Is your Rep Speed really an important factor in building muscle?

BarbellApprentice wrote: »

SideSteel wrote: »

BarbellApprentice wrote: »

Also, for the purposes of full disclosure. The article is by Ben Pakulski. He is an IFBB pro, so that is the realm/context here. Yes, he is hitting some very complicated and in depth topics as bullet points.

The points may not apply (or not as much) if you are more focused on performance (powerlifting, oly lifting, etc.). Also, the points may not apply for beginners who have not built a foundation.

The points may not also apply to hypertrophy in advanced competitors (what I'm getting at is that Ben may not have any evidence to back these claims up).

I don't have a horse in this race so to speak, so obviously I don't aim those comments at you since you're just posting the article.

Right now though I'm not convinced that he's correct.

I'm going to re-watch the video by Schoenfeld as he's pretty damn up to date on current hypertrophy research.

I got ya SS.

Ben is very scientific/data driven, but that does not mean he is correct. He had Brad on an episode of his podcast, but I can't recall the topic.

I do not have a horse in this race either, I just think it is an interesting topic.

It's definitely a great topic. I don't care for Ben so much having read some of his facebook posts and seen how he conducts himself (using his physique to claim he is correct rather than debating the information at hand). Combine that with some nutritional things he's posted that pretty much go far against things that Aragon, Krieger, Lyle, Helms, and others post, and it sort of makes me lose faith in his position on things.

But that still doesn't mean he is incorrect.

I would also question how much the addition of pharmacological assistance *ahem* interacts (if at all) with these variables.

At any rate, if the claim is that rep tempo is an important variable to manipulate I would just like to see what data he's using to support that claim.

I'm going to listen to that Brad/Brett video tonight, they'll probably go over the relevant data.

SideSteel wrote: »

BarbellApprentice wrote: »

SideSteel wrote: »

BarbellApprentice wrote: »

Also, for the purposes of full disclosure. The article is by Ben Pakulski. He is an IFBB pro, so that is the realm/context here. Yes, he is hitting some very complicated and in depth topics as bullet points.

The points may not apply (or not as much) if you are more focused on performance (powerlifting, oly lifting, etc.). Also, the points may not apply for beginners who have not built a foundation.

The points may not also apply to hypertrophy in advanced competitors (what I'm getting at is that Ben may not have any evidence to back these claims up).

I don't have a horse in this race so to speak, so obviously I don't aim those comments at you since you're just posting the article.

Right now though I'm not convinced that he's correct.

I'm going to re-watch the video by Schoenfeld as he's pretty damn up to date on current hypertrophy research.

I got ya SS.

Ben is very scientific/data driven, but that does not mean he is correct. He had Brad on an episode of his podcast, but I can't recall the topic.

I do not have a horse in this race either, I just think it is an interesting topic.

It's definitely a great topic. I don't care for Ben so much having read some of his facebook posts and seen how he conducts himself (using his physique to claim he is correct rather than debating the information at hand). Combine that with some nutritional things he's posted that pretty much go far against things that Aragon, Krieger, Lyle, Helms, and others post, and it sort of makes me lose faith in his position on things.

But that still doesn't mean he is incorrect.

I would also question how much the addition of pharmacological assistance *ahem* interacts (if at all) with these variables.

At any rate, if the claim is that rep tempo is an important variable to manipulate I would just like to see what data he's using to support that claim.

I'm going to listen to that Brad/Brett video tonight, they'll probably go over the relevant data.

This video may have been the start of the Fred Hahn wars.

mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »

SideSteel wrote: »

BarbellApprentice wrote: »

SideSteel wrote: »

BarbellApprentice wrote: »

Also, for the purposes of full disclosure. The article is by Ben Pakulski. He is an IFBB pro, so that is the realm/context here. Yes, he is hitting some very complicated and in depth topics as bullet points.

The points may not apply (or not as much) if you are more focused on performance (powerlifting, oly lifting, etc.). Also, the points may not apply for beginners who have not built a foundation.

The points may not also apply to hypertrophy in advanced competitors (what I'm getting at is that Ben may not have any evidence to back these claims up).

I don't have a horse in this race so to speak, so obviously I don't aim those comments at you since you're just posting the article.

Right now though I'm not convinced that he's correct.

I'm going to re-watch the video by Schoenfeld as he's pretty damn up to date on current hypertrophy research.

I got ya SS.

Ben is very scientific/data driven, but that does not mean he is correct. He had Brad on an episode of his podcast, but I can't recall the topic.

I do not have a horse in this race either, I just think it is an interesting topic.

It's definitely a great topic. I don't care for Ben so much having read some of his facebook posts and seen how he conducts himself (using his physique to claim he is correct rather than debating the information at hand). Combine that with some nutritional things he's posted that pretty much go far against things that Aragon, Krieger, Lyle, Helms, and others post, and it sort of makes me lose faith in his position on things.

But that still doesn't mean he is incorrect.

I would also question how much the addition of pharmacological assistance *ahem* interacts (if at all) with these variables.

At any rate, if the claim is that rep tempo is an important variable to manipulate I would just like to see what data he's using to support that claim.

I'm going to listen to that Brad/Brett video tonight, they'll probably go over the relevant data.

This video may have been the start of the Fred Hahn wars.

Fred unfortunately (fortunately?) blocked me on FB. I never followed him either, I just trolled him a few times in some of Brad/Alan's posts and he removed me. So now when I go into those 1000+ reply threads where Fred inevitably shows up, the flow of the conversation is all jacked up.

All I see is Brad and Alan owning Fred with no posts from Fred.

LOL

BarbellApprentice wrote: »

One for (studies cited). One says it is a crock. Like with most things, it is easy to get far down the rabbit hole in a hurry.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/time-to-grow.html
http://www.t-nation.com/training/is-time-under-tension-a-crock

It is absolutely easy to get dissuaded by research because you can often find research that supports both sides of the coin. One of my professors taught to look at the larger body of evidence and what does it say, look at the results of the studies, and also look at the details of the study to see all the details and outliers in those studies. Also, the studies also have to be read and communicated within context of the audience being addressed. With bodybuilders you're talking about a different animal of trainee versus somebody that wants to get into the gym and add a little mass. Then there's experience in itself. Is it better to setup a stop-watch in front of you while you squat (for example) and make sure you're squatting for 60-seconds? Or is it better to make sure you're correctly getting to depth and firing out of the hole with as much controlled intensity as you can muster?

Some newer info on the subject. Not sure it changes much but thought I would share it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25601394