything works, it just varies how well.

8 weeks is way too soon to jump programs, that will be just spinning your wheels.

Westside style dynamic work is very different in actual practice than anything HIT related, nit just in theory but also in actual practice. These are extremely different things. Dynamic work is not simply moving the weight fast.

Mike Mentzer little by little contradicted pretty much everything Arthur Jones and Co claimed, both about the Colorado "Experiment" and the related garbage they spewed. It was all bullshit with the single goal of selling machines. Case in point, Arthur Jones was himself the second participant in the "Experiment" and they don't talk about it much because he got zero results.

The gist is all that is important. Work the muscle hard and allow enough recovery while taking in sufficient calories. The harder you burn down that muscle group, the longer you rest. The only caveat here is that NATURAL guys are actually much more volume tolerant than heavily augmented guys. Probably because the PED's allow significantly much destruction per session, so much so that it is out of proportion to any recovery gains from the drugs, but that is just my theory. It is known thing amongst trainers without clear explanation and not likely to get studied because ethics.

[KyleSchuant]

What ring stuff in particular do you recommend?

This got long and I don't want to derail the thread, so I've started another one in the equipment forum. Two rings for the barbell kings, and in the home gym bind them.

[DanCR]

What are the thoughts on HIT (not HIIT)?

--Dorian Yates supported doing 2-3 'warm-up' sets with one heavy set to failure doing 6-10 reps. I know, I know...drugs.
--Bill Starr recommended a similar approach with his 5x5 (do 5 sets of 5 reps of increasing weight with heavy/failure top set) for athletes to manage training volume
--Both recommended doing the lighter sets 'fast' or dynamic effort (Westsiiiide!!!)

Paging @quikky to weigh in.

@Hardartery is right that what Yates did was pretty removed from Mentzer's peak absurdity, but I think Yates' stuff is great. A few more sets might be better for a natural lifter (Israetel was talking about this recently), especially if one is going to go all in on Yates' ideas regarding a total lack of momentum (which I don't know if he even actually followed), but generally I think this style of training is far superior for a natty than is its opposite. Nothing works forever, but I think this style is the best anchor to which to return. To be clear, I'm responding solely in the context of seeking hypertrophy.

[Hardartery]

What are the thoughts on HIT (not HIIT)?

--Dorian Yates supported doing 2-3 'warm-up' sets with one heavy set to failure doing 6-10 reps. I know, I know...drugs.
--Bill Starr recommended a similar approach with his 5x5 (do 5 sets of 5 reps of increasing weight with heavy/failure top set) for athletes to manage training volume
--Both recommended doing the lighter sets 'fast' or dynamic effort (Westsiiiide!!!)

Paging @quikky to weigh in.

@Hardartery is right that what Yates did was pretty removed from Mentzer's peak absurdity, but I think Yates' stuff is great. A few more sets might be better for a natural lifter (Israetel was talking about this recently), especially if one is going to go all in on Yates' ideas regarding a total lack of momentum (which I don't know if he even actually followed), but generally I think this style of training is far superior for a natty than is its opposite. Nothing works forever, but I think this style is the best anchor to which to return. To be clear, I'm responding solely in the context of seeking hypertrophy.

I have zero issues with what Yates actually did, if your goal is hypertrophy. I dislike the nonsense that circulates regarding that training, but what he says he ACTUALLY did is good stuff for that purpose.

[quikky]

What are the thoughts on HIT (not HIIT)?

--Dorian Yates supported doing 2-3 'warm-up' sets with one heavy set to failure doing 6-10 reps. I know, I know...drugs.
--Bill Starr recommended a similar approach with his 5x5 (do 5 sets of 5 reps of increasing weight with heavy/failure top set) for athletes to manage training volume
--Both recommended doing the lighter sets 'fast' or dynamic effort (Westsiiiide!!!)

Paging @quikky to weigh in.

I am not really familiar with what Yates did specifically, aside from the fact that he was a fan of all out max effort (and beyond) work with very few sets.

I think HIT, generally speaking, can be a perfectly valid way to train. I subscribe to the stimulating reps theory of muscle growth and have not heard of a better framework for quantifying hypertrophy stimulus. In the context of stimulating reps, any reps that cause an involuntary reduction of contractile velocity cause mechanical tension on the muscle, and are considered stimulating for muscle growth. Doing a set to failure has max stimulating reps, and each increase in RIR decreases the stimulus up until about RIR 5 (or RPE 5), where below that point you are essentially in junk reps land.

Given that, you can train with a lot fewer super hard sets, a ton of RIR 4-5 sets, or somewhere in between. I think in the end, all else being equal, whatever accrues sufficient stimulating reps with recoverable levels of fatigue works. What ultimately affects the decision to go HIT or not is your training preference, some people love the idea of going all out with low volume, and some love doing a lot of sub-maximal work. You can also combine the two, where, for example, you do sub-maximal lifts at moderate volumes as well as all out sets to failure.

What also matters is exercise selection and equipment availability. If all you have is a barbell and a rack, HIT is likely far less appropriate. Lifts like squats do not lend themselves well to HIT training, as there is just too much of a skill and coordination component. Hack squats, for example, would be a fine choice for HIT work as they are far more stable and require far less skill, and subsequently cause far less technique breakdown at very high exertion levels.

I also like that all out sets remove subjectivity of exertion. I am not very good at judging sub-maximal effort, even on lifts where I thought I was good at judging effort. Given what I think about stimulus and reps, I think there is a huge difference in training effect when misjudging RPE. Doing 5x5 @6 is quite different than 5x5@8 in terms of muscle growth. If I do 2-3 sets @10, I have zero questions about what the effort was. If I barely finish a rep, or go for another and it won't go, subjectivity of effort has been removed from my training of that lift. This might not matter as much if you have a great sense of effort, but that is not the case for me, and I am guessing for many others.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@quikky Is 5@6 really that different from 5@8 in terms of muscular hypertrophy ? I mean I'm like you and tend to lift relatively close to failure (@8-9), simply because it feels natural from a meathead perspective (because I'm a meathead) but other than that I don't know.

More generally, there seems to be no real support for the "effective reps" model (see Nuckols article). Especially if you're doing a compound movement with a decent load (> 70% 1RM).

Also, from my limited experience using RPE, 5@6 feels very different from 5@8. I think it's hard to mistake one for the other if you're doing sets of 1-5 reps on a compound movement that you practice frequently. But I agree with you that leaving nothing in the tank feels mentally satisfying. I tried a few times to do only sets around @6 but it was mental torture. You're always asking yourself if you're actually working hard enough. Feeling the bar slow down allows you to turn your brain off (which is good if you're lifting weights).

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

The only caveat here is that NATURAL guys are actually much more volume tolerant than heavily augmented guys.

Why do you believe that ? I can think of many heavily enhanced lifters who were famous for training with enormous volumes, that far exceed what natural bodybuilders usually do. Think Arnold, Ronnie, Platz etc. Even the old school powerlifters like Pat Casey, Bill West were known to train for hours on end. Some bodybuilders like Stan Efferding train twice daily. Etc.

Actually it's funny, when discussing the effects of enhancements I often hear two contradictory statements:
- when an enhanced guy trains low volume (think Mentzer) people say "well he's enhanced so he doesn't need that much to grow, that'll never work for a natural"
- when an enhanced guy trains high volume (think Platz, Arnold, Ronnie) people say "well he's enhanced so he can recover from so much, that'll never work for a natural"
Sometimes it's the same person holding both beliefs at the same time.

Honestly I don't know what to think of this.

[JohnHelton]

I don't know if this author knows what he is talking about but here is an opinion.

https://www.exercise.com/learn/how-much ... ery%20time.

How Do Steroids Help Muscle Recovery?
Simply put, steroids block the production of cortisol. Cortisol is what the body produces when the body is under stress. Cortisol acts as an anti-inflammatory and can actually slow down the needed recovery time of muscles. As such, blocking cortisol can decrease your recovery time.

However, blocking cortisol from developing can be dangerous in your body. Cortisol is responsible for:

Metabolizing the glucose in your body
Regulating your blood pressure and keeping it down during stressful situations
Helping to release insulin in your body when your body needs it
Boosting your immunity levels
Alleviating pain
While a low dose of steroids will not produce long term negative effects from blocking cortisol, it is rare for someone who is using steroids for bodybuilding or working out to use a medical dose of steroids. Typically their usage goes far beyond that, which can be dangerous.

If the body continually doesn’t product the cortisol that it needs you could develop diabetes, become ill frequently, be more prone to pain and so on.

then this from RP

[aurelius]

This is a puzzling discussion around steroids and recovery. I see some round about discussions focusing on possible impacts (like the cortisol hypothesis) but no real data to support it.

Steroid use and body building is well known. You have to do it or you can't compete. Athletes have used them since their existence to improve their recovery to allow them to train more/compete at a higher level. Even non-strength athletes. Lance Armstrong used anabolic steroids, HGH, and so on. Roger Clemens did too. His stated use was to improve his recovery so he could pitch at a higher frequency. I'm convinced that nearly all elite athletes do. MMA steroid use is rumored to be common. It is a weight limit sport so hypertrophy is not a goal. Mainly so that fighters can train all the disciplines (they train 3-5 times daily) required to compete. And when you look at the injuries that are common from training camps, they jive with people using steroids to recover. Anyone watch the American Gladiators documentary? Most of those guys were former D1 athletes and they were juiced to the gills. Their stated reasoning, only way they could recover in time to compete as often as the show required.

I'll use me. My natural testosterone levels are under 150. I absolutely accumulate fatigue much more rapidly than when I'm on HRT (800-1000 total T). Last month I had to go off HRT so I could retest to prove hypogonadism. Fucking insurance.
My two consecutive testosterone serum tests at week 3 were 157 and 123. I felt like shit and was fatigued to hell from a HLM program. I get I am an abnormal case so YMMV. But testosterone 100% improves my ability to recover significantly.

Let's put it this way: in 1-year you have been selected to enter into the Thunderdome to fight someone to the death. You can prepare yourself in way you choose. I don't know about you; but I'm training MMA, putting on 20 pounds of lean mass, and juiced to the gills the whole way.

[Hardartery]

The only caveat here is that NATURAL guys are actually much more volume tolerant than heavily augmented guys.

Why do you believe that ? I can think of many heavily enhanced lifters who were famous for training with enormous volumes, that far exceed what natural bodybuilders usually do. Think Arnold, Ronnie, Platz etc. Even the old school powerlifters like Pat Casey, Bill West were known to train for hours on end. Some bodybuilders like Stan Efferding train twice daily. Etc.

Actually it's funny, when discussing the effects of enhancements I often hear two contradictory statements:
- when an enhanced guy trains low volume (think Mentzer) people say "well he's enhanced so he doesn't need that much to grow, that'll never work for a natural"
- when an enhanced guy trains high volume (think Platz, Arnold, Ronnie) people say "well he's enhanced so he can recover from so much, that'll never work for a natural"
Sometimes it's the same person holding both beliefs at the same time.

Honestly I don't know what to think of this.

I'm going to respond to both you and @aurelius at the same time here, because I'm too lazy to hit reply twice.

Based on my personal experience, I have confidence on my statement. I trained with a heavily enhanced training partner when I was competing, and my own serum level was tested hypogonadal range (270 on one test and just over 300 I think on another, I don't remember the lab ranges for those tests but have it recorded so I can look it up if I need to). I could train higher volume and suffer less than he could, but he advanced faster than I did when he was on cycle.

Referencing other guys (Dave Tate, Jim Wendler, several other guys including some that will tell me but not talk publicly or want to be referenced) the consensus is that a little boosts lifting ability and recovery initially but a larger dose actually hurts the ability to handle volume and requires dialing it back. There's a line where this happens, and it's not as high as you would think. And I know guys that have run as much as 12 GRAMS a week of gear.

Getting to Aurelius, I get what you are saying as I am also on TRT these days. Here is my experience with the effect of TRT dosing. I have run as high as 200 mg a week, and currently run 125mg a week. I like 125mg a lot more than 200mg or any of the numbers between that I tried. I don't like less than 125mg. This puts me roughly mid-range to slightly below mid-range. When I started TRT, what I was squatting for 3 became for 5 reps immediately but it had zero initial impact on my 1 RM. That is important in understanding what is going on with testosterone and androgens, IMO. I am incapable of muscle soreness at low test levels, just as I was when competing in Strongman as a HW Open athlete. On TRT I am sore after pretty much every session to some degree. The per session volume is lower on TRT for me, I am shot sooner. There is of course an inherent ability to train your way into greater volume to an extent, but my take on it is that higher androgen levels permit training the muscle harder in the session and the ability to be better recovered for the next session versus lower levels BUT you actually can't handle the same volume per session. You can really tolerate less volume per session, but you get more bang for your buck.

Of course, there are no studies to confirm or contradict this, because ethics and available money. But, if you want more recovery and less fat you should be looking at HGH increases and maybe EPO use as far as drugs go and not really pursue anything above normal test levels. If you want to progress in strength and size jack up the test and know when to dial back the volume as necessary. If I go off for re-testing nothing changes in my sessions at all other than motivation, and I doubt that I am progressing much at completely tanked test levels.
I am sure if i cranked a 500mg a week blast I would blow up and make fast gains, but I would not be doing more volume and I would be more sore.

[quikky]

@quikky Is 5@6 really that different from 5@8 in terms of muscular hypertrophy ? I mean I'm like you and tend to lift relatively close to failure (@8-9), simply because it feels natural from a meathead perspective (because I'm a meathead) but other than that I don't know.

More generally, there seems to be no real support for the "effective reps" model (see Nuckols article). Especially if you're doing a compound movement with a decent load (> 70% 1RM).

Also, from my limited experience using RPE, 5@6 feels very different from 5@8. I think it's hard to mistake one for the other if you're doing sets of 1-5 reps on a compound movement that you practice frequently. But I agree with you that leaving nothing in the tank feels mentally satisfying. I tried a few times to do only sets around @6 but it was mental torture. You're always asking yourself if you're actually working hard enough. Feeling the bar slow down allows you to turn your brain off (which is good if you're lifting weights).

Yeah, I think 5@6 is inherently less stimulating for hypertrophy than 5@8. Roughly speaking, I would think 4-5 sets of 5@6 should be equivalent to about 2-3 sets of 5@8. I am not really sure how it could not be. If we add another intensity to compare, 5@4, we would probably agree it is not going to do much at all. Well, why is that? In terms of stimulating reps, it is simply that sets @4 do not reach an involuntary velocity drop and thus don't cause sufficient mechanical tension on the muscles. Sets @6 do, just for the last rep or two. Doing two sets @6 is more stimulating than one set @6, why? Well, you get more tension on the muscles trained, from the extra slower/stimulating reps. If so, how could a set done with more of these tense reps not be more stimulating, yet another set is? I hope that makes sense.

I do think it can get fuzzy on certain compound lifts like squats though, for a variety of reasons. However, broadly speaking, I think the above is true.

[quikky]

Regarding drugs, I would think it's largely a matter of enhanced adaptation, not enhanced recovery. After you lift, there are basically two processes that kick off, one is for muscle growth, where the body is actually going to try and build new tissue and create new proteins, and the other is the inflammatory response created by the stress of the workout. The way I understand it, is that drugs amplify the former, but largely do not have much of an effect on the latter. In other words, the body will build muscle more on drugs, but will not actually "heal" faster, if that makes sense.

I am guessing the recovery part might be the mistaken feeling of amplified adaptation. Consider this: you do a workout drug-free, recover, come in and repeat it. If some adaptation is occurred, you will likely be able to add a bit more weight, do another rep, or do the same as before but have it feel lighter. Now, consider this: same as before but on drugs. More adaptation occurs. Now you come in for the next workout and you can add even more weight, or do even more reps, or the weight feels even easier. Are you more recovered? I think it is easy to think you are, even though what really happened is a bigger adaptive response.

I am not 100% confident in what I wrote but that's my current understanding of how drugs work in the context of lifting.

[aurelius]

Getting to Aurelius, I get what you are saying as I am also on TRT these days. Here is my experience with the effect of TRT dosing. I have run as high as 200 mg a week, and currently run 125mg a week. I like 125mg a lot more than 200mg or any of the numbers between that I tried. I don't like less than 125mg. This puts me roughly mid-range to slightly below mid-range. When I started TRT, what I was squatting for 3 became for 5 reps immediately but it had zero initial impact on my 1 RM. That is important in understanding what is going on with testosterone and androgens, IMO. I am incapable of muscle soreness at low test levels, just as I was when competing in Strongman as a HW Open athlete. On TRT I am sore after pretty much every session to some degree. The per session volume is lower on TRT for me, I am shot sooner. There is of course an inherent ability to train your way into greater volume to an extent, but my take on it is that higher androgen levels permit training the muscle harder in the session and the ability to be better recovered for the next session versus lower levels BUT you actually can't handle the same volume per session. You can really tolerate less volume per session, but you get more bang for your buck.

I can't really speak to volume per session. Admittedly, you guys are much more knowledgeable than me. I don't even lift to get bigger/stronger anymore. The always bad 'maintain' (I'm trying to get weight down to 175). But we might be discussing two separate things: volume per session versus recovery between sessions.

Have you tried spreading your dosage to two shots per week? I do one in office and one home injection. I was doing 200mg once per week but I got a massive spike then big draw down (testosterone half-life is 8 days). My last test had me at 950 but that is the low end meaning I was spiking 1500-1800 (guess, not test to support). That was too hot. I'm now do two 100mg per week and it eliminates the massive spike and draw down. No data just feels better.

[aurelius]

Regarding drugs, I would think it's largely a matter of enhanced adaptation, not enhanced recovery. After you lift, there are basically two processes that kick off, one is for muscle growth, where the body is actually going to try and build new tissue and create new proteins, and the other is the inflammatory response created by the stress of the workout. The way I understand it, is that drugs amplify the former, but largely do not have much of an effect on the latter. In other words, the body will build muscle more on drugs, but will not actually "heal" faster, if that makes sense.

I am guessing the recovery part might be the mistaken feeling of amplified adaptation. Consider this: you do a workout drug-free, recover, come in and repeat it. If some adaptation is occurred, you will likely be able to add a bit more weight, do another rep, or do the same as before but have it feel lighter. Now, consider this: same as before but on drugs. More adaptation occurs. Now you come in for the next workout and you can add even more weight, or do even more reps, or the weight feels even easier. Are you more recovered? I think it is easy to think you are, even though what really happened is a bigger adaptive response.

I am not 100% confident in what I wrote but that's my current understanding of how drugs work in the context of lifting.

Hmmm...We like to discuss/think of things as all or nothing. So recovery is ALL things recovering. Which isn't true. As lifters we know ligaments, tendons, smaller muscle groups, and so on (slow recovery parts) do not recover as quickly as major muscle groups (something about blood flow blah blah blah). And the fatigue we feel is often associated with the strain placed on those parts. Built in rest/recovery periods are to provide time for those to 'catch up' in recovery to major muscle groups. It may be the case that steroids do not aid or significantly improve recovery of slow recovery parts. Going back to the MMA issue and common injuries in training camps, steroids can help major muscles recover and therefore allow for higher training frequency....BUT this can mask overall fatigue of the slow recovery groups. This can lead to overtraining and injuries that a natural athlete/lifter would autoregulate around in their training. One can train at higher frequency juiced but must be more careful not to overtrain. Ronny Coleman prime example. No way he suffers the injuries he accumulated as a natural lifter. That is my bullshit, non-supported thoughts on it.

[Hardartery]

Getting to Aurelius, I get what you are saying as I am also on TRT these days. Here is my experience with the effect of TRT dosing. I have run as high as 200 mg a week, and currently run 125mg a week. I like 125mg a lot more than 200mg or any of the numbers between that I tried. I don't like less than 125mg. This puts me roughly mid-range to slightly below mid-range. When I started TRT, what I was squatting for 3 became for 5 reps immediately but it had zero initial impact on my 1 RM. That is important in understanding what is going on with testosterone and androgens, IMO. I am incapable of muscle soreness at low test levels, just as I was when competing in Strongman as a HW Open athlete. On TRT I am sore after pretty much every session to some degree. The per session volume is lower on TRT for me, I am shot sooner. There is of course an inherent ability to train your way into greater volume to an extent, but my take on it is that higher androgen levels permit training the muscle harder in the session and the ability to be better recovered for the next session versus lower levels BUT you actually can't handle the same volume per session. You can really tolerate less volume per session, but you get more bang for your buck.

I can't really speak to volume per session. Admittedly, you guys are much more knowledgeable than me. I don't even lift to get bigger/stronger anymore. The always bad 'maintain' (I'm trying to get weight down to 175). But we might be discussing two separate things: volume per session versus recovery between sessions.

Have you tried spreading your dosage to two shots per week? I do one in office and one home injection. I was doing 200mg once per week but I got a massive spike then big draw down (testosterone half-life is 8 days). My last test had me at 950 but that is the low end meaning I was spiking 1500-1800 (guess, not test to support). That was too hot. I'm now do two 100mg per week and it eliminates the massive spike and draw down. No data just feels better.

I have tried once a week, twice a week, every other day - on Cypionate and a little bit of time on Enanthate. Enanthate is better but less available. Currently I do one shot every two weeks of Sustanon, something that you can't even get in the US, and I like it a LOT more. It's an ester blend that equates to 125mg a week.

[DanCR]

This is the clip of which I was thinking:



The drug / recovery aspect isn’t the direct focus but it comes up in the larger context(s) that may explain the phenomenon that @Hardartery describes.

[ChasingCurls69]

@quikky Is 5@6 really that different from 5@8 in terms of muscular hypertrophy ? I mean I'm like you and tend to lift relatively close to failure (@8-9), simply because it feels natural from a meathead perspective (because I'm a meathead) but other than that I don't know.

More generally, there seems to be no real support for the "effective reps" model (see Nuckols article). Especially if you're doing a compound movement with a decent load (> 70% 1RM).

Also, from my limited experience using RPE, 5@6 feels very different from 5@8. I think it's hard to mistake one for the other if you're doing sets of 1-5 reps on a compound movement that you practice frequently. But I agree with you that leaving nothing in the tank feels mentally satisfying. I tried a few times to do only sets around @6 but it was mental torture. You're always asking yourself if you're actually working hard enough. Feeling the bar slow down allows you to turn your brain off (which is good if you're lifting weights).

Yeah, I think 5@6 is inherently less stimulating for hypertrophy than 5@8. Roughly speaking, I would think 4-5 sets of 5@6 should be equivalent to about 2-3 sets of 5@8. I am not really sure how it could not be. If we add another intensity to compare, 5@4, we would probably agree it is not going to do much at all. Well, why is that? In terms of stimulating reps, it is simply that sets @4 do not reach an involuntary velocity drop and thus don't cause sufficient mechanical tension on the muscles. Sets @6 do, just for the last rep or two. Doing two sets @6 is more stimulating than one set @6, why? Well, you get more tension on the muscles trained, from the extra slower/stimulating reps. If so, how could a set done with more of these tense reps not be more stimulating, yet another set is? I hope that makes sense.

I do think it can get fuzzy on certain compound lifts like squats though, for a variety of reasons. However, broadly speaking, I think the above is true.

I think 5's is a weird rep range to use for this thought experiment, because there's also the model that suggests increasing the load beyond a certain % of 1rm doesn't increase hypertrophy; at that point a rep is a rep. This likely occurs either around 5@6, or somewhere between 5@6-5@8. I don't think 5@4 is useless for hypertrophy either, but in the 5x5 context I think 5x5@6 and 5x5@8 are close enough im hypertrophy stimulus that 5x5@8 is generally not worth the extra fatigue cost.