Stupid Questions Thread

[DCR]

what exactly does "going crazy" on the bench press mean to you? 5 paragraphs, double spaced

Got some parameters for that?

Friendship ending with lifting, now running is my friend. Most running programs call for cross training two days out of the week, so looking for ideas on what to do with upper body. Deadlift is slowly going back up to old strength levels having just done an LP (which is mind boggling given that I've lost 17lbs) but I have really been neglecting my upper body...

Dips and pullups. That’s it. (If your shoulders hate dips, pushups are fine.)

[EggMcMuffin]

@DCR I'm thinking about just doing tons of weighted chins and trying to slowly progress them. I figure doing them weighted will at least keep my upper body very strong, but I've never really tried to progress them like that.

I feel like if you can do a set of 5 chins with 100lbs you probably have some fucking gorilla strength

[xuerebx]

Some interesting gossip.

So, not sure if anyone here knows but a study was recently published where participants went up from 27 sets to 52 friggin sets on legs per week (all sets apparently to 2 RIR), to then conclude that higher volume higher growth (even though the time effort required is waaaay higher than the incremental growth, of course). Anyway, Lyle McDonald challenged anyone to $1,000 if they can complete the 27 set workout (9 sets squats, 9 sets leg press, 9 sets leg extension all at 2 RIR). Dr. Milo Wolf took up the challenge, together with Dr. Pak. Dr. Pak gave up after squats but Milo completed the workout. Lyle then analysed the workout rep by rep and judging RIR via rep speed etc.

Long story short, Lyle admitted that it was completed by Milo and PayPal'ed him $1k. Didn't think it would pan out this way to be honest, but Lyle was man enough to concede his point.

In any case, it's not really viable for normal people, and I HIGHLY doubt the participants were going to 2 RIR when they increased sets to 52/week.

[Hardartery]

what exactly does "going crazy" on the bench press mean to you? 5 paragraphs, double spaced

Got some parameters for that?

Friendship ending with lifting, now running is my friend. Most running programs call for cross training two days out of the week, so looking for ideas on what to do with upper body. Deadlift is slowly going back up to old strength levels having just done an LP (which is mind boggling given that I've lost 17lbs) but I have really been neglecting my upper body...

if you are looking to do upper body work for appearances, as in looking like you lift, and have no concern for progression of any specific lift, I would not Flat Bench. Incline Bench progression, Flyes or Incline Flyes, triceps work. You could do triceps every other day and have zero affect on anything else as far as recovery.

[ChasingCurls69]

@DCR I'm thinking about just doing tons of weighted chins and trying to slowly progress them. I figure doing them weighted will at least keep my upper body very strong, but I've never really tried to progress them like that.

I feel like if you can do a set of 5 chins with 100lbs you probably have some fucking gorilla strength

I would do bench, dips, lying triceps extensions or another joocy tris exercise one day, and on the other day incline bench, weighted chin ups, incline DB curls.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Some interesting gossip.

So, not sure if anyone here knows but a study was recently published where participants went up from 27 sets to 52 friggin sets on legs per week (all sets apparently to 2 RIR), to then conclude that higher volume higher growth (even though the time effort required is waaaay higher than the incremental growth, of course). Anyway, Lyle McDonald challenged anyone to $1,000 if they can complete the 27 set workout (9 sets squats, 9 sets leg press, 9 sets leg extension all at 2 RIR). Dr. Milo Wolf took up the challenge, together with Dr. Pak. Dr. Pak gave up after squats but Milo completed the workout. Lyle then analysed the workout rep by rep and judging RIR via rep speed etc.

Long story short, Lyle admitted that it was completed by Milo and PayPal'ed him $1k. Didn't think it would pan out this way to be honest, but Lyle was a man to concede.

In any case, it's not really viable for normal people, and I HIGHLY doubt the participants were going to 2 RIR when they increased sets to 52/week.

I saw people discussing this study, and I almost instantly thought that there must be something wrong, although I can't pinpoint what exactly. I mean 9 sets of squats with 2 RIR is at least as hard as the "Deep Water" program of Jon Andersen, and some people (like MythicalStrength on reddit) who try it report a near-death experience on the program. Deep Water is "only" 10x10 with 50% of your 1RM with 4 minutes of rest, so that the first sets will most definitely not be @8. Now you're telling me that those folks did something like a 9x10 starting with 70% of their 1RM (aiming for 2 reps in reserve), and then were able to crawl to the leg press and leg extensions to pump out 9 more sets of each ? And keep in mind MythicalStrength is an absolute machine with an enormous base of physical fitness.

I mean I'd love to believe the results (especially since they fit my vision of "more is generally better, if you can actually do it and recover and do it again") but I can't see in which alternate reality they can be true.

As an aside, I never understand how those researchers design their studies, I mean do they even lift (if they do it's even worse) ? I mean if you're trying to get more data about the dose response relation between training effect and volume, why not select a reasonable range ?

As far as Lyle's concerned I guess it's just a publicity stunt for him, and I applaud him for that.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@EggMcMuffin are you trying to increase your upper body strength (if so what's your exercise of choice to display strength ?) or are you just trying to build some muscle and look better.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

what exactly does "going crazy" on the bench press mean to you? 5 paragraphs, double spaced

Got some parameters for that?

Friendship ending with lifting, now running is my friend. Most running programs call for cross training two days out of the week, so looking for ideas on what to do with upper body. Deadlift is slowly going back up to old strength levels having just done an LP (which is mind boggling given that I've lost 17lbs) but I have really been neglecting my upper body...

if you are looking to do upper body work for appearances, as in looking like you lift, and have no concern for progression of any specific lift, I would not Flat Bench. Incline Bench progression, Flyes or Incline Flyes, triceps work. You could do triceps every other day and have zero affect on anything else as far as recovery.

What's wrong with flat bench press (unless somebody does not like the exercise or experiences pain while doing it) ? Pretty much all of my chest developpment is from flat bench, and it's probably my most developped body part.

[DCR]

Now you're telling me that those folks did something like a 9x10 starting with 70% of their 1RM (aiming for 2 reps in reserve), and then were able to crawl to the leg press and leg extensions to pump out 9 more sets of each ?

This sounds very shitty.

Deep Water is "only" 10x10 with 50% of your 1RM with 4 minutes of rest, so that the first sets will most definitely not be @8.

But there has to be something more to this, because while you’ll be sore af the next day, this is just the old German Volume Training and isn’t hard at all.

What's wrong with flat bench press (unless somebody does not like the exercise or experiences pain while doing it) ? Pretty much all of my chest developpment is from flat bench, and it's probably my most developped body part.

You’re a happy exception. Most folks end up with tris and anterior delts, and little chest development. Then there’s the subset, in which I fall, that gets solid chest development but mainly lower, giving the appearance of breasts more than pecs. Inclines remedied that swiftly. (I know that THE SCIENCE says that one can’t bias portions of a muscle. Bullshit. The bros always are right.)

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Now you're telling me that those folks did something like a 9x10 starting with 70% of their 1RM (aiming for 2 reps in reserve), and then were able to crawl to the leg press and leg extensions to pump out 9 more sets of each ?

This sounds very shitty.

Deep Water is "only" 10x10 with 50% of your 1RM with 4 minutes of rest, so that the first sets will most definitely not be @8.

But there has to be something more to this, because while you’ll be sore af the next day, this is just the old German Volume Training and isn’t hard at all.

What's wrong with flat bench press (unless somebody does not like the exercise or experiences pain while doing it) ? Pretty much all of my chest developpment is from flat bench, and it's probably my most developped body part.

You’re a happy exception. Most folks end up with tris and anterior delts, and little chest development. Then there’s the subset, in which I fall, that gets solid chest development but mainly lower, giving the appearance of breasts more than pecs. Inclines remedied that swiftly. (I know that THE SCIENCE says that one can’t bias portions of a muscle. Bullshit. The bros always are right.)

There is more to the program in that you start by 4 minutes of rest and then remove rest times each week to end up with 2 minutes (this is convenient because the study that @xuerebx mentioned had, I believe two minutes of rest. I've never done deep water or german volume training (I'm sure there are other names for it, fitness is an enless cycle of rediscovering the same 5-10 possible ways to get bigger and stronger that work) so I'm willing to trust your experience, but I know that most people (like MythicalStrength) who write program reviews of deep water report that it is hard as shit.

As far as flat bench (or whatever other exercise) is concerned, indeed different people react differently to the same exercise, but unless you actually try the exercise and see what it does to you, how would you know in which subset you fall ? Also, i'm not sure the exception is a happy one, in that I have a huge chest, but small arms, and no amount of benching ever fixed the problem lol. It's a double edged sword. And I always use a relatively narrow grip (around thumbs on the smooth) so the whole "crush your triceps with a rofl closer grip " does not seem to apply to me.

Also as far as "targeting different portions of the muscle" (or at the very least stimulating muscle fibers and other structures in a different manner) why would this be rejected by the so called "science based lifters" ? I mean I thought that it was an accepted fact that having some level of variation in the stimulus was a good thing. I don't know, it seems kind of obvious to me that incline, flat, decline, dumbbells, whatever will all stimulate the muscle fibers slightly differently. It's a pretty easy thing to test: if you do a variant that you haven't done in a long time then you'll be sore in new places.

[Hardartery]

what exactly does "going crazy" on the bench press mean to you? 5 paragraphs, double spaced

Got some parameters for that?

Friendship ending with lifting, now running is my friend. Most running programs call for cross training two days out of the week, so looking for ideas on what to do with upper body. Deadlift is slowly going back up to old strength levels having just done an LP (which is mind boggling given that I've lost 17lbs) but I have really been neglecting my upper body...

if you are looking to do upper body work for appearances, as in looking like you lift, and have no concern for progression of any specific lift, I would not Flat Bench. Incline Bench progression, Flyes or Incline Flyes, triceps work. You could do triceps every other day and have zero affect on anything else as far as recovery.

What's wrong with flat bench press (unless somebody does not like the exercise or experiences pain while doing it) ? Pretty much all of my chest developpment is from flat bench, and it's probably my most developped body part.

There is nothing wrong with Flat Bench, it is just generally less effective for producing visible hypertrophy of the chest and delts. Inclines produce better development in the upper pecs and DB Flyes with a deep stretch at the bottom are easily the single best producer of hypertrophy for the pecs bar none. Easily by miles. You need to get the deeeeeep stretch at the bottom (Scientifically shown to be a key in all lifting actually, the stretch/extension part is key).

[Hardartery]

You’re a happy exception. Most folks end up with tris and anterior delts, and little chest development. Then there’s the subset, in which I fall, that gets solid chest development but mainly lower, giving the appearance of breasts more than pecs. Inclines remedied that swiftly. (I know that THE SCIENCE says that one can’t bias portions of a muscle. Bullshit. The bros always are right.)

Science is catching up. As happens. EMG stuff is showing that you very much can bias portions of a muscle, and actual provable hypertrophy aside there is always the "Long Pump" thing discussed in another thread. Stuff just gets a little more inflated in visible ways from some movements.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

what exactly does "going crazy" on the bench press mean to you? 5 paragraphs, double spaced

Got some parameters for that?

Friendship ending with lifting, now running is my friend. Most running programs call for cross training two days out of the week, so looking for ideas on what to do with upper body. Deadlift is slowly going back up to old strength levels having just done an LP (which is mind boggling given that I've lost 17lbs) but I have really been neglecting my upper body...

if you are looking to do upper body work for appearances, as in looking like you lift, and have no concern for progression of any specific lift, I would not Flat Bench. Incline Bench progression, Flyes or Incline Flyes, triceps work. You could do triceps every other day and have zero affect on anything else as far as recovery.

What's wrong with flat bench press (unless somebody does not like the exercise or experiences pain while doing it) ? Pretty much all of my chest developpment is from flat bench, and it's probably my most developped body part.

There is nothing wrong with Flat Bench, it is just generally less effective for producing visible hypertrophy of the chest and delts. Inclines produce better development in the upper pecs and DB Flyes with a deep stretch at the bottom are easily the single best producer of hypertrophy for the pecs bar none. Easily by miles. You need to get the deeeeeep stretch at the bottom (Scientifically shown to be a key in all lifting actually, the stretch/extension part is key).

I mean very deep stretches are helpful but are they necessary ? In the sense that if you do not no flies (or some sort of cheeki breeki super bent bar benching with a 5 count pause on the chest) you can't grow your pecs ? Once again I never do flies , ever (ok maybe 3 sets once a year), still my pecs get bigger. I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything and I think that what you're saying makes perfect sense, but the only thing that i'm saying is that, I don't think those generalities have a lot of value when trying to decide what you should do as an individual (unless you started lifting last month).

Now you could say "well in that case should we just stop asking questions on forums ?" and to a certain degree I would agree with that. Although being part of a forum is a nice experience and discussing training is fun (at least I enjoy doing it).

This applies to all of the so called "evidence based fitness" recommendations, I mean if A works better than B on average, in some idealized training environment, so what ? I'm not an average. And I train in the real world. And say that I've been getting results from something that has been "debunked by science" ? Some bros have been "lifting weights wrong" for their entire career and getting all the right results. Like if you wanted to design a general program for 100 guys that you're coaching, that have no history and with whom you can't communicate that makes sense to look at averages but for one guy who's been training for the last 10 years ? I don't know.

[Hardartery]

what exactly does "going crazy" on the bench press mean to you? 5 paragraphs, double spaced

Got some parameters for that?

Friendship ending with lifting, now running is my friend. Most running programs call for cross training two days out of the week, so looking for ideas on what to do with upper body. Deadlift is slowly going back up to old strength levels having just done an LP (which is mind boggling given that I've lost 17lbs) but I have really been neglecting my upper body...

if you are looking to do upper body work for appearances, as in looking like you lift, and have no concern for progression of any specific lift, I would not Flat Bench. Incline Bench progression, Flyes or Incline Flyes, triceps work. You could do triceps every other day and have zero affect on anything else as far as recovery.

What's wrong with flat bench press (unless somebody does not like the exercise or experiences pain while doing it) ? Pretty much all of my chest developpment is from flat bench, and it's probably my most developped body part.

There is nothing wrong with Flat Bench, it is just generally less effective for producing visible hypertrophy of the chest and delts. Inclines produce better development in the upper pecs and DB Flyes with a deep stretch at the bottom are easily the single best producer of hypertrophy for the pecs bar none. Easily by miles. You need to get the deeeeeep stretch at the bottom (Scientifically shown to be a key in all lifting actually, the stretch/extension part is key).

I mean very deep stretches are helpful but are they necessary ? In the sense that if you do not no flies (or some sort of cheeki breeki super bent bar benching with a 5 count pause on the chest) you can't grow your pecs ? Once again I never do flies , ever (ok maybe 3 sets once a year), still my pecs get bigger. I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything and I think that what you're saying makes perfect sense, but the only thing that i'm saying is that, I don't think those generalities have a lot of value when trying to decide what you should do as an individual (unless you started lifting last month).

Now you could say "well in that case should we just stop asking questions on forums ?" and to a certain degree I would agree with that. Although being part of a forum is a nice experience and discussing training is fun (at least I enjoy doing it).

This applies to all of the so called "evidence based fitness" recommendations, I mean if A works better than B on average, in some idealized training environment, so what ? I'm not an average. And I train in the real world. And say that I've been getting results from something that has been "debunked by science" ? Some bros have been "lifting weights wrong" for their entire career and getting all the right results. Like if you wanted to design a general program for 100 guys that you're coaching, that have no history and with whom you can't communicate that makes sense to look at averages but for one guy who's been training for the last 10 years ? I don't know.

YMMV, of course, but there seems to be a persistent knock of better results from getting the stretch at the bottom of a movement. I have seen several things about most of the positives for biceps work coming from the portion where you actually straighten your arms to just after you stop having them straight and the top bit everybody seems to focus on being less than useful in general. I can't speak top that directly, as I don't ever really do biceps work (And yet have not small biceps, so there's that). I know that doing the Flyes on a bench and letting the weights pull my hands down at the bottom until I was consistently able to contact the floor worked better than not doing that. I know that there are several triceps exercises based on increasing the stretch of the triceps (JM Press, Rolling Extensions and others) to greater effect than not effecting that stretch. I know that there are plenty of massive guys that seem completely unconcerned with locking out every rep of anything but always controlling the eccentric and hitting the bottom of the lift, as opposed to the "Hardgainer" form Nazis that have the opposite approach.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@Hardartery I mean I agree with you that, in general being able to stretch the muscle to some degree is going to be a good thing for hypertrophy. Especially if you are doing isolation exercises that are designed to maximize the stretch (think preacher curl or skullcrusher or whatever).

But actually I think that this is a subtle debate (that gets conveniently ignored): on the one hand people have this vision that more range of motion is always better for hypertrophy to maximize the "stimulus to fatigue ratio" (good luck for measuring that with lab equipment), but on the other hand, for almost every existing exercise, there is a way to increase the range of motion. And those two statements can't be true simultaneously.

In that sense almost all exercises are partials. A deadlift is a partial and you could increase the range of motion by adding a deficit. But the deficit deadlift is a partial and you could increase the range of motion by using a snatch grip. But the snatch grip deficit deadlift is a partial, and you could increase the range of motion by wearing stilettos. So by the "science based - more rom is better" principle the only acceptable way to work your posterior chain would be a high box deficit snatch grip siletto deadlift. Will you get bigger doing a high box deficit snatch grip siletto deadlift ? Yeah probably, maybe I dont know. But you'll also probably get bigger doing just a regular convential deadlift in flat shoes, and I'm not sure that "science" can predict which one would work the best. Same with squats, if you're doing squat with flat shoes to parallel with no pause you are technically doing a partial, but are you missing out and if so how much? I dont know. I mean the "science based dudes" keep nerding out about squat depth and tempo and pause and torso angle and so on and so forth, but I'm not sure how "scientific" that stuff is, providing you're not doing some sort of silly 1/8th squat with a million pounds on your back.

I also agree about the Hardgainers being wrong. I mean I think I agree with every sentence which contains the pattern "Hardgainers are wrong about"

[lehman906]

You’re a happy exception. Most folks end up with tris and anterior delts, and little chest development. Then there’s the subset, in which I fall, that gets solid chest development but mainly lower, giving the appearance of breasts more than pecs. Inclines remedied that swiftly. (I know that THE SCIENCE says that one can’t bias portions of a muscle. Bullshit. The bros always are right.)

I know Greg Knuckols and others showed research that a slight incline (10-15% I think) bench was best for pec hypertrophy. I think there is still this thought that the people conducting these studies don't lift at all, and that doesn't seem to be the case. People like Nuckols, and Eric Helms, and the data-driven strength guys, etc are definitely deep into conducting the research.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

That's the abstract

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37796222/

It puzzles me because it superficially looks quite good: 12 weeks so that you'll have time to see at least a bit of results, average squat 1RM about 140 kgs so its not like its a bunch of noobs and they're not freaks either. Yet I'm sure it's wrong and can't figure out what is the catch.

I'd love to know what everyone thinks.

Edit: had a look at the study (besides the stats stuff), a few things that I found questionable:
- body composition (body fat %) was evaluated done with an impedance meter which is completely unreliable (not too important since this is not what they used to assess the quadriceps hypertrophy)
- the participants were allowed to train the upper body as they pleased: this means that, in all likelihood, the high volume group people trained the upper body much less (because if you did an insane workout with 9 sets of squats + leg press + extensions the day before you probably don't feel like doing 20 sets of chest and back). Essentially the high volume group did a leg specialization training cycle.
- the sets were done to "volitional failure" and/or when "form broke down" meaning that the number of repetitions in reserve were probably grossly underestimated. Especially if the participants were not super proficient at squats, form would break down much quicker than for a powerlifter, who should be very proficient and able to maintain form almost to the last rep before failure.
- one of the participants did lose leg size, which seems completely absurd to me. This dude gets small legs after 12 weeks of 52 sets of quads per week. Hilarious.
- the higher volume group required 110 minutes to complete their workout (9 sets of squats + 9 sets of leg press + 9 sets of extensions) , which sounds insane to me. The authors present this as a significant time burden but I was thinking the opposite: how is it possible to perform so much work in so little time ?
- the participants also trained posterior chain (!) : they also did RDL's and leg curls. Too much is never enough I guess.

[DCR]

There is more to the program in that you start by 4 minutes of rest and then remove rest times each week to end up with 2 minutes (this is convenient because the study that @xuerebx mentioned had, I believe two minutes of rest. I've never done deep water or german volume training (I'm sure there are other names for it, fitness is an enless cycle of rediscovering the same 5-10 possible ways to get bigger and stronger that work) so I'm willing to trust your experience, but I know that most people (like MythicalStrength) who write program reviews of deep water report that it is hard as shit.

MythicalStrength wipes the floor with me. The two minutes thing makes a bit more sense in terms of difficulty. Four minutes is a breeze. Say that your max squat is a modest three plates. 10x10 with half of that, i.e. 157.5 lbs., with full four minutes rests, is nbd. I could do that this afternoon. (I’d be crippled tomorrow, though.)

As far as flat bench (or whatever other exercise) is concerned, indeed different people react differently to the same exercise, but unless you actually try the exercise and see what it does to you, how would you know in which subset you fall ? Also, i'm not sure the exception is a happy one, in that I have a huge chest, but small arms, and no amount of benching ever fixed the problem lol. It's a double edged sword. And I always use a relatively narrow grip (around thumbs on the smooth) so the whole "crush your triceps with a rofl closer grip " does not seem to apply to me.

Funny, me neither. In fact, IIRC awhile back on this very thread I asked why I get much more chest out of a closer grip. A wider grip ends up more in my anterior delts, although I’ve been using one for a long time now out of laziness. (“Wider” for me means pinkies on the rings, i.e. grip it and rip it, as opposed to having to find my spot in between them.)

But actually I think that this is a subtle debate (that gets conveniently ignored): on the one hand people have this vision that more range of motion is always better for hypertrophy to maximize the "stimulus to fatigue ratio" (good luck for measuring that with lab equipment), but on the other hand, for almost every existing exercise, there is a way to increase the range of motion. And those two statements can't be true simultaneously.

Sure they can. Just because a further increase in ROM arguably is better in a vacuum doesn’t mean that’s the case outside of the vacuum, with other factors (e.g. safety) considered. If one insisted on DLing for hypertrophy, I’d for sure recommend deficit DLs, but avoiding the stilettos.

I also agree about the Hardgainers being wrong. I mean I think I agree with every sentence which contains the pattern "Hardgainers are wrong about"

This can’t be said enough. A whole segment of the industry telling dudes that they couldn’t handle the slightest bit of volume, when in reality said dudes weren’t eating any fucking food and much more than likely weren’t working a fraction as hard as they believed.

You’re a happy exception. Most folks end up with tris and anterior delts, and little chest development. Then there’s the subset, in which I fall, that gets solid chest development but mainly lower, giving the appearance of breasts more than pecs. Inclines remedied that swiftly. (I know that THE SCIENCE says that one can’t bias portions of a muscle. Bullshit. The bros always are right.)

I know Greg Knuckols and others showed research that a slight incline (10-15% I think) bench was best for pec hypertrophy. I think there is still this thought that the people conducting these studies don't lift at all, and that doesn't seem to be the case. People like Nuckols, and Eric Helms, and the data-driven strength guys, etc are definitely deep into conducting the research.

I’m glad that it’s caught up. I had been under the impression that science still was claiming that one only could make a muscle bigger or smaller.

[Hardartery]

That's the abstract

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37796222/

It puzzles me because it superficially looks quite good: 12 weeks so that you'll have time to see at least a bit of results, average squat 1RM about 140 kgs so its not like its a bunch of noobs and they're not freaks either. Yet I'm sure it's wrong and can't figure out what is the catch.

I'd love to know what everyone thinks.

Edit: had a look at the study (besides the stats stuff), a few things that I found questionable:
- body composition (body fat %) was evaluated done with an impedance meter which is completely unreliable (not too important since this is not what they used to assess the quadriceps hypertrophy)
- the participants were allowed to train the upper body as they pleased: this means that, in all likelihood, the high volume group people trained the upper body much less (because if you did an insane workout with 9 sets of squats + leg press + extensions the day before you probably don't feel like doing 20 sets of chest and back). Essentially the high volume group did a leg specialization training cycle.
- the sets were done to "volitional failure" and/or when "form broke down" meaning that the number of repetitions in reserve were probably grossly underestimated. Especially if the participants were not super proficient at squats, form would break down much quicker than for a powerlifter, who should be very proficient and able to maintain form almost to the last rep before failure.
- one of the participants did lose leg size, which seems completely absurd to me. This dude gets small legs after 12 weeks of 52 sets of quads per week. Hilarious.
- the higher volume group required 110 minutes to complete their workout (9 sets of squats + 9 sets of leg press + 9 sets of extensions) , which sounds insane to me. The authors present this as a significant time burden but I was thinking the opposite: how is it possible to perform so much work in so little time ?
- the participants also trained posterior chain (!) : they also did RDL's and leg curls. Too much is never enough I guess.

There isn't enough info in the abstract to know. It doesn't really offer a clear explanation of the organization of the "More successful" schemes, so it's hard to know exactly what they mean when they say x "sets progression group". They progressively added sets? They progressively added weight over x sets? They progressively added weight over the 12 weeks? They added that many sets to an already existing program? What training state was everyone in? Are they rebounding from a previous block and then deload? There is too much info missing to judge if there is any value at all in the study.

[Hardartery]

As far as flat bench (or whatever other exercise) is concerned, indeed different people react differently to the same exercise, but unless you actually try the exercise and see what it does to you, how would you know in which subset you fall ? Also, i'm not sure the exception is a happy one, in that I have a huge chest, but small arms, and no amount of benching ever fixed the problem lol. It's a double edged sword. And I always use a relatively narrow grip (around thumbs on the smooth) so the whole "crush your triceps with a rofl closer grip " does not seem to apply to me.

Funny, me neither. In fact, IIRC awhile back on this very thread I asked why I get much more chest out of a closer grip. A wider grip ends up more in my anterior delts, although I’ve been using one for a long time now out of laziness. (“Wider” for me means pinkies on the rings, i.e. grip it and rip it, as opposed to having to find my spot in between them.)

But actually I think that this is a subtle debate (that gets conveniently ignored): on the one hand people have this vision that more range of motion is always better for hypertrophy to maximize the "stimulus to fatigue ratio" (good luck for measuring that with lab equipment), but on the other hand, for almost every existing exercise, there is a way to increase the range of motion. And those two statements can't be true simultaneously.

Sure they can. Just because a further increase in ROM arguably is better in a vacuum doesn’t mean that’s the case outside of the vacuum, with other factors (e.g. safety) considered. If one insisted on DLing for hypertrophy, I’d for sure recommend deficit DLs, but avoiding the stilettos.

I also agree about the Hardgainers being wrong. I mean I think I agree with every sentence which contains the pattern "Hardgainers are wrong about"

This can’t be said enough. A whole segment of the industry telling dudes that they couldn’t handle the slightest bit of volume, when in reality said dudes weren’t eating any fucking food and much more than likely weren’t working a fraction as hard as they believed.

Unless you are tiny, pinkies on rings is not a wide grip and you won't really hit chest at the bottom, but....on narrow grip you use chest a lot at lockout. A lot. So, although narrow grip increases triceps ROM and indeed increases the workload for them, if you typically bench narrow anyway it won't provide novel stimulus for the triceps. It's also a "Relative" thing, it's relatively greater emphasis on triceps, but it isn't a JM Press.

Note about Hardgainers, I was friends with one. He worked out religiously, and claimed to eat a ton. I saw him eat. Slowest eater I have ever seen in my life. He did indeed work out and did not avoid volume like most, but no way was he ever anywhere near the calories he needed to get anywhere. He won't live long enough to eat the calories at the speed he eats.