Is your Rep Speed really an important factor in building muscle?
Options
Replies
-
BarbellApprentice 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.0 -
BarbellApprentice 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.
That kind of interaction from Ben is unfortunate. Yea, I have heard some of his nutritional ideas that kind of raised my eyebrow. He is an IFBB pro, so the pharmacy assistance is a given.
I will poke around and see if I can find more supporting data that Dr. Wilson has produced or that Ben references. Yes, anecdotal support only goes so far.0 -
BarbellApprentice 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.
0 -
BarbellApprentice wrote: »Neither I nor the article stated that you can't build muscle with something other than hypertrophy training. If you are going to participate, you need to stay away from straw men.
Then what is the point of your article? To provide a fourth of the information relevant to the subject matter? Straw-men? I'm all about having an educated conversation here, provide some good educational resources other than a Podcast.0 -
mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »BarbellApprentice 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.
LOL0 -
I dislike some of the absolute statements in this article but I'm in for now as this should hopefully turn into a good discussion.
You can achieve significant hypertrophy without significantly varying rep tempo, so in that regard I disagree with the claim that you must constantly vary tempo.
If the claim is that you must vary tempo in order to maximize growth potential then I'd be interested in seeing info on that.
If there is more info, please post it for reading.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Tempo is a really just a small component of training. I'm hoping to have time to listen to Brett and Brad's video posted above because Brad is a very well-regarded practitioner and researcher in his field. Is that Eric Helm in the video above? I've read a couple pieces of his research and he's very good too, I've never seen a picture of him though so I wasn't sure.0 -
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 - They reference a study done with cats, so you know it is good.
http://www.t-nation.com/training/is-time-under-tension-a-crock0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »I dislike some of the absolute statements in this article but I'm in for now as this should hopefully turn into a good discussion.
You can achieve significant hypertrophy without significantly varying rep tempo, so in that regard I disagree with the claim that you must constantly vary tempo.
If the claim is that you must vary tempo in order to maximize growth potential then I'd be interested in seeing info on that.
If there is more info, please post it for reading.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Tempo is a really just a small component of training. I'm hoping to have time to listen to Brett and Brad's video posted above because Brad is a very well-regarded practitioner and researcher in his field. Is that Eric Helm in the video above? I've read a couple pieces of his research and he's very good too, I've never seen a picture of him though so I wasn't sure.
Yes that's Eric. He's one of my favorites and I've learned a crap ton from him.
Sara and I will be interviewing him sometime in the near future.0 -
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?0 -
-
Some newer info on the subject. Not sure it changes much but thought I would share it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/256013940 -
mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »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
Cliffs: "no, Fred Hahn"0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 978 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions