20 year old girl wanting to gain muscle, need advice!

1246

Replies

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    edited November 2014
    dbmata 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.

    Sarauk2sf wrote: »

    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.

    Please answer the question as to how you think the OP will get more frequency - to all muscle groups.

    Also, you are assuming that the 192 - 360 reps hit all muscles with some degree of intensity for each of the lifts.

    You are also assuming that squats are the only lift that impacts lower body.

    You are also assuming that there is no cap to the amount of muscle gain in a day/week.

    You are also assuming that none of the warmup sets count towards hypertrophy.

  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    edited November 2014
    Luckily, rep volume is the ONLY variable to worry about. Ever.
  • ScottJTyler
    ScottJTyler Posts: 72 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »

    Are you missing the point on purpose?

    OK what's the point? I am happy to learn.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »

    Are you missing the point on purpose?

    OK what's the point? I am happy to learn.


    Actually, from your posting, no you are not.
  • ScottJTyler
    ScottJTyler Posts: 72 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »

    Please answer the question as to how you think the OP will get more frequency - to all muscle groups.

    Cut each workout into a quarter and do it 4x a week. Or in half and 2x per week.
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Also, you are assuming that the 192 - 360 reps hit all muscles with some degree of intensity for each of the lifts.

    Yes I am.
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    You are also assuming that squats are the only lift that impacts lower body.

    Sorry yes I neglected to consider the 1 set of deadlifts per week.
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    You are also assuming that there is no cap to the amount of muscle gain in a day/week.

    Yes there is a limit to the amount you can increase volume from one week to the next as you will not recover. I don't think I have said anything about increasing volume a lot.
  • ScottJTyler
    ScottJTyler Posts: 72 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »

    Are you missing the point on purpose?

    OK what's the point? I am happy to learn.


    Actually, from your posting, no you are not.

    Maybe I am or not, I'm interested to know what the point is anyway.
  • ScottJTyler
    ScottJTyler Posts: 72 Member
    dbmata wrote: »
    Luckily, rep volume is the ONLY variable to worry about. Ever.

    I have also recommended an increase in frequency.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »

    Please answer the question as to how you think the OP will get more frequency - to all muscle groups.

    Cut each workout into a quarter and do it 4x a week. Or in half and 2x per week.
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Also, you are assuming that the 192 - 360 reps hit all muscles with some degree of intensity for each of the lifts.

    Yes I am.
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    You are also assuming that squats are the only lift that impacts lower body.

    Sorry yes I neglected to consider the 1 set of deadlifts per week.
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    You are also assuming that there is no cap to the amount of muscle gain in a day/week.

    Yes there is a limit to the amount you can increase volume from one week to the next as you will not recover. I don't think I have said anything about increasing volume a lot.

    1) so, a full body? How would that work 4 x a week?

    2) why would you make that assumption.

    3) what about warm up sets - those do not count?

    4) re muscle gain - you are responding to a totally different point - which is the crux of the issue with you assumptions.

    To be clear, I am not saying the SL is an 'ideal' program for hypertrophy - but your assertions are just not correct in many regards.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »

    Are you missing the point on purpose?

    OK what's the point? I am happy to learn.


    Actually, from your posting, no you are not.

    Maybe I am or not, I'm interested to know what the point is anyway.


    Not playing..sry (notsry)
  • ScottJTyler
    ScottJTyler Posts: 72 Member
    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...

    Yep that's me. I got some good advice on that thread and am now 93kg! See I am willing to learn.
    Nutrition and training are different topics and I'm happy to hear what it is I've said that is incorrect.

  • ScottJTyler
    ScottJTyler Posts: 72 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »

    1) so, a full body? How would that work 4 x a week?

    Why not? Or could do half the workout twice a week like I said.
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    2) why would you make that assumption.

    I'm assuming intensity (RPE) is constant yes. Why would it not be?
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    3) what about warm up sets - those do not count?

    In a minor way they could possibly count a little bit towards volume but then there is the caveat of sufficient intensity which I've mentioned so most likely not. Also, wouldn't they be roughly the same in either workout? You're kind of scraping the barrel here. Do I have to spell out and justify every minute detail of saying that 5x5 is probably not the best way to go?
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    4) re muscle gain - you are responding to a totally different point - which is the crux of the issue with you assumptions.

    Do you think hypertrophy comes from an increase in training variables or just a defined magnitude?
    The level of volume which produces hypertrophy is simply: more.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    edited November 2014
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »

    1) so, a full body? How would that work 4 x a week?

    Why not? Or could do half the workout twice a week like I said.
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    2) why would you make that assumption.

    I'm assuming intensity (RPE) is constant yes. Why would it not be?
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    3) what about warm up sets - those do not count?

    In a minor way they could possibly count a little bit towards volume but then there is the caveat of sufficient intensity which I've mentioned so most likely not. Also, wouldn't they be roughly the same in either workout? You're kind of scraping the barrel here. Do I have to spell out and justify every minute detail of saying that 5x5 is probably not the best way to go?
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    4) re muscle gain - you are responding to a totally different point - which is the crux of the issue with you assumptions.

    Do you think hypertrophy comes from an increase in training variables or just a defined magnitude?
    The level of volume which produces hypertrophy is simply: more.

    1) Full body - not due to recovery. A 2 day split - do not really have an issue with this - but wouldn't a 3 x a week give more frequency - and you seem to like frequency.

    2) Why are you even bringing RPE into it? That has nothing to do with the question.

    3) Not minor at all. Hypertrophy happens at 50% above 1RM (arguably 30%). This is a minor point however as the following is the biggest misconception you have

    4) Still missing the point. Muscle gain is limited, period. At a certain point, more volume =/= more muscle gain. You can only gain so much muscle in a day, no matter how much you work out/your volume/frequency or whatever. Women less than men.


  • ScottJTyler
    ScottJTyler Posts: 72 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »

    1) Full body - not due to recovery. A 2 day split - do not really have an issue with this - but wouldn't a 3 x a week give more frequency - and you seem to like frequency.

    'Full body - not due to recovery' sorry I don't know what this means.
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    2) Why are you even bringing RPE into it? That has nothing to do with the question.
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Also, you are assuming that the 192 - 360 reps hit all muscles with some degree of intensity for each of the lifts.

    RPE is a way of defining/measuring intensity. Sometimes defined as % of 1RM but I don't like that definition as it doesn't take into account the proximity to failure.
    This is partly why I am recommending higher frequency as if the workouts are more split up, the sets can be higher quality because that bodypart will be fresher.
    If you're doing 20 sets in one day then the last few sets are not going to be very intense. But if split up into 4 lots of 5 on different days all 5 sets each time should be high quality.
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    4) Still missing the point. Muscle gain is limited, period. At a certain point, more volume =/= more muscle gain. You can only gain so much muscle in a day, no matter how much you work out/your volume/frequency or whatever. Women less than men.

    This is where some people fall down in their understanding of hypertrophy because they are considering it too acutely.
    Muscle grows in response to an increase in stimulus over time.
    If you are providing the same stimulus week in, week out, you will not grow.
    The equation isn't 'a certain volume = muscle gain'
    It is 'increase in volume = muscle gain'
    Noobs can gain kilos of muscle in their first few weeks because the stimulus increase is so large. So yes you can build muscle quickly, you just need a sufficiently large jump in stimulus.
    So I think your recommendation of decreasing the hypertrophy stimulus because daily muscle gain is limited is not a good one.
  • ScottJTyler
    ScottJTyler Posts: 72 Member
    You say "at a certain point" and this is true. At some point your recovery ability is the limiting factor. Incremental increases in hypertrophy for advanced lifters is more down to improving or adapting recovery ability (joints, nervous system etc.) and getting nutrition right. Since OP is only lifting 4x per week and working bodyparts 1x per week I'd say there's a lot of room for more volume while still being able to recover. Especially when increasing calories.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    edited November 2014
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »

    1) Full body - not due to recovery. A 2 day split - do not really have an issue with this - but wouldn't a 3 x a week give more frequency - and you seem to like frequency.

    'Full body - not due to recovery' sorry I don't know what this means.
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    2) Why are you even bringing RPE into it? That has nothing to do with the question.
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Also, you are assuming that the 192 - 360 reps hit all muscles with some degree of intensity for each of the lifts.

    RPE is a way of defining/measuring intensity. Sometimes defined as % of 1RM but I don't like that definition as it doesn't take into account the proximity to failure.
    This is partly why I am recommending higher frequency as if the workouts are more split up, the sets can be higher quality because that bodypart will be fresher.
    If you're doing 20 sets in one day then the last few sets are not going to be very intense. But if split up into 4 lots of 5 on different days all 5 sets each time should be high quality.
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    4) Still missing the point. Muscle gain is limited, period. At a certain point, more volume =/= more muscle gain. You can only gain so much muscle in a day, no matter how much you work out/your volume/frequency or whatever. Women less than men.

    This is where some people fall down in their understanding of hypertrophy because they are considering it too acutely.
    Muscle grows in response to an increase in stimulus over time.
    If you are providing the same stimulus week in, week out, you will not grow.
    The equation isn't 'a certain volume = muscle gain'
    It is 'increase in volume = muscle gain'
    Noobs can gain kilos of muscle in their first few weeks because the stimulus increase is so large. So yes you can build muscle quickly, you just need a sufficiently large jump in stimulus.
    So I think your recommendation of decreasing the hypertrophy stimulus because daily muscle gain is limited is not a good one.

    Full body is not good to back to back generally.

    lol, I know what RPE is - its the context that you were applying it in that was not making sense, and the way you are explaining/applying it now is misguided. Not disagreeing with higher frequency and no-one in here has that I can recall.

    OP is not in her first few week. Women cannot gain kilos in any event in that time - however, its a totally moot point in this context.

    You are still not getting that volume does no directly translate into muscle gain at all ends of the spectrum. There is a cap. I do not know any other way to explain this to you.

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    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.


    Missed this one.

    Please try to read what I am actually typing and apply context.

    What I am saying is that more volume can mean no actual muscle gain as you have maxed out and then the more volume = more fatigue which can = less effective workouts.

    More is not always more.

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    edited November 2014
    Let me put this in simple terms and then I am done as I am kind of bored of repeating myself and the point being overlooked or ignored entirely.


    - Muscle gains are limited and there is a diminishing return on providing more stimuli than the body can utilize for gaining muscle. Adding more and more volume and/or frequency does not automatically equate into more and more muscle gain. [And I am not referring to recovery here, even though recovery is an important factor to consider]








  • ValGogo
    ValGogo Posts: 2,168 Member
    don't forget to increase weight.
  • ScottJTyler
    ScottJTyler Posts: 72 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Let me put this in simple terms and then I am done as I am kind of bored of repeating myself and the point being overlooked or ignored entirely.

    - Muscle gains are limited and there is a diminishing return on providing more stimuli than the body can utilize for gaining muscle. Adding more and more volume and/or frequency does not automatically equate into more and more muscle gain. [And I am not referring to recovery here, even though recovery is an important factor to consider]

    So you think someone lifting 4 days a week (one of them just arms) and each bodypart once per week is at their peak of the maximum volume they can ever get benefit from and should drop down to 5x5. OK I see now.

    The question was 'I am doing this amount of volume and can't progress what should I do?'
    and your response is 'Do less volume, less work=more gains!'. If only.
  • ScottJTyler
    ScottJTyler Posts: 72 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    More is not always more.

    Not always, but in this case it is. :)

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Let me put this in simple terms and then I am done as I am kind of bored of repeating myself and the point being overlooked or ignored entirely.

    - Muscle gains are limited and there is a diminishing return on providing more stimuli than the body can utilize for gaining muscle. Adding more and more volume and/or frequency does not automatically equate into more and more muscle gain. [And I am not referring to recovery here, even though recovery is an important factor to consider]

    So you think someone lifting 4 days a week (one of them just arms) and each bodypart once per week is at their peak of the maximum volume they can ever get benefit from and should drop down to 5x5. OK I see now.

    The question was 'I am doing this amount of volume and can't progress what should I do?'
    and your response is 'Do less volume, less work=more gains!'. If only.

    Wut??

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    More is not always more.

    Not always, but in this case it is. :)

    lolno
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    <experiences flashbacks of a certain coach>
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    I love it that the new fish isn't getting it, even when explained in small terms. >_<
  • This content has been removed.
  • fivethreeone
    fivethreeone Posts: 8,196 Member
    Sarauk2sf wrote: »
    Let me put this in simple terms and then I am done as I am kind of bored of repeating myself and the point being overlooked or ignored entirely.

    - Muscle gains are limited and there is a diminishing return on providing more stimuli than the body can utilize for gaining muscle. Adding more and more volume and/or frequency does not automatically equate into more and more muscle gain. [And I am not referring to recovery here, even though recovery is an important factor to consider]

    So you think someone lifting 4 days a week (one of them just arms) and each bodypart once per week is at their peak of the maximum volume they can ever get benefit from and should drop down to 5x5. OK I see now.

    The question was 'I am doing this amount of volume and can't progress what should I do?'
    and your response is 'Do less volume, less work=more gains!'. If only.

    It's a good thing yer pretty.
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    PikaKnight wrote: »
    <experiences flashbacks of a certain coach>

    I'm ready, are you ready?

    z205099164.gif
  • CyberEd312
    CyberEd312 Posts: 3,536 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    PikaKnight wrote: »
    <experiences flashbacks of a certain coach>

    I'm ready, are you ready?

    Ok I even had to lol at that one..... B)
  • ScottJTyler
    ScottJTyler Posts: 72 Member
    Starting to see a trend in MFP forums.

    Q. I've got a question about hypertrophy training
    A1. Do Stronglifts 5x5
    A2. Yeah I agree with that guy or maybe do Wendler
    A3. Why not do something other than strength training?
    A4. 'NO YOU'RE WRONG 5x5 IS THE BEST FOR EVERYTHING'

    Any other suggestion or criticism of beginner programs gets shot down by regulars.

    You're all very, very established on these forums and have spouted the same stuff for so long you don't want someone coming in and telling you that something else could be better. Fine, good luck to you. You've chased me out.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    edited November 2014
    Starting to see a trend in MFP forums.

    Q. I've got a question about hypertrophy training
    A1. Do Stronglifts 5x5
    A2. Yeah I agree with that guy or maybe do Wendler
    A3. Why not do something other than strength training?
    A4. 'NO YOU'RE WRONG 5x5 IS THE BEST FOR EVERYTHING'

    Any other suggestion or criticism of beginner programs gets shot down by regulars.

    You're all very, very established on these forums and have spouted the same stuff for so long you don't want someone coming in and telling you that something else could be better. Fine, good luck to you. You've chased me out.

    lmfao...I actually never recommended it. Try again - and maybe try applying some reading comprehension and context this time.


    You also did not actually recommend a program...just spreading what she is doing...no note or suggestions re progression of specificity ..just..coz volume apparently trumps errything, and muscle gains are only limited to the volume you can get in...errr..but frequency too.

This discussion has been closed.