20 year old girl wanting to gain muscle, need advice!
Replies
-
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
Wow, this guy is such a cocky sumb!tch. But that looks like one solid novice workout plan, thank you for posting this, I'll have to try this out myself!
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »If doing higher rep ranges don't matter if you are doing the same intensity, then why not just do the smaller reps.
-4 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »If doing higher rep ranges don't matter if you are doing the same intensity, then why not just do the smaller reps.
It's okay if you've confused yourself. I don't think anyone else is understanding you either.
-1 -
PikaKnight wrote: »
It's okay if you've confused yourself. I don't think anyone else is understanding you either.
I understand that you think the best way to progress is to cut volume by 1/2 or even 1/3. Keep cutting volume until you're doing nothing at all and absolutely jacked!
-2 -
This content has been removed.
-
-
This content has been removed.
-
-1
-
ScottJTyler wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »
WHAA? Stronglifts is a 3x a week workout. Have you actually read the program????
huh?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.
Because we all know that 1 day of super high volume > 3 days of more moderate volume, right???
0 -
What's going on in here?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.
Yes, and SL IS higher frequency. Full body workout have been shown to work better for those relatively new at lifting.
0 -
No, you corrected nothing. And then you tried to post a study which you obviously didn't read, you got called on it and never replied to it.
You're just confused.
Yep it's an imperfect study. You did a good job of highlighting the limitations which were already pointed out by the analyser.
It was just one of many recent studies suggesting that there is no intrinsic hypertrophy benefit for training in the 'hypertrophy rep range' and that it's all down to time under tension. It's probably unnecessary detail but I thought it would be worth correcting (clearly not as some people have academic inertia).
I would be interested to see some kind of evidence that a decrease in volume (all other variables constant) would result in increased hypertrophy.
0 -
LOL, no.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.
Fewer sets and reps but higher weights, meaning intensity will stay at standard, or increase. 8-12 reps is easy, 5 reps with 90% is hard. If you don't understand that, go try it and find out.
Your understanding of Pika's explanation is what is lacking here.
For the OP, working a 5/3/1 would be fine, with added accessory work for aesthetics, if you're in the camp though that volume = intensity, suggest GVT.
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »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*
I think his point is that there is not really any. I agree to a degree. Specificity is a factor in choosing a routine however. Competitive BB'ers have to work at aesthetics. PL'ers do not.
0 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »It just descended into people getting basic things about training wrong and me correcting them.
Aren't you the same guy who isn't gaining on 6000 calories? :huh:
So I mean, how right are you really, because thus far in your posting history it doesn't actually seem like you know as much as your brain thinks it does...
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »What's going on in here?
A newbie who is an expert of all things iron.0 -
0
-
For anyone interested in more learning more about rep ranges (and why the can be a bit of a misnomer), this is a good video. One of Layne Norton's BioLayne Video Logs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GenviIWIeqA
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »What's going on in here?
A newbie who is an expert of all things iron.
Please quote one thing I have said which is incorrect.
Because we all know that 1 day of super high volume > 3 days of more moderate volume, right???
I have recommended higher frequency throughout this whole post. Yes 5x5 has good frequency but the overall volume for the week is too low (only 75 reps). I said to spread the 192-360 reps over the week rather than do it all in one workout.0 -
-
0
-
ScottJTyler wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »What's going on in here?
A newbie who is an expert of all things iron.
Please quote one thing I have said which is incorrect.
Because we all know that 1 day of super high volume > 3 days of more moderate volume, right???
I have recommended higher frequency throughout this whole post. Yes 5x5 has good frequency but the overall volume for the week is too low (only 75 reps). I said to spread the 192-360 reps over the week rather than do it all in one workout.
Are you saying that squats are the only lift in SL that work legs?
You do realize that there is a limit to how much muscle you can gain in a workout. More does not always mean more and often means less.
Also, how exactly should she spread this out? Assuming of course she can get to the gym more often of course.
You also seem to be saying that SL would be worse than the OPs current program one minute, but arguing points that would say it is better the other.
0 -
Pardon me while I settle in for the show(down). This is like a win-win... I watch a smackdown and I get to learn more about lifting from someone who knows their sh-tuff.
0 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »1. When volume is accounted for, there is no difference in hypertrophy between rep ranges (with the caveat of sufficient intensity).For anyone interested in more learning more about rep ranges (and why the can be a bit of a misnomer), this is a good video. One of Layne Norton's BioLayne Video Logs.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GenviIWIeqA
3:00 Thanks
0 -
PrizePopple wrote: »Pardon me while I settle in for the show(down). This is like a win-win... I watch a smackdown and I get to learn more about lifting from someone who knows their sh-tuff.
Absorb as much of what Sara writes as you can.0 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »ScottJTyler wrote: »1. When volume is accounted for, there is no difference in hypertrophy between rep ranges (with the caveat of sufficient intensity).For anyone interested in more learning more about rep ranges (and why the can be a bit of a misnomer), this is a good video. One of Layne Norton's BioLayne Video Logs.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GenviIWIeqA
3:00 Thanks
You have a really bad cherry picking habit. Continue watching...actually watching. In fact, start over and really pay attention.
0 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »ScottJTyler wrote: »1. When volume is accounted for, there is no difference in hypertrophy between rep ranges (with the caveat of sufficient intensity).For anyone interested in more learning more about rep ranges (and why the can be a bit of a misnomer), this is a good video. One of Layne Norton's BioLayne Video Logs.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GenviIWIeqA
3:00 Thanks
Are you missing the point on purpose?
0 -
It sounds to me like it's just a matter of more food. I would say to try adding an additional 300-500 calories a day and see how that works out. Your routine sounds pretty solid and for 104lbs, your weights are pretty solid.
No fear of the carbs or the fats either. You're getting good protein, so it just sounds like it's a matter of calories. Good luck!0 -
0
-
You do realize that there is a limit to how much muscle you can gain in a workout. More does not always mean more and often means less.
Again, show some evidence that a reduction in volume consistently results in increased hypertrophy.
Also, how exactly should she spread this out? Assuming of course she can get to the gym more often of course.
She doesn't necessarily need to go to the gym more often, just spread the volume out in the current gym days.You also seem to be saying that SL would be worse than the OPs current program one minute, but arguing points that would say it is better the other.
OP's current program
High-ish Volume
Low Frequency
5x5
Lower volume
High Frequency
My Recommendation
Same Volume
Higher Frequency
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions