Apologies if this is an old and tired topic (what do I mean if?!) but....
....is the increase in weight lifted the only important factor in building muscle over a prolonged period?
What I mean is, OK you need the right sort of rep range and you need to do the right exercises as a starting point, but what about the other variables we play with - set structures, density, cadence, HST type methods etc - do they actually build more muscle over say a period of 5 years than if you just raised that weight gradually over 5 years? Are they anything more than a way of pushing through plateaus and keeping things interesting?
Will a guy doing lots of fancy routine changing a al Waterbury or doing EDT training who can press 80KG at the start or the period and can now lift 200KG be any bigger than a guy who hasn't done all that but has had the same KG increase?
I can't work out what your asking but in order for a program to work then the principal of overload needs to be applied. In other words if you always do what you always have done you always get what you always got. (always wanted to use that in an actual sentence )
Increasing weight, extra reps, lowering recovery, all those other things will apply overload. HOWEVER if you are asking if you don't need to increase your weights over time then you won't be able to make much progress.
There're many ways to build muscles:
1. Intensity (the amount of load). It can be done by increasing the load & by lifting heavy, but u can't just keep on increasing weight. U'll hit plateau. Otherwise, we'll all be the Hulk if we don't have the limit to increase the load.
2. Density (the amount of works done per amount of time). Decreasing the rest time is 1 way to do it. EDT follows this method too. But again, a person can't just keep on decreasing the rest time. There's plateau, again. U can't just rest for 1-2 seconds per set.
3. Volume. This can be done by doing more reps per set, or more sets, or more excercises.
Basically, it's all about Overloading the muscles in every way possible. There's also TUT, Tempos, etc..
In the short term, you can certainly make gains with increasing volume or density and using the same weight. But eventually you'll have to up the weight to keep making progress. You can play with all the variables you want, if you use the same weight for 5 years you will stall.
But you do have to change more than just weight. All variables (sets, reps, tempo, rest, density, frequency, exercises, exercise order, workout order, list goes on) should be varied to maximize progress.
__________________
I do not workout. I TRAIN.
I do not eat. I FEED.
I do not sleep. I RECHARGE.
My greatest fear in this life is the fear of being ordinary.
I think the key question I'm asking is: "Will a guy doing lots of fancy routine changing a la Waterbury or doing EDT training who can press 80KG at the start or the period and can now lift 200KG be any bigger than a guy who hasn't done all that but has had the same KG increase?"
For example someone might suggest doing escalating density training to "maximise growth" but what does that actually mean physiologically? Let's say we do it for a 3 month period. Will you grow more muscle for the same increase in poundage over that time? If so what is the increase in size related to, if not only strength? Or will you get to a higher poundage over the 3 months and thus the method is increasing strength more quickly than simply adding weight to the bar and hence you get bigger? Or is there something else going on?
Well now you're looking at size relative to strength. While they are related they are not always at a 1 to 1 correlation. I've seen guys who weren't that big be very strong and big guys not be that strong.
__________________
"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -- T.S. Eliot
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit."-- Aristotle
Well now you're looking at size relative to strength. While they are related they are not always at a 1 to 1 correlation. I've seen guys who weren't that big be very strong and big guys not be that strong.
That's inevitably part of it but not the only thing.
These methods are just methodical ways to help insure that you are progressing. Comparing these two methods to the mysterious guy who gets to the same KG goal, but uses "gut feel," etc. to get there, is hard.
Let's take 100 guys in each camp, though. The 100 using a logical methods will, on average, be farther along, in strength and size than the random, gut feel guy.
Some Random guys will be up there, too. But, likely, they were instinctively doing some of the things that the Staley or Waterbury methods were using (shortening rest periods, changing rep/sets/exercises regularly, etc.).
Only increased weight builds muscles?
)
Linear Mode
