20 year old girl wanting to gain muscle, need advice!
Options
Replies
-
PikaKnight wrote: »Stronglifts 5x5 is great for strength and beginners.
For a more intermediate lifting program (that's strength focused, though), you could consider Wendler's 5/3/1.
Great advice for someone interested in hypertrophy who has been lifting for a year.PikaKnight wrote: »
how did I tell her to do less work? I'm pretty sure what I did was explain about rep ranges.
Those programs prescribe fewer sets and reps than she is currently doing.
You explained rep ranges incorrectly.
0 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »Stronglifts 5x5 is great for strength and beginners.
For a more intermediate lifting program (that's strength focused, though), you could consider Wendler's 5/3/1.
Great advice for someone interested in hypertrophy who has been lifting for a year.PikaKnight wrote: »
how did I tell her to do less work? I'm pretty sure what I did was explain about rep ranges.
Those programs prescribe fewer sets and reps than she is currently doing.
You explained rep ranges incorrectly.
Reading comprehension fail, buddy. Seriously. RE-READ the WHOLE THING. I'll even bold the things you conveniently missed.Stronglifts 5x5 is great for strength and beginners (which, although you are a year in, might benefit you better than your split workout unless you are knowledgeable in creating your own programs), but it doesn't focus on hypertrophy. Still, body recomposition and gains happen, just not as quickly than if you were to be on a program that focuses on it.
Other great beginner type programs that focus more on the hypertrophy range are:
Strong Curves (includes beginner, advanced, and bodyweight programs, as well as great info about training in general that I think everyone should know. It also includes a template if you really want to create your own lifting program.)
AllPros
Starting Strength is also a great book to have for technique/form and general knowledge.
For a more intermediate lifting program (that's strength focused, though), you could consider Wendler's 5/3/1.
To note, when I mentioned Wendler's, I did add in (as I bolded) "that's strength focused, though". Here's the longer version of what I meant when I said this to help you out - "Here's an intermediate lifting program, but it is strength based, not hypertrophy based, but I'm putting it here to give you options just in case you decide you'd prefer this."
And I'm telling the rep ranges wrong? Oh. One moment.
(Let me add that although some of the programs are great/intended for beginners, it doesn't mean only beginners can do them. It also doesn't mean intermediate beginners might not benefit at all from them, either. )0 -
Please elaborate further on what you mean by the bold.
Also, you should notice that you are speaking about training as if things are black and white when things are much more broad. The resistance you are seeing in this thread is primarily due to you speaking in absolutes. Saying things like "some basic information for you" is an easy way to set yourself up for a long battle here. Many of us might mess around on the forums and have fun but when it comes down to actually having a real debate, there are many people on here that know much more than they lead people to believe.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/effects-of-different-volume-equated-resistance-training-loading-strategies-on-muscular-adaptations-in-well-trained-men-research-review.html/
A review of the study looking at training in different rep ranges when volume is equated. Not conclusive but interesting.
I'm just stating very uncontroversial, basic fundamentals of muscle growth. The only absolute I'm talking about is that more work=more gains which I don't think there's much of an argument about.
I heard windsurfing is pretty cool too maybe the OP should give that a go.PikaKnight wrote: »I'm putting it here to give you options just in case you decide you'd prefer this."
-3 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »
I heard windsurfing is pretty cool too maybe the OP should give that a go.PikaKnight wrote: »I'm putting it here to give you options just in case you decide you'd prefer this."
-1 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »
Please elaborate further on what you mean by the bold.
Also, you should notice that you are speaking about training as if things are black and white when things are much more broad. The resistance you are seeing in this thread is primarily due to you speaking in absolutes. Saying things like "some basic information for you" is an easy way to set yourself up for a long battle here. Many of us might mess around on the forums and have fun but when it comes down to actually having a real debate, there are many people on here that know much more than they lead people to believe.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/effects-of-different-volume-equated-resistance-training-loading-strategies-on-muscular-adaptations-in-well-trained-men-research-review.html/
A review of the study looking at training in different rep ranges when volume is equated. Not conclusive but interesting.
I'm just stating very uncontroversial, basic fundamentals of muscle growth. The only absolute I'm talking about is that more work=more gains which I don't think there's much of an argument about.
Things to point out about the study:Finally it’s worth noting that the study was only 8 weeks long and no mid-point measurements were made to avoid interrupting the study (often you see different rates of growth or strength with different protocols). Also keep in mind that ONLY the biceps was measured and there’s no guarantee that the results are generalizable to other muscle groupsBut it’s important to note that the point of this study was not actually an attempt to determine whether heavy strength training or hypertrophy training was superior for generating growth or strength (a point Brad made himself in a discussion on Facebook about the paper a few weeks back). Rather, the study simply set out to mechanistically examine the issue of whether growth (or strength gains) would be different or the same when loading volume was equated. That’s it, it was just a mechanistic thing because that’s what a lot of science is.
However, the researchers do offer:
“Based on the findings, strength-related gains appear to be maximized by performing heavy- as compared to moderate- load training, although both protocols significantly and markedly improved indices of maximal strength. On the other hand, increases in muscle thickness in experienced lifters appear to be similar in bodybuilding- and powerlifting-type when volume-load is controlled, at least over a relatively short time period.
The greater time efficiency of bodybuilding-type training would seem to make it a superior choice for those seeking to increase muscle mass, although these results are limited to the biceps brachii and cannot necessarily be generalized to other muscles.
So what you said:When volume is accounted for, there is no difference in hypertrophy between rep ranges (with the caveat of sufficient intensity).
It is even said, basically, that in the long run, rep ranges would matter ** (powerlifting 5 or less reps versus body building style of hypertrophy training 8-12), even though the study was just done for biceps.
**To clarify - would matter to your goals, whether they be strength or hypertrophy. Which would circle back to what I said about reps.
0 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »I second (third?) the advice to switch to StrongLifts or StartingStrength
No. SS and 5x5 are too low volume. By the sounds of your leg workout you are already training at quite a high volume so if you switch to them you will lose muscle.
Stronglifts and starting strength are great for complete beginners but if you have experience of how to train already then they will make you regress.
Try increasing frequency. Optimum training frequency for most body parts is 2-3 times per week (elevated protein synthesis only occurs for ~48 hours after working a muscle). Lower the volume in each workout but spread it over the week. So rather than doing 20 sets of legs in one go, do 10 sets on Monday and 10 sets on Thursday for example.
And of course: increase calories.
How is SL too low volume, especially based on what you have noted re 'optimum training'?
Also, volume =/= frequency.
0 -
She said that she's been lifting for over a year but got serious the past 4-5 months.
I'm curious, though, what programs she has done in the past. I was assuming the current one she's doing was written up herself.
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »
Thanks - did not spot that.
OP: I would not do a full split routine. Depending on your schedule, a full body would probably work best based on where you are. You would want one that incorporate the 'big' compound lifts as well as had varying rep ranges for your lifts. Generally, stick to the lower end on reps for the compounds (5 x 5 or 3 x 5 is good) and go higher in the assistance work - between 8 - 15 generally, depending on the lift.
Even though I think he is a tool, Blaha's routine is pretty good: http://www.muscleandstrength.com/workouts/jason-blaha-ice-cream-fitness-5x5-novice-workout
0 -
BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »I agree that Stronglifts and Starting Strength are not hypertrophy programs. They are great, don't get me wrong, but for a 104 pound girl who wants to add mass it's going to be really hard to do so. Stronglifts might work for adding mass for a 20 year old dude eating 4000 calories a day, but not for a woman. She needs every extra advantage she can get, and that would be a hypertrophy specific program. When I was bulking I did an upper/lower body split, which I've read is slightly better than body part splits (which are really only needed by the very advanced). And an upper/lower split allows you to lift more than 3 times a week (which you are limited to with a full body), which is again advantages for gaining (I think). I don't know of a specific published program though. Let me see what I can find.
Interested in what you come up with0 -
How is SL too low volume, especially based on what you have noted re 'optimum training'?
Also, volume =/= frequency.
SL is too low volume for her as it is lower than she is doing currently.
Once per week is not optimum frequency. 2+ has been shown to give more gains (even equating for volume).
Volume is total work done in a certain length of time. Frequency is how often a body part or movement is trained.
All make sense?
0 -
Higher reps/lower weight preferences sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and lower reps/higher weight preferences myofibrullar hypertrophy. Please get this right you don't "Lose" muscle but you may lose some of the sarcoplasm surrounding the muscle fibres but that's not muscle per se.
So if you want to look like a body builder you should go for higher reps and if you want to look like an underclass powerlifter or Olympic lifter you should go for the lower rep ranges. It's a rather silly argument to be having until you want to know what the OP is aiming for.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Higher reps/lower weight preferences sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and lower reps/higher weight preferences myofibrullar hypertrophy. Please get this right you don't "Lose" muscle but you may lose some of the sarcoplasm surrounding the muscle fibres but that's not muscle per se.
So if you want to look like a body builder you should go for higher reps and if you want to look like an underclass powerlifter or Olympic lifter you should go for the lower rep ranges. It's a rather silly argument to be having until you want to know what the OP is aiming for.
http://baye.com/myth-of-sarcoplasmic-versus-myofibrillar-hypertrophy/
Have you ever seen a tangible difference in the 'look' of the muscles of a powerlifter vs a bodybuilder with similar bodyfat %s?0 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »
How is SL too low volume, especially based on what you have noted re 'optimum training'?
Also, volume =/= frequency.
SL is too low volume for her as it is lower than she is doing currently.
Once per week is not optimum frequency. 2+ has been shown to give more gains (even equating for volume).
Volume is total work done in a certain length of time. Frequency is how often a body part or movement is trained.
All make sense?
WHAA? Stronglifts is a 3x a week workout. Have you actually read the program????
0 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Higher reps/lower weight preferences sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and lower reps/higher weight preferences myofibrullar hypertrophy. Please get this right you don't "Lose" muscle but you may lose some of the sarcoplasm surrounding the muscle fibres but that's not muscle per se.
So if you want to look like a body builder you should go for higher reps and if you want to look like an underclass powerlifter or Olympic lifter you should go for the lower rep ranges. It's a rather silly argument to be having until you want to know what the OP is aiming for.
http://baye.com/myth-of-sarcoplasmic-versus-myofibrillar-hypertrophy/
Have you ever seen a tangible difference in the 'look' of the muscles of a powerlifter vs a bodybuilder with similar bodyfat %s?
*points to Sara*0 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »
How is SL too low volume, especially based on what you have noted re 'optimum training'?
Also, volume =/= frequency.
SL is too low volume for her as it is lower than she is doing currently.
Once per week is not optimum frequency. 2+ has been shown to give more gains (even equating for volume).
Volume is total work done in a certain length of time. Frequency is how often a body part or movement is trained.
All make sense?
Are you familiar with the SL program? It is not a once a week routine at all. She is pretty much on a 1 x a week split at the moment.
I am well aware of what volume is.
To lay it out for you, with SL, for example, you squat 3 x a week which = 5 x 5 x 3 = 75 reps at a relatively high % of 1RM.
The OP is also relatively new to lifting - 'optimal' routines vary on the individual, and especially where they are in their lifting life.0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »
WHAA? Stronglifts is a 3x a week workout. Have you actually read the program????
-4 -
jaimesparkman wrote: »
monday-legs
tuesday-shoulders
wednesday- biceps and triceps
thursday- rest
friday- chest
saturday- active rest like yoga or something
I do 8-10 exercises. I go as heavy as i can. 3 sets per exercise (usually), 8-12 reps.
So that's 192-360 reps per week for each muscle group. That's likely to be more volume than 75 even accounting for the greater weight used in 5 x 5. I am aware SL is 3 per week. I was recommending that OP continue with her current volume but increase frequency i.e. spread the same volume over more workouts.The OP is also relatively new to lifting - 'optimal' routines vary on the individual, and especially where they are in their lifting life.
That's true but higher frequencies have generally been shown to work better and the OP said she is plateau-ing at 1x per week.
0 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »jaimesparkman wrote: »
monday-legs
tuesday-shoulders
wednesday- biceps and triceps
thursday- rest
friday- chest
saturday- active rest like yoga or something
I do 8-10 exercises. I go as heavy as i can. 3 sets per exercise (usually), 8-12 reps.
So that's 192-360 reps per week for each muscle group. That's likely to be more volume than 75 even accounting for the greater weight used in 5 x 5. I am aware SL is 3 per week. I was recommending that OP continue with her current volume but increase frequency i.e. spread the same volume over more workouts.The OP is also relatively new to lifting - 'optimal' routines vary on the individual, and especially where they are in their lifting life.
That's true but higher frequencies have generally been shown to work better and the OP said she is plateau-ing at 1x per week.
I thought when she was talking of plateauing (which she actually said "no gains") - she was referring to muscle growth/body recomping, not weight lifted. So what are you referring to when you say "work better". Is this in regards to strength or her goal to build muscle?
And I was under the assumption that her lack of progress was due to the fact she wasn't eating at a calorie surplus, which is why most of the comments on page 1 are "eat more."
Also per the article you posted to support your hypertrophy and strength ranges "don't matter" statements, as well as what you said above about how you don't think that the look of powerlifters and bodybuilders differ that much...then why would she increase her frequency?
In fact, your argument would actually support doing Stronglifts (or the Blaha's program at least) versus not doing it. If doing higher rep ranges don't matter if you are doing the same intensity, then why not just do the smaller reps.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 965 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions