Which bulilds muscle better, dropsets or negatives?

[rawdeal]

Maybe Ol' Joe's Muscle Confusion Principle was "Go Use All My Other Principles"?

 

[Bigtex]

Maybe Ol' Joe's Muscle Confusion Principle was "Go Use All My Other Principles"?

Most likely! Most get stuck on doing the same workout, using the same reps and sets day after day. You get results but are the optimal. Even the guys at DoggCrapp believe strongly in some of Weiders principals......muscle confusion (variation of exercise). This training protocol call for 1-4 or more different workouts using different methods to work the same muscle group. Each week you work to a max in that exercise and rotate exercises every week or two. They also use rest pauses. Something BB's were obviously doing 50 years ago.

We also have a set of science based principals:

1. The Principle of Individual Differences.
2. The Principle of Overcompensation.
3. The Principle of Overload.
4. The Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands (SAID) Principle.
5. The General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) Principle.
6. The Use/Disuse Principle.
7. The Specificity Principle.

Some of these are related to Weider's observations. I think one of the most important is the principal of individual differences. We are all different in many ways. Therefore canned workout never work for most of. So we have to open up that tool box and use everything we can to find out how our individual body best responds. Myself, I have found over the years that I grow best doing 1 body part a day with a minimum of 10-15 sets with reps ranging from 15-6. That doesn't mean that a Dogg Crapp style of training might not work best for someone else. That also doesn't mean that I won't do this type of training for a short period of time to change things up.

 

[rawdeal]

lol .... no duplicate posts this time, Bigtex, you feeling ok? A lot of discussion and good, sometimes conflicting, advice to the OP in here, and those last 2 (or more) of yours cap a good thread off real well.

As so often happens, the OP hasn't been here in weeks, maybe youth really is wasted on the young ....... good exchanges for us old Gents anyway. Could be some newb in the future will discover this thread and profit from it.

 

[Bigtex]

lol .... no duplicate posts this time, Bigtex, you feeling ok? A lot of discussion and good, sometimes conflicting, advice to the OP in here, and those last 2 (or more) of yours cap a good thread off real well.

As so often happens, the OP hasn't been here in weeks, maybe youth really is wasted on the young ....... good exchanges for us old Gents anyway. Could be some newb in the future will discover this thread and profit from it.

Hahaha.....you should have seen the articles I wrote for Muscle and Fitness. Talk about controversial and conflicting. Sometimes honesty and reality are hard to take. Anyway, my advice has always been free and has been used all over the Internet for years. It come from my 38 years of lifting, my job and my my education. I never thought I would be old and now I am. Other than the many injuries I have, I really haven't left age get in the way.

My advice always to people is we know very little about the body. What works for me may or may not work for you. That is why it generally take us years to ever get to the top of our game.

So after all of this, which is better drop sets or negatives.......I get sore doing negatives, I also get sore after doing drop sets. So why exclude one or the other. Use them both.

Hey, I tried to post those posting and got some kind of error. It seem like after I finally got no error message It had posted 3 times. Yeah, I though I was losing my mind.

 

[charger69]

I understand you don't like the Weider Principles being treated like commandments but the do apply to modern weight training, especially bodybuilding. Most have been studied by current research and have been very much validated.

As we know the bodybuilder has the use of a lot of tools to get big. Variation in the different aspects of weight training, confuse the muscle and avoid reaching the steady state or homeostasis. By changing things like modalities, reps, sets, speed, intensity, angle, rest periods, etc you can force the body to keep adapting, thus increasing the rate of hypertrophy. This was observed by Joe Weider over 50 years ago and has never changed. He didn't invent anything, just observed how the pros were training.

In fact, muscle confusion or variation of exercise has been validate by several research studies recently. A study conducted by researchers at the Tempe campus of Arizona State University compared two groups of trained subjects, one using an undulating periodization program—a fancy term for muscle confusion—and the other with a linear periodization program. In the undulating program, the acute variables were changed with every workout, whereas in the linear program, they were changed every few weeks. After 12 weeks, people following the undulating periodization program increased their bench press and leg press strength by 100 percent more than those following the linear program. Undulating periodization is nothing more that a program that uses as many of the variations as I mentioned above rotating on a 2-3 week basis. Louie Simmons uses a system like this in his WS programs.

Researchers from Brazil saw even more drastic differences when they had trained subjects follow one of three programs: an undulating periodization program, a linear periodization program, or a consistent non-periodized program of 8-10 reps per set. The training program consisted of a two-day split with 3-4 total training days per week. After 12 weeks, the group following the muscle confusion program increased its bench press by about 60 pounds, almost 200 percent more than both the linear periodization program and the non-periodized program. The undulating program also increased the subjects' strength on the leg press by a staggering 275 pounds, 400 percent more than the non-periodized program and more than 300 percent more than the linear program.

This principle can apply to muscle growth as well as strength. Researchers from the Federal University of Rio De Janeiro had a group of untrained men follow a linear periodization program of two sets of 12-15 reps per exercise for four weeks, then three sets of 8-10 reps per exercises for four weeks, and finally four sets of 3-5 reps per exercise for the final four weeks. Meanwhile, a group used those same set and rep ranges but cycled them each time they trained. The results: The group following the undulating plan increased its triceps size by about five percent, while the linear group saw no such increase. The undulating group also increased its biceps size by 10 percent—twice that of the linear group.

Now drop sets are part of the Weider observations and part of a variation of exercise. So are negatives (retro-gravity). Negatives are usually done with 10-20% over your max concentrating on the negative movement. This is well document by science to increase hypertrophy. However, because of the stress it places on the muscle fibers and connective tissue, they should not be done frequently. Drop sets are just another tool in the tool box. in fact these too have been validated by science. The challenge with dropsets is finding the ideal amount of weight to reduce for the dropset. Research performed by the Weider Research Group looked into this question. They had 10 trained bodybuilders perform dropsets by dropping 10, 20, 30, or 40 percent of their 10 rep max weight after reaching failure on one set of incline dumbbell flyes, dumbbell lateral raises, lat pull-downs, dumbbell biceps curls, triceps press-downs, leg extensions, and leg curls. For most of the exercises tested, a drop of 20-30 percent resulted in the subjects being able to complete about 10 reps.

So after all of this.......I would suggest negatives about 1 time a month and drop sets more frequently. You can also do peak contractions....holding the peak at the end of a rep, rest pauses, compound sets, super sets, tri-sets, giant sets, partials just to name a few. Frequently change the speed you train at both concentric and eccentric, rest periods, angles and modalities. You can also change periodically from low volume high intensity to high volume lower intensity. Cables, machines, free weight, machines. rubber bands etc can also be rotated.

The end of the bro science and real science takes over. Granted, sometimes we need to rely on bro science because of lack of studies, however when there are studies- look at them. Be careful, you need to look at the situation of the study because that can also be misleading.
For example: a study shows that a 6 week program produces lean muscle increases and fat decreases. If they used untrained people that will always happen. Take people that haven’t trained before and train them- there will be results.
Note: those of you that use performance enhancing drugs- the results of natural may be different then the results under PED.

 

[charger69]

Hahaha.....you should have seen the articles I wrote for Muscle and Fitness. Talk about controversial and conflicting. Sometimes honesty and reality are hard to take. Anyway, my advice has always been free and has been used all over the Internet for years. It come from my 38 years of lifting, my job and my my education. I never thought I would be old and now I am. Other than the many injuries I have, I really haven't left age get in the way.

My advice always to people is we know very little about the body. What works for me may or may not work for you. That is why it generally take us years to ever get to the top of our game.

So after all of this, which is better drop sets or negatives.......I get sore doing negatives, I also get sore after doing drop sets. So why exclude one or the other. Use them both.

Hey, I tried to post those posting and got some kind of error. It seem like after I finally got no error message It had posted 3 times. Yeah, I though I was losing my mind.

There was a lot of thoughts going back and forth. I do not know of any studies and I am sure that there are some.
BigTex mentioned a key item- CNS. Whatever method you use, change it up. It helps physically as well as mentally.
The other important aspect is blood flow for muscle growth. The blood brings nutrients to the muscle.
The two choices are two methods to be used in conjunction with a workout to raise intensity. I will throw another one in there- train to failure.
I believe the most intense person I have seen is Dorian Yates. Watch on you tube.

There are a lot of perceptions out there. Study them and decide which ones give you what you are looking for. There is sooooo much more than just negative and drop sets.

 

[Bigtex]

Definitely agree with you Charger 69. There are also some new things coming out in how we grow, some researchers in Sao Paulo, Brazil and two very smart guys here in the USA and Australia (Brad Schoenfeld and Bret Contreras) have done a lot of work how different rep schemes may effect how we grow. They do have some data to shows that low reps, heavy weight cause more of a myofibrillar hypertrophy, where the fibers split and thicken. This is considered to be more of a functional hypertrophy.

Reps from 6-12 cause more of a sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. So while both types of training cause extent myofibrillar hypertrophy to some extent, higher rep ranges cause that pump/sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. This pump causes supersaturation of the sarcoplasm with amino acids, glucose and water so the cellular integrity is at risk signaling hypertrophy of the muscle fibers. This type of training is best accomplished with lighter weight, higher reps and short rest periods. A type of metabolic training. This can also be done similar to how Ronnie Coleman trained using partial reps keeping the tension on the muscle short of lockout, the entire set (TUT). Understanding that once we lock the weight out the tension is removed from the muscle we are working. Schoelfeld and Contreras do have research that has backed up this theory. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is considered to be more of a non-functional type of hypertrophy giving more size.

Aside from metabolic training, the other method is by creating maximal mechanical tension. This is done using heavier weight, 6-8 reps and longer rest periods (~3min). Lifts are very explosive with a slower, more controlled eccentric motion. This maximal mechanical tension causes maximal stress to the muscle and creates a lot of myobibrillar hypertrophy. It also creates a lot of MGF in the cell, which seem to be for repair and growth in the muscle cell. This method also creates a very dense muscle mass more similar to what a powerlifter would have.

Which is better? Judging from how Ronnie Coleman trained, it may be best to train both methods. That way you end up with not only a dense muscle but a large muscle mass from the more metabolic training. I like bodybuilding but was a very good powerlifter. Powerlifting has one goal, get strong. Bodybuilding you have many more variables that can be changed week to week to get maximal hypertrophy. Once you throw in diet and drugs it is a constant challenge to find the right combination to be successful. Aside from genetics, this is why only a few make it to the top.

 

[charger69]

Definitely agree with you Charger 69. There are also some new things coming out in how we grow, some researchers in Sao Paulo, Brazil and two very smart guys here in the USA and Australia (Brad Schoenfeld and Bret Contreras) have done a lot of work how different rep schemes may effect how we grow. They do have some data to shows that low reps, heavy weight cause more of a myofibrillar hypertrophy, where the fibers split and thicken. This is considered to be more of a functional hypertrophy.

Reps from 6-12 cause more of a sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. So while both types of training cause extent myofibrillar hypertrophy to some extent, higher rep ranges cause that pump/sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. This pump causes supersaturation of the sarcoplasm with amino acids, glucose and water so the cellular integrity is at risk signaling hypertrophy of the muscle fibers. This type of training is best accomplished with lighter weight, higher reps and short rest periods. A type of metabolic training. This can also be done similar to how Ronnie Coleman trained using partial reps keeping the tension on the muscle short of lockout, the entire set (TUT). Understanding that once we lock the weight out the tension is removed from the muscle we are working. Schoelfeld and Contreras do have research that has backed up this theory. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is considered to be more of a non-functional type of hypertrophy giving more size.

Aside from metabolic training, the other method is by creating maximal mechanical tension. This is done using heavier weight, 6-8 reps and longer rest periods (~3min). Lifts are very explosive with a slower, more controlled eccentric motion. This maximal mechanical tension causes maximal stress to the muscle and creates a lot of myobibrillar hypertrophy. It also creates a lot of MGF in the cell, which seem to be for repair and growth in the muscle cell. This method also creates a very dense muscle mass more similar to what a powerlifter would have.

Which is better? Judging from how Ronnie Coleman trained, it may be best to train both methods. That way you end up with not only a dense muscle but a large muscle mass from the more metabolic training. I like bodybuilding but was a very good powerlifter. Powerlifting has one goal, get strong. Bodybuilding you have many more variables that can be changed week to week to get maximal hypertrophy. Once you throw in diet and drugs it is a constant challenge to find the right combination to be successful. Aside from genetics, this is why only a few make it to the top.

I like your analysis. I have found that there is no one perfect solution, if there was, there would be no debate. I am into bodybuilding and there is no perfect cycle, no perfect rep scheme, no perfect rest period, no perfect exercise, no perfect number of sets.
As Albert Einstein said, “It’s all relative”.
You referenced smart guys in weight training and I referenced Albert. LOL

 

[BrotherIron]

E....all of the above. You shouldn't just adhere to one thing.

 

[Bigtex]

I like your analysis. I have found that there is no one perfect solution, if there was, there would be no debate. I am into bodybuilding and there is no perfect cycle, no perfect rep scheme, no perfect rest period, no perfect exercise, no perfect number of sets.
As Albert Einstein said, “It’s all relative”.
You referenced smart guys in weight training and I referenced Albert. LOL

Thanks bro! Reality. But like I said, reality doesn't sell so well in muscle magazines. Its almost as simple as the Planet Fitness commercial when the meat head said, "I pick things up and put things down." WOW! So if I put things up and put things down I will get big and strong? Absolutely.

But we have a whole internet full of GURUS who claim their one size fits all program is all it takes. Then we have others who believe if they train like one of the pros you will get big because they know what they are talking about. Yes you will make gains but is it optimal? As you said," its all relative." I have seen research that is nothing more than reviews of all the current research that uses statistical analysis to tell you what they suspect is optimal training. Most say 10+ sets per muscle group, 2 minute rest periods, train muscle groups 1-2 times a week. That is a good guide but the law of individual difference takes effect. We are not all the same and do not react the same. Some can get great results with more or less, depending on a variety of things like age, where the muscles are attached, rest, metabolism, sex, diet, drugs etc.

I teach in my college class that weight training and fitness involve three basic things, weight training, rest, diet. Of course all of these are full of variables but you must pay good attention to all three. For instance proper rest revolves around the Circadian cycle. All of our hormones react around the cycles of light. If we don't rest properly, we don't allow the hormones in our body to be able to cause the body to recover from the damage we do to the muscles. If we have a poor diet, we again affect training. If we have sloppy training then we never accomplish anything.

The thing we have to remember reading research is that they report the data they found in the present study. IMHO a researcher should not attempt to tell athletes how to train, rather they should instead try to find out why they get the results they get when they train. Good coaches and athletes use research as a guide not the definitive answer.

 

[charger69]

Thanks bro! Reality. But like I said, reality doesn't sell so well in muscle magazines. Its almost as simple as the Planet Fitness commercial when the meat head said, "I pick things up and put things down." WOW! So if I put things up and put things down I will get big and strong? Absolutely.

But we have a whole internet full of GURUS who claim their one size fits all program is all it takes. Then we have others who believe if they train like one of the pros you will get big because they know what they are talking about. Yes you will make gains but is it optimal? As you said," its all relative." I have seen research that is nothing more than reviews of all the current research that uses statistical analysis to tell you what they suspect is optimal training. Most say 10+ sets per muscle group, 2 minute rest periods, train muscle groups 1-2 times a week. That is a good guide but the law of individual difference takes effect. We are not all the same and do not react the same. Some can get great results with more or less, depending on a variety of things like age, where the muscles are attached, rest, metabolism, sex, diet, drugs etc.

I teach in my college class that weight training and fitness involve three basic things, weight training, rest, diet. Of course all of these are full of variables but you must pay good attention to all three. For instance proper rest revolves around the Circadian cycle. All of our hormones react around the cycles of light. If we don't rest properly, we don't allow the hormones in our body to be able to cause the body to recover from the damage we do to the muscles. If we have a poor diet, we again affect training. If we have sloppy training then we never accomplish anything.

The thing we have to remember reading research is that they report the data they found in the present study. IMHO a researcher should not attempt to tell athletes how to train, rather they should instead try to find out why they get the results they get when they train. Good coaches and athletes use research as a guide not the definitive answer.

Even some human factors included! That is rare.
Keep posting bro!!!

 

[HisAngriness]

Great fuckin thread and great info in here!