Shit My Spot Says

[Abaddon]

I hope this thread becomes a funny addition to the MAB training logs.

It's not intended to be a place to rage or vent in an unproductive way; as it's title suggests, this is where we can all discuss the odd, left-field, and alternative things we have overheard in the gym.

This includes stuff that works (yeah, that's right, you know you've been told something that you first thought was weird but worked when you tried it) so spit it out!

[Carl1174]

OK, cool...

Fasted Cardio.

Cant work apparently, you wil lose all your gains, you will burn muscle for fuel, you have to eat 30 mins before training or you'll have no energy, yadda, yadda, yadda...

I always train fasted and even before i sipped on some BCAA's durng working out I got some decent gains from it. I have added strength and size whilst working out with NO FOOD in me at all. Would i recommend it, probably not as most people seem to do better having food in them, but personally, if i eat anywhere near training (so not within 2 hours) I feel like yacking...

Carl.

[Abaddon]

My spot believes there is a sweet spot when it comes to rep ranges, and it is directly related to total mass moved. Or maybe it's the other way around... I am not really sure.

As a fr'instance, I increased the Total Mass Moved (TMM) by 50% of my max when I benched 50 kgs for 30 reps (1500 kgs TMM max effort) as opposed to 11 reps of 100 kgs (1100 kgs TMM max effort)...

Many, if not all, traditional exercises can be performed using any rep scheme you like, within reason; growth will come from progression, effort and diet. But this is not my point.

Has anyone heard of this TMM method of calculating progression? I understand it's legitimate, but have never encountered it myself.

[Abaddon]

bump

[BendtheBar]

Originally Posted by Abaddon

Many, if not all, traditional exercises can be performed using any rep scheme you like, within reason; growth will come from progression, effort and diet. But this is not my point.

Has anyone heard of this TMM method of calculating progression? I understand it's legitimate, but have never encountered it myself.

I have written about overall volume quite a few times. It is not something you often find discussed, but the topic has been around for decades.

http://www.muscleandstrength.com/art...ng-volume.html

Many try to break down muscle building to specific rep ranges, but obviously history reveals that many lifters have gained muscle on many different systems. While I can't say that 25 rep sets work for hypertrophy, simply because no one performs them, we do know that most rep ranges under 20 are effective.

This curve becomes limited at very low reps in two ways:

1) Beginners shouldn't be working with low reps sets (under 5 reps), for a variety of reasons.
2) Prilipin's Table reveals that working above 90% severely limits the amount of reps you can perform before you lose your return on investment, and before you start risking injury.

http://muscleandbrawn.com/forums/pow...ins-table.html

Sorry for the long ramble. Weekly volume is a method I use to compare various training programs. It can be used to measure lifting progress, but it a bit more tedious than just focusing on "one more rep" within your given system.

In any case, like you said, reps aren't generally as important as long as the volume is there.

[Abaddon]

^great stuff Steve!!

[Spartigus]

I like that Steve! Going to save those pages for reading later today!

[BendtheBar]

Thanks guys.

I made a mistake in the post above and had the wrong link. My apologies. It is now corrected.

http://www.muscleandstrength.com/art...ng-volume.html

[Carl1174]

Is there anything you DONT know Steve... awesome buddy

carl.

[Abaddon]

In honour of my spot - Jared - who has aggravated an old snowboarding injury and cannot train for about 3 months.

Jared is actually really clued up on most everything that can be considered both technological and man-related (like fast cars and loud home cinemas), so he doesn't often ask what might be considered a dumb question.

This is not a question from Jared, but something I remember being told many years ago, by a guy not much older than me at the time, but who had clearly been training hard for over a year.

Is it true that, if a male spends his life up to, say, his early thirties NOT training or doing any kind of rigorous physical activity, that in terms of their total muscular development they are selling themselves short;

What I mean is, if these people start mass building and/or strength training in later life, they will not be able to attain as great a physique as they could have if they'd done some regular physical activity in their developmental years (say 12 - 25)?

Your thoughts.