Low load/high rep vs high load/low rep for protein synthesis

[Neal Winkler]

Background

We aimed to determine the effect of resistance exercise intensity (% 1 repetition maximum—1RM) and volume on muscle protein synthesis, anabolic signaling, and myogenic gene expression.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Fifteen men (21±1 years; BMI = 24.1±0.8 kg/m2) performed 4 sets of unilateral leg extension exercise at different exercise loads and/or volumes: 90% of repetition maximum (1RM) until volitional failure (90FAIL), 30% 1RM work-matched to 90%FAIL (30WM), or 30% 1RM performed until volitional failure (30FAIL). Infusion of [ring-13C6] phenylalanine with biopsies was used to measure rates of mixed (MIX), myofibrillar (MYO), and sarcoplasmic (SARC) protein synthesis at rest, and 4 h and 24 h after exercise. Exercise at 30WM induced a significant increase above rest in MIX (121%) and MYO (87%) protein synthesis at 4 h post-exercise and but at 24 h in the MIX only. The increase in the rate of protein synthesis in MIX and MYO at 4 h post-exercise with 90FAIL and 30FAIL was greater than 30WM, with no difference between these conditions; however, MYO remained elevated (199%) above rest at 24 h only in 30FAIL. There was a significant increase in AktSer473 at 24h in all conditions (P = 0.023) and mTORSer2448 phosphorylation at 4 h post-exercise (P = 0.025). Phosporylation of Erk1/2Tyr202/204, p70S6KThr389, and 4E-BP1Thr37/46 increased significantly (P<0.05) only in the 30FAIL condition at 4 h post-exercise, whereas, 4E-BP1Thr37/46 phosphorylation was greater 24 h after exercise than at rest in both 90FAIL (237%) and 30FAIL (312%) conditions. Pax7 mRNA expression increased at 24 h post-exercise (P = 0.02) regardless of condition. The mRNA expression of MyoD and myogenin were consistently elevated in the 30FAIL condition.

Conclusions/Significance

These results suggest that low-load high volume resistance exercise is more effective in inducing acute muscle anabolism than high-load low volume or work matched resistance exercise modes.

Full text: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi ... ne.0012033

Thoughts????

[Joshua Naterman]

I'm about 2/3 of the way (EDIT: I have read the whole thing and am checking the references, because there are some great studies referenced) through the actual study body, and to be honest, this doesn't mean what it seems to mean. There are also several clerical errors where the numbers written in the study contradict the charts, and sometimes do not line up with them at all, but that's just bad typing. Some dyslexia, perhaps. I could clear it up pretty quickly on my dual screen setup.

Protein synthesis levels are slightly higher in the 30% to failure group in almost all cases, which actually makes sense to me. You do a LOT more total work, which means you do a LOT more damage, with higher volumes. Because metabolisms can only work so fast, the elevated rate of healing MUST be maintained longer in order for the body to recover from higher exercise volumes, regardless of intensity. Higher volume at lower intensity levels also cause the body to grow more mitochondria, which are the little things in the cells that process the by-products of anaerobic glycolysis.

I'm also going to edit the title of this thread, because the actual article is about protein synthesis levels, NOT hypertrophy. They may SEEM linked, but protein synthesis is how we do everything from generating new mitochondria to healing wounds. You have to compare rates of synthesis with total protein damage before you can make any claims about hypertrophy, which you will notice this study does NOT make.

This study is about fasted-state healing rates when exposed to different stimuli and is primarily attempting to shed light on how the various chemical processes that occur during protein synthesis are affected by different loading parameters AND then uses linear regressions to try and shed some light onto which of these processes seem to be particularly important to different types of protein synthesis.

That has nothing to do with growth, athletic adaptation, or anything else, which makes this have nothing at all to do with hypertrophy. It is, however, a really neat read if you care to wade through the words.

I know, there's this at the end:

... our data provides further support that low-load contractions performed with numerous repetitions or high-load contractions performed for fewer repetitions will result in similar training induced gains in muscle hypertrophy as previously suggested [52], or even superior gains, as results from the current study would predict. This premise is further supported by data which demonstrates that short-term changes in muscle protein synthesis [1], [2] are predictive of training induced gains in muscle mass [3], [4]; however, a training study in which these distinctly different exercise loads (90FAIL and 30FAIL) are utilized is clearly warranted to confirm our speculation.

It is certainly possible. Strength has much less to do with muscle tissue than with the nervous system, though both are important factors, and this is very interesting research! It must be remembered that there are large differences between isometric and concentric/eccentric work. This quote is from the discussion, where the researchers are free to be as free and opinionated as they want. There is good evidence that intensity is not the only factor in twitch adaptations, both from occlusion training and from the isometric studies done. The difference is that isometrics and external occlusion can both deprive a muscle of oxygen, thereby possible eliciting a similar response from the body. Dynamic work pumps blood THROUGH the muscle, and I can not do more than guess at how that would change the training effect induced. It is beyond the scope of the available data for them to make the claims they have, with the exception that it would in fact require a training study with 90fail and 30fail groups compared with each other, and preferably with the two groups switching protocols after 8 weeks so that you can do both inter and intra-subject comparisons, as well as see how switching from high to low intensity may be different from switching from low to high intensity. Until that study is done and replicated, there really isn't enough good data to compare that too.

There are, however, many people who have failed miserably to get bigger by doing massive numbers of push ups or bodyweight squats in sets. There are also a LOT of people who have gotten bigger with higher intensities(60% and up), and many of them have belonged to both groups. A training study will really be a great addition to this line of research, I mean it really can't go any farther without one.

[GymnasticBodiesUser]

Hi,

you can get bigger and stronger with only simple bodyweight exercise such as push-up and bodyweight squat.

"You should choose only a few exercises and you do them almost everyday.

You must do one set with pause at the top and you stop only when you can't perform any more repetitions...

Foz size you must eat a lot and a lot otherwise you can melt.

And 5 times a week."

Source :Oliver Lafay a french guy.

Two examples :

"Kisa072"

6jSLdTvOu5A.swf

This guy is very good at doing push up and u can see by looking at this arm that he looks pretty strong.

I wanted to show you another video but looks like I can't; Anyway looks at his othre video, there is one where he does 200 deep pushups in less than 10 minutes.

Someone asked him about his routines and he replied :

"I`ll try to answer your questions, though my english is not good enough.So excuse me if it`s not very understandable.

My exercises these days are:knuckle pushups, handstand pushups,pull ups,squats and some shadow boxing ( not very often).

knuckle pushups:1 set almost every day 300-400reps

handstandpushups:1-2 sets 20-25 reps 2-3 times per week

pullups:1-2 sets 10-12 reps(i ignored them for too long time and now i regret) 2-3 times per week

squats:1 set 200 reps 2-3 times per week

I drink coffee on an empty stomach(no shugar,milk or cream)before my exercises.After workout i eat whatever i like to eat.Sleep at least 9-10 hours.

Started with pushups ,maybe about 15 years ago.My bodyweight was 86 kilos ,and my best was about 30 reps.

My program then consisted of many sets of pushups(total 1000) per day.After 2 or 3 months my best for 1 set increased to about 60 pushups.I realised that i overtrain myself.

So i tried another one:1 set pushups every day(started with 50 reps)and goal to increase the overall amount with 10% per month(actually my progress was faster)

After about 4 months my best was 120 pushups in 1 set,but this wasn`t enough for me and i give up again.

Few months later i asked myself a question:

instead to do 120 for 3-4 minutes, why not to do them for 10 minutes(that means 1 per 5 sec).The result was that

after about a year later i did my first 1000 non stop pushups for 1hr and 23min.

My personal best are:

knuckle pushups:1440 for 1hr(now most likely 1200)

handstand pushups:43(now most likely 30)

pullups:25 or 30 i don`t remember(but now 15 crappy ones)

one legged squats:don`t remember(now maybe 120 for 10 min if i force myself)

dips:80 (7-8 years ago)

Well, i think this is it.

Again,sorry if my english sucks too much ;D

Regards

KISA72"

Src = http://rosstraining.com/forum/viewtopic ... 40&start=0

A french guy:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xe1psu_500-hindu-squats_sport?start=10

This guy got more than 70 cm of legs by doing set of 200 repetions with 50 kilos of weight .Again look at his others videos which are pretty nice.

[Joshua Naterman]

These are great examples of achieving specific goals. These methods do not produce exceptional power, they produce excellent endurance. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't create a balanced athlete. I've done push up workouts like what the guy you quoted and shared the video of did when I was preparing for BUD/S and as I've said many times they work quite well for increasing your numbers. I still could barely do 6 reps with 225 when I was doing 120 perfect push ups in 2 minutes. If all you want is to get big, there are a lot of simple things you can do, but you should consider how quickly you get results, how balanced the body's strength is or is not, and how much time and effort the program requires to get the results you are looking for.

Just because something works doesn't mean it's the best way, and just because something isn't the best way doesn't mean it's a bad thing to do. My best friends in high school went down to florida, and on the way they somehow lost the drain cap to their oil pan. Well, what did they do? They were broke and in the middle of nowhere, so they bought a roll of duct tape, took off their sock, stuffed the sock into the hold, and duct taped the hell out of it! They left it there for 2400 miles, until the next oil change, and didn't have to top off the oil AT ALL during that time. Pretty good for an old car. Of course, they replaced the cap with a proper part that was easily removable and also did not leak. What the hell is the point of this story? What they did worked, and worked well. It wasn't the BEST thing, but it was pretty good and it did the job.

Sometimes fitness is like that. If you just want to look "ok" or get some big arms/legs there are a lot of ways to achieve that goal. Athletic performance is something different. If you're trying to be the best, there are far fewer ideal options. If you're trying to be THE BIGGEST, again, there are FAR fewer options.

I appreciate you sharing the video and the experiences of other people you know of. Keep in mind that looks do not equal performance, endurance does not mean you are strong for your size or strong period (and does not mean you are NOT strong either), and also that the programs you mention are fairly exclusive. The 500 Hindu squats are straight from Matt Furey, who in my opinion has a combination of questionable and very solid fitness programs. Using methods like these really keeps you from being able to much of anything else because of how much energy it takes. As the gentleman you quoted said, it is very easy to overtrain even with bodyweight work. You have to take your time, increase slowly, and be very consistent. People who ride street bicycles also tend to have huge thighs, but they aren't all that strong. It's energy storage. The only squat video that I was super duper impressed by was the 30+ pistols. I mean, his heel was elevated a good bit on a block, but still... that's pretty serious business.

High rep work is really, really good for developing a fast healing rate, because you build up lots of waste products and burn lots of stored sugar, so the body develops a very cool and useful system to handle this: MORE BLOOD VESSELS, specifically capillaries. With them, of course, comes more blood to fill them. More blood + more ways into and out of the muscles = faster transport of waste products AND repair substrates, which means you heal faster.

We get, to a large degree, the same benefits over time because of the WOD structures. They don't come as fast as they would with a very focused program like the ones you mentioned, but we get the advantage of developing far superior power and strength while still building very good endurance. The program here also keeps our bodies in a much healthier state of strength balance. That just means we are less susceptible to injury. I doubt any of us are going to do 1000 push ups in one hour because that takes a high level of very specific adaptations that simply work directly against the high-end strength we are trying to build, but I don't think it's impossible. The 30+ SLS guy, now that's very doable. Again, having that as a goal is fine, but that's not going to improve performance anywhere near as much as combining strength training with the explosive and plyometric work the way we do here. This forum's focus is creating the most powerful athlete at a given bodyweight, not the biggest arms or legs. You could certainly adapt the set and rep schemes to do so though, if that's what you want!

I DO think that doing a max rep set once or twice per week could be of great benefit to some of us, but for the most part it's not necessary unless your goal is to be doing 1000 push ups in an hour, like the guy you quoted seems to have had.

Oliver is right, you WILL get bigger and stronger doing what he has suggested than if you do nothing. However, while you may get far bigger due to the increased sugar storage, you will not develop strength to the degree you will with programs that are either strength oriented or have a complex cycle like we have here. For people who don't care about those details, I think it's great for them to just do tons of controlled push ups, pull ups and squats. It's way better than nothing, as long as they keep their strength balanced and build up very slowly.

I have to say, the hindu squat guy's legs are ok. He's carrying a LOT of extra weight, and 70cm = 27.6 inches. My legs currently, as of right now, are 26.5 inches around measured at 14" above my knee. If I measure at where my leg meets my pelvis they are 27", with far less fat, yet I do not train anywhere close to his way. I would be willing to bet that I can beat him on the vast majority of strength tests and power tests, and I would not be surprised if he beat me on the majority endurance tests, but who knows. We are aiming for completely different goals. I am almost certainly a more well-rounded athlete, but they are almost certainly far better at those specific things they practice. Neither I or they are better than each other. I would love to know how long it took them to get where they are at! It took me about a year to get somewhat bigger than I am now, I started at 190 lbs and ended up at 232 or so, at around 10% bodyfat. I'm currently 221 as of today, and have been the same size for quite a while. I'm not interested in intentionally getting bigger.

I'm not saying you won't build strength with their methods, I'm simply saying that you won't be as strong or powerful as you could be or should be at that size. If that doesn't matter to you, that's totally ok!

Methods like those will work as long as you can handle the boredom, or if you just plain old get excited by doing that many squats and/or push ups. Nothing wrong with that! It was fun for me when I was getting ready for BUDS. I'll still take the GB training over any of that any day of the week, and I would have modified the GB schedule to accommodate all the running and swimming I had to do to get ready if this program had existed in 2000 and I had known about it.

These are great videos, very motivational for people who would say these things are only possible with bad form, because the guys in the video are using pretty much perfect form and control. Very impressive.

[GymnasticBodiesUser]

Hi slizzarman,

There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't create a balanced athlete

Using methods like these really keeps you from being able to much of anything else because of how much energy it takes.

I agree with you it's the disadvantages of workouts with few exercises.

Keep in mind that looks do not equal performance, endurance does not mean you are strong for your size or strong period (and does not mean you are NOT strong either)

Yes undoubtedly, but when you do full range of motion it's strength and endurance you are working. A full bodyweight squat is different that running.

The 500 Hindu squats are straight from Matt Furey, who in my opinion has a combination of questionable and very solid fitness programs

The guy that does the 500 hindu squat his name is Franck. He did the video for the purpose of a contest.

Actually I believe hindu squat aren't a part of his workout but he does them time to time. He once did 2000 or 2500 hindu squats in 1 h 30 .

The only squat video that I was super duper impressed by was the 30+ pistols. I mean, his heel was elevated a good bit on a block, but still... that's pretty serious business.

He does that because otherwise it hurt him. He can do 100 in a row with a faster tempo. Did you check out the video where he does 100 one leg hindu squat?

I have to say, the hindu squat guy's legs are ok. He's carrying a LOT of extra weight, and 70cm = 27.6 inches. My legs currently, as of right now, are 26.5 inches around measured at 14" above my knee. If I measure at where my leg meets my pelvis they are 27", with far less fat, yet I do not train anywhere close to his way.

He is 5’7.3 = 1 m 71.

You are 6'2 = 1m 88 right?

Also Franck worked his leg with light weight ( as I said "70 cm of legs by doing set of 200 repetitions with 50 kilos of weight ") and one legged squat without weight.But it dates back to some years. For upper body he used to lift heavy weight.

He did once 105@198 lbs & 365@121 lbs, squat // ,at 90 kilos (198 lbs) of body weigh.

I have seen a video of him doing a tiger bend against a wall without leaning forward but that's off topic.

Methods like those will work as long as you can handle the boredom, or if you just plain old get excited by doing that many squats and/or push ups. Nothing wrong with that! It was fun for me when I was getting ready for BUDS. I'll still take the GB training over any of that any day of the week, and I would have modified the GB schedule to accommodate all the running and swimming I had to do to get ready if this program had existed in 2000 and I had known about it.

Of course I recommend if you do those kind of workout, to change bodyweight squat for single legs squat. Doing hundred and hundred of bodyweight squat to failure 5 times a week is insane... even if it works.

while you may get far bigger due to the increased sugar storage, you will not develop strength to the degree you will with programs that are either strength oriented or have a complex cycle like we have here.

That's possible. I don't know to which extent you get strong doing very hight repetition exercises as described above due to the fact the degree of overall fitness is difficult to measure. And this is assuming you do one pulling movement, one pushing movement and one exercise for legs. Plus as you can't do a lot of exercises ( 2- 3) it's difficult to work your body under all angles, the abs and lower back are only exercised in static for example. and it's why i think ( edit: with others factors) you don't get as strong as u would with program like coach does.

However and it's the only point where I disagree with you: I don't think the size you get is due to increased sugar storage only. I have read that the "development of the sarcoplasm is proportional to the nucleus (myofibrils / sarcomere), we can not increase glycogen stores above a certain threshold (low) if we don't create new "fibers"."

These are great videos, very motivational for people who would say these things are only possible with bad form, because the guys in the video are using pretty much perfect form and control. Very impressive.

Good u liked theses videos, I just wanted to show you guys that he was possible to get strong and big with plenty of repetition contrary to what is commonly said.

[Joshua Naterman]

However and it's the only point where I disagree with you: I don't think the size you get is due to increased sugar storage only. I have read that the "development of the sarcoplasm is proportional to the nucleus (myofibrils / sarcomere), we can not increase glycogen stores above a certain threshold (low) if we don't create new "fibers"."

That's true and not true at the same time! When you're working pure strength endurance you are going to get a lot of non-contractile protein synthesis. The studies referenced above actually do a really good job of showing that this is true. So you're absolutely right, in order to increase the sugar storage beyond certain points there have to be structural proteins added. The only difference is that they are not all contractile proteins, meaning actin/myosin. I was a little surprised by that at first, but it makes sense.

The way this guy does the reps of push ups will build a LOT more muscle tissue than if he went faster, which is (I think) a large part of why he got as big as he did. That is not how most people do push ups, especially for high reps, which is (again, I think) why many people don't get particularly big by doing them.

WOW! I figured the squat guy was a bit shorter than me, but that's pretty short! 27" legs are pretty big on him. Keep in mind that I've seen other people who could do the high rep Hindu squats and they were nowhere near as big. Size is a strange thing. There was a bodybuilder who did something similar to frank's 200 rep sets with 50 kilo and had absolutely incredible legs. He did 120 reps with 225 lbs, around 100 kilo. That's the other thing about this type of work, it takes a long time to produce these size gains, but it's good to see! Pretty much all natural athletes take a long time to build up their bodies. I wonder how long it took Franck to build up to that from when he started?

[GymnasticBodiesUser]

Franck started with 4 sets of around 30 rep with a load of 110 pounds "à la" //. I don't know what was his legs mensurations but I know he was already lifting weight before..

6 Years later he ended up with more than 200 rep in one set with the same load. Then he stopped this kind of training and built up in two years and half 308 lbs *14 at barbell hack squat. During this period he did 105@198 lbs at // squat. Around (2000 or 2001).

I post the entire translation in case you find it of any interest ,of the post where he explains a bit what he did. I think it's quite understandable ( thx google) thought I don't have the time to clean it up.

This is a quick summary

In fact since I have always resulted in me, I quickly realized that I was going to hell to the thighs. Without bar rests nor strong enough to support heavy loads was limited to light for the squat. And every magazine I read said he had to train heavy. Strictly speaking it was sometimes recommended as standard practice for long legs. But "long series" that meant around 20 rep. It would therefore still necessary that I use a bar that I could not easily support.

Then one day I read an article where he Texier said that the volume depends on the intensity and the intensity is divided by the tonnage the time to do this size. So I decided to test this idea for the thighs.

When I started I had to make about 4 * 30 with 50 kg and parallel.

The first year I was not very serious, I just tried what weight to use, I also test a few squats on a JBE. Then when I got into it seriously, I've found the right frequency and I was able to manage low back pain (I had to burn much more than legs lower back), progress has been constant. My tonnage progressed continuously on my 4 series with 50 kg and thighs swelled steadily.

After a while I came to a tonnage of 20 tons. As it was a lot of rep, I stayed there.

The goal then became to my 20 tons as soon as possible. Of all the rep there is a lot of rest-pause. It had to do less or make it less long or take a shorter rest between sets. My strategy was to make the maximum on the first series for the last one is the quietest possible. But when it comes to 200 rep we are in no hurry to take the bar again in 100. It took at least 45 minutes for my 4 series but I still have 67 of thighs.

So it went like that after. There was a time when I moved parallel squats squats complete. At another time I went to 55 kg in order to make the same tonnage with less reps.

To save time, the simplest way was to reduce the serial nb. I am gradually increased from 4 sets to 2 and then finally one. I was able to do my tonnage 27m30 and I made 72 legs.

Obviously it was in weight gain and there was a lot of food to support the training.

I had to do 92-93 waist (and not 98 as I have written on other forum) and the same weight.

By cons this is not done overnight but over 6 years.

Subsequently, I am unmotivated because it was very hard and I was especially motivated by the big thighs since I had them. I thought since I worked in long series but I was not very tough and I've been gradually hack squat bar to increase my strength and keep my legs continue to swell. Galley is big thighs.

In two and a half years I went up to 14 * 140 is also where I hurt myself on the back. And during this time my legs have remained between 72 and 70. But on the other hand I have not continued to take the thighs as with light training, while my upper body it has continued to grow during this time.

During this period "force" I went back to the tonnage at a time with more weight and I did 105 * 90. But it did not last long view it was too complicated with my hardware.

To summarize, I made my legs swell with light and then I have maintained and even "successful" results in heavy.

[Daniel Jorgensen]

Background

We aimed to determine the effect of resistance exercise intensity (% 1 repetition maximum—1RM) and volume on muscle protein synthesis, anabolic signaling, and myogenic gene expression.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Fifteen men (21±1 years; BMI = 24.1±0.8 kg/m2) performed 4 sets of unilateral leg extension exercise at different exercise loads and/or volumes: 90% of repetition maximum (1RM) until volitional failure (90FAIL), 30% 1RM work-matched to 90%FAIL (30WM), or 30% 1RM performed until volitional failure (30FAIL). Infusion of [ring-13C6] phenylalanine with biopsies was used to measure rates of mixed (MIX), myofibrillar (MYO), and sarcoplasmic (SARC) protein synthesis at rest, and 4 h and 24 h after exercise. Exercise at 30WM induced a significant increase above rest in MIX (121%) and MYO (87%) protein synthesis at 4 h post-exercise and but at 24 h in the MIX only. The increase in the rate of protein synthesis in MIX and MYO at 4 h post-exercise with 90FAIL and 30FAIL was greater than 30WM, with no difference between these conditions; however, MYO remained elevated (199%) above rest at 24 h only in 30FAIL. There was a significant increase in AktSer473 at 24h in all conditions (P = 0.023) and mTORSer2448 phosphorylation at 4 h post-exercise (P = 0.025). Phosporylation of Erk1/2Tyr202/204, p70S6KThr389, and 4E-BP1Thr37/46 increased significantly (P<0.05) only in the 30FAIL condition at 4 h post-exercise, whereas, 4E-BP1Thr37/46 phosphorylation was greater 24 h after exercise than at rest in both 90FAIL (237%) and 30FAIL (312%) conditions. Pax7 mRNA expression increased at 24 h post-exercise (P = 0.02) regardless of condition. The mRNA expression of MyoD and myogenin were consistently elevated in the 30FAIL condition.

Conclusions/Significance

These results suggest that low-load high volume resistance exercise is more effective in inducing acute muscle anabolism than high-load low volume or work matched resistance exercise modes.

Full text: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi ... ne.0012033

Thoughts????

What thought are you expecting? Or what are you asking about? Having not read the full text, but only the concluded I don't think there is anything new to this. Especially, not when talking acute size gain.

[Daniel Jorgensen]

Hi,

you can get bigger and stronger with only simple bodyweight exercise such as push-up and bodyweight squat.

"You should choose only a few exercises and you do them almost everyday.

You must do one set with pause at the top and you stop only when you can't perform any more repetitions...

Foz size you must eat a lot and a lot otherwise you can melt.

And 5 times a week."

Source :Oliver Lafay a french guy.

Two examples :

"Kisa072"

6jSLdTvOu5A.swf

This guy is very good at doing push up and u can see by looking at this arm that he looks pretty strong.

I wanted to show you another video but looks like I can't; Anyway looks at his othre video, there is one where he does 200 deep pushups in less than 10 minutes.

Someone asked him about his routines and he replied :

"I`ll try to answer your questions, though my english is not good enough.So excuse me if it`s not very understandable.

My exercises these days are:knuckle pushups, handstand pushups,pull ups,squats and some shadow boxing ( not very often).

knuckle pushups:1 set almost every day 300-400reps

handstandpushups:1-2 sets 20-25 reps 2-3 times per week

pullups:1-2 sets 10-12 reps(i ignored them for too long time and now i regret) 2-3 times per week

squats:1 set 200 reps 2-3 times per week

I drink coffee on an empty stomach(no shugar,milk or cream)before my exercises.After workout i eat whatever i like to eat.Sleep at least 9-10 hours.

Started with pushups ,maybe about 15 years ago.My bodyweight was 86 kilos ,and my best was about 30 reps.

My program then consisted of many sets of pushups(total 1000) per day.After 2 or 3 months my best for 1 set increased to about 60 pushups.I realised that i overtrain myself.

So i tried another one:1 set pushups every day(started with 50 reps)and goal to increase the overall amount with 10% per month(actually my progress was faster)

After about 4 months my best was 120 pushups in 1 set,but this wasn`t enough for me and i give up again.

Few months later i asked myself a question:

instead to do 120 for 3-4 minutes, why not to do them for 10 minutes(that means 1 per 5 sec).The result was that

after about a year later i did my first 1000 non stop pushups for 1hr and 23min.

My personal best are:

knuckle pushups:1440 for 1hr(now most likely 1200)

handstand pushups:43(now most likely 30)

pullups:25 or 30 i don`t remember(but now 15 crappy ones)

one legged squats:don`t remember(now maybe 120 for 10 min if i force myself)

dips:80 (7-8 years ago)

Well, i think this is it.

Again,sorry if my english sucks too much ;D

Regards

KISA72"

Src = http://rosstraining.com/forum/viewtopic ... 40&start=0

A french guy:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xe1psu_500-hindu-squats_sport?start=10

This guy got more than 70 cm of legs by doing set of 200 repetions with 50 kilos of weight .Again look at his others videos which are pretty nice.

Those arms and legs are not build from high repping, but through many years of conditioning! As the PU guy says: 15 years!!!

Reaching their measures could be done maybe in 3-4 years using good designed hyperstrophy protocols.

Working out like that when the goals is merely size would be "becomming a pro-soccer player in order to get big calves"; "becomming a plummer/auto-mechanical in order to get big forearms"; or "a pro-tour cyclist to get big thighs"

:wink: :wink:

[GymnasticBodiesUser]

Hi,

Those arms and legs are not build from high repping, but through many years of conditioning! As the PU guy says: 15 years!!!

Reaching their measures could be done maybe in 3-4 years using good designed hyperstrophy protocols.

I don't think. It's like saying that, to get strong with gymnastic training you need to start at the young age of 5, to works 6 hours per day 4 times a week in the gym and then after 15 years of such training you are strong. And I remember having read that on some forum.

http://www.gymnasticbodies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1007

This video show the opposite: in 5 years "he does start out as a pretty skinny kid and looks pretty dam muscular by the end!" as someone said :wink:

Plus , maybe he reached his measures after only 3-4 years of training, who knows? After all he took him less than two years to reach 1000 pushup!

Working out like that when the goals is merely size would be "becomming a pro-soccer player in order to get big calves"; "becomming a plummer/auto-mechanical in order to get big forearms"; or "a pro-tour cyclist to get big thighs"

Why "merely size" ? The push up guy did also 80 dips and 43 handstand push up and I have seen a video of him doing around 65 handstand push-up arched, leg crooked, noise touching the ground ( he removed almost all of his video lately) . So when he says 43 handstand push-up he may probably talk about full range of motion handstand push-up. If this not strength I don't know what strength is...

[Daniel Jorgensen]

Hi,

Those arms and legs are not build from high repping, but through many years of conditioning! As the PU guy says: 15 years!!!

Reaching their measures could be done maybe in 3-4 years using good designed hyperstrophy protocols.

I don't think. It's like saying that, to get strong with gymnastic training you need to start at the young age of 5, to works 6 hours per day 4 times a week in the gym and then after 15 years of such training you are strong. And I remember having read that on some forum.

http://www.gymnasticbodies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1007

This video show the opposite: in 5 years "he does start out as a pretty skinny kid and looks pretty dam muscular by the end!" as someone said :wink:

Plus , maybe he reached his measures after only 3-4 years of training, who knows? After all he took him less than two years to reach 1000 pushup!

Working out like that when the goals is merely size would be "becomming a pro-soccer player in order to get big calves"; "becomming a plummer/auto-mechanical in order to get big forearms"; or "a pro-tour cyclist to get big thighs"

Why "merely size" ? The push up guy did also 80 dips and 43 handstand push up and I have seen a video of him doing around 65 handstand push-up arched, leg crooked, noise touching the ground ( he removed almost all of his video lately) . So when he says 43 handstand push-up he may probably talk about full range of motion handstand push-up. If this not strength I don't know what strength is...[/quote]

I think you misunderstand me, and i'm not sure what to ask, 'cause maybe I misunderstand you too. Note that i'm speaking with a "how to gain size fast" as that would be the topic of the thread.

About the PU guy, well we can always guess about his size and when he gained what - but you won't make me say that it's specifically due do high repping that he has gained size. It's the amount of time(in years) he has been doing hard work. And i'm at no point saying he isn't strong :wink:

On gymnastics: I'm no saying you need such a protocol to get strong - not at all. To be honest I don't really get your response. Are you saying that you don't need 15 years to gain size? Well, I never ment to say, that you need 15 years. My point was that size will always come with time when you perform such work, but if you want to gain size fast classical hyperstrophy protocols are way faster the 1000 rep pushups or gymnastics.

[GymnasticBodiesUser]

Ok, I understand you more clearly. Well I think he has gained size simply because he has... eaten enough. I doubt you can gain size doing this kind of exercise if you don't eat a lot.

[Daniel Jorgensen]

Regarding the article: From a danish board the clever people state, that this specific study is highly overrated/mis-used. Higher protein synthesis is not necessarily connected to muscle growth.

Fun fact: I actually went to mcmaster university last year - and was invited to participate in the study. However, i was too afraid of the biopsies :oops:

[Joshua Naterman]

EXACTLY. That's what I was saying in my initial comments. Without a longer term study to track these things(hypertrophy and strength gain with different protocols) with the exact parameters used in the referenced study in this thread there's no way to say. 6 weeks wouldn't be enough, you'd really need a 12+week study to have even a half-decent idea. Ideally a 26-52 week study would be the best, but good luck getting funding lol!