DOS: "3 x 10 IS NOT the same as 10 x 3"

[raymond3]

Originally posted by dos:

quote:

---

How bout something like Art of Waterbury...here the parameters are different throughout the week..ie 10x3, 3x12 and 4x6.

For me personally, that's a bit to much undulating. Week-to-week is about the most I would vary. That's not saying that others don't feel comfortable doing it this way though. It's just that to me it seems like 'dabbling' rather than focusing on a goal. The loads would vary so much that i would find it hard to get the most out of any of the workouts. [/quote]True, but one could probably get some hypertrophy and strength if they followed it correctly and diet was in place, correct?

[dos]

True, but one could probably get some hypertrophy and strength if they followed it correctly and diet was in place, correct?

Possibly but then again I go back to my original statement (somewhere) that you 'may' see some hypertrophy or strength gains but the question is would you see more if you focused on one of them? Sort of the jack of all trades, master of none concept....that's what I meant by 'dabbling'. It would be like taking a 30 min workout and doing 10 min of plyos, 10 min. of linear speed work, and 10 min. of agility training. Would we have a better chance of improving in any one of these areas more if we spent the 30 min. on just one?

That's just my take on this so take it with a grain of salt if you like.

[Chris Correia]

Originally posted by dos:

quote:

---

True, but one could probably get some hypertrophy and strength if they followed it correctly and diet was in place, correct?

Possibly but then again I go back to my original statement (somewhere) that you 'may' see some hypertrophy or strength gains but the question is would you see more if you focused on one of them? Sort of the jack of all trades, master of none concept....that's what I meant by 'dabbling'. It would be like taking a 30 min workout and doing 10 min of plyos, 10 min. of linear speed work, and 10 min. of agility training. Would we have a better chance of improving in any one of these areas more if we spent the 30 min. on just one?

That's just my take on this so take it with a grain of salt if you like. [/quote]Well, it's not really the same thing, Dos, but you know that. I tend to agree, though. I've never quite felt that varying parameters/reps workout to workout made sense. Even within the course of a week or so, keeping some sense of PROGRESSIVE overload seems necessary, so that even for three or four workouts, one is trying to progress according to some baseline.

At least personally, I like to have a particular goal for a LITTLE while, at least, even if it's just a week or two, rather than just changing things up each single workout. Plus, it would be hard to track and monitor the parameters and know how much weight to use if the reps kept changing. Of course, the flip side question is how long is too long before changing the parameters (speaking as an athlete, rather than a bodybuilder or powerlifter or oly lifter). After seeing my son's progress following the periodization scheme of your posted bball routines, I have to say it worked very well for him.

[Bulking Up]

If 3X10 is most effective for hypertrophy, why are there so many programs for hypertrophy that consist of 10X3? Is this just the newest movement? I just finished Anti-bodybuilding hypertrophy by Chad Waterbury. Half of the program (horizontal push and pull and deadlifts) were based on a 10X3 scenario. I did gain a little muscle on this program, but not a lot. SHould I look for programs that are more along the line of a 3X10.
BU

[raymond3]

This is taken from "Ten Commmandments" off Rugged-

. Thou Shalt Lift Heavy

This goes without saying, but the compound movements are challenging. It takes time to learn the proper technique and to acquire the proper motor learning patterns to become efficient in these lifts. So, when I say “lift heavy,” I don’t necessarily mean one should do it right away if they’re just learning to perform these movements. I know many people jump into the gauntlet and try to lift heavy right off the bat and end up hurting themselves not too long afterward. One should definitely take a few weeks (especially if he is a newbie) and use higher rep ranges (6-12) to learn proper form and to gain confidence in his ability to perform the compound movements. Most of the strength gains early on will be due to neuromuscular recruitment improvements rather than hypertrophy, but one will still put on a fair amount of muscle mass right off the bat even with the high(er) rep ranges. Once that newbie period is out of the way, though, if you want to get the most out of your training buck, you HAVE to incorporate heavy lifting.

As I stated in the introduction, I wasted many years doing 3x10 of just about everything. While it does have its place and is rather effective for people just starting out, it is only going to take you so far. When people talk about hypertrophy, there are a few major factors that come into play, some of which are time under tension, load (mass), and acceleration. The latter two interact in terms of their ability to produce intramuscular tension (ability of a muscle to produce force: force = mass x acceleration). For the sake of this article, I am just going to discuss “load,” but for further insight, check out Christian Thibaudeau’s superb book, “The Black Book of Training Secrets.”

Low rep/high intensity strength training is effective mainly due to the fact that it leads to degradation of the contractile proteins actin and myosin, which results in sarcomere hypertrophy. In layman’s terms, this means increased thickness and density of the ACTUAL muscle fibers. On the flip side, higher rep/lower intensity training leads to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, which increases the size of non-contractile elements such as collagen and improves one’s ability to store substrates such as glycogen. Including training protocols that target BOTH types of hypertrophy is definitely going to elicit the greatest amount of muscle growth than if you were to just concentrate on one or the other. However, if you want to be big and strong, implementing heavy, low-rep strength training is a must and is a concept that many tend to overlook. Some of the biggest guys out there are the ones who do absolutely no heavy training, and tend to be “all show and no go.” Simply put, they’re big, but weak. By implementing heavy strength training into your arsenal, you can rest assured that you will not only put on a fair amount of mass, but you will also be strong to boot. And besides, it is just so darn fun to lift heavy things.

Let’s say that someone has been doing 3x10 for most of their training sessions and for a particular bench press session, they used 200 lbs. for each set. We can calculate that 200 lbs x 10 repetitions comes to 2000 total load for one set. Obviously, at this weight and rep scheme, three sets yield a total tonnage of 6000 lbs. for that particular bench press session. Now, when we talk about heavy strength training, typical set/rep schemes usually flip that 3x10 around. So, instead of doing three sets of ten repetitions, you would do ten sets of three repetitions. Essentially, you are doing the same volume (very important), but with heavier loads, which you’ll recall activate high threshold motor units and fast-twitch muscle fibers (given a fast concentric) that have the greatest propensity for growth. So, that same individual will now use 225 for his “working sets” because he is using a low-rep set-up. Now, we have 225 x 3 repetitions comes to 675 lbs. for one set. With ten sets, we get a total tonnage of 6750 lbs.: 750 lbs. more than the typical 3x10 set/rep scheme that was originally used! Which do you think is going to elicit more muscle growth? 6000 lbs. or 6750 lbs.? So, when you hear your local gym warrior (who looks the same now that he did five years ago) proclaim that you can’t get bigger lifting heavy weights and that high reps are the way to go for maximum hypertrophy, tell him to go back to the 3rd grade and relearn how to add.

***I will say that one needs to take into consideration the entire training session’s volume as well as any individual time constraints. Performing 10x3 is going to take quite a bit longer than 3x10, so you obviously will have to plan accordingly. Both protocols have their place as far as maximum hypertrophy is concerned and one is not inherently better than the other; they’re just different. However, I do feel that many tend to neglect the advantages of heavy, low-rep training and would be wise to start incorporating it into their programs. I guarantee you will be pleasantly surprised if you do so.

[dos]

Once again we are mixing things up. I will beg to differ when saying that one is not inherently better than the other for specific goals. If all that mattered was total volume then why not 50x1? Sure it takes a long time but the total volume will blow away any of the scenarios posted above. Besides, what do competitive Oly lifters and powerlifters do to increase peak strength without gaining bodyweight (due to weight classes)? They train with extremely heavy loads and extremely low volumes (often 1-3 reps). Now if this type of training is proven to improve strength without increasing mass how can it all of a sudden be the answer to our hypertrophy woes?

Most of these 'reverse thought' training programs are by-products of the backlash against tradition '3 x 10' or '4x8' schemes. Who is to say that just because something has been around forever that it is all of a sudden ineffective? Sounds like marketing mumbo-jumbo to me.

If 3X10 is most effective for hypertrophy, why are there so many programs for hypertrophy that consist of 10X3?

Answer: there aren't many programs out there promoting this type of 'hypertrophy training'.

Lastly, remember that this thread was targeting hypertrophy NOT a complete macrocycle of training. I have no problems with heavy load / low volume training for strength(although I wouldn't consider 10 x 3 'low volume'...). I just have a problem with thoses who say that this type of training is all of a sudden 'optimal' for hypertrtophy simply due to the amount of pounds lifted per workout.

[Newlife]

well said DOS.....

[Chris Correia]

Dos:

I'm curious to hear more about your thoughts on the rationale, or lack thereof, for the lower rep/heavier training helping hypertrophy. I've never completely understood (as a non-exercise science educated person)the rationale about needing to lift heavy to increase strength to train more intensely (later?) with higher reps to spark growth. I can understand periodization, but that argument/explanation sometimes seems circular to me. Personally, I'm less interested in hypertrophy than than athletic performance, so the periodization you sometimes use as posted at your site makes sense to me.

Two explanations I've read for the lower-rep/heavier weights training for hypertrophy are:

#1
"(regrading the traditional 8-12 reps for hypertrophy)Once you can lift a weight for that number of reps, you are creating far less stimulus for your type IIb muscle fibers. . . If you're looking to bulk up, these hypertrophy-prone guys need to be your primary area of focus. And the best way to get these fibers growing is with heavy weights and relatively low reps."

#2
"(re the 10 x 3 method) I’ve yet to utilize another set of training parameters that lead to as much hypertrophy. . . The benefits of 10 x 3 include:

1. Sufficient Load Selection: The 10 x 3 method allows you to use a larger load than its mirror image, 3 x 10. With 10 x 3, a load equating to approximately 80% of your 1RM (one rep max) leads to greater improvements of intramuscular coordination along with increased recruitment of high-threshold motor units.

2. Fast Muscle Actions: Since the sets are extremely short (<6 seconds) and muscular failure isn’t achieved, maximum speed can be maintained throughout the sets. This is important because greater speeds of muscle actions lead to greater recruitment of Type IIB and Type IIA muscle fibers that fall within the fast-fatigable motor units and fast fatigue-resistant motor units, respectively.

3. Manageable Fatigue: Oftentimes, trainees feel invigorated after finishing all ten sets of three reps with 80% of their 1RM. This is a very important aspect that leads to high levels of motivation. Ten sets of squats to screaming failure sucks motivation levels out of your body . . . 10 x 3 training allows you to leave the gym with minimal fatigue and maximum motivation."

Just fueling the discussion and trying to get as complete a handle on all of this as I can.

[gobbla]

IMO people put too much emphasis on 10x3 like it's a miracle pill. Chads programs don't use it a great deal, and he'll even say that it's not intended for any period of time. If you listen to what he says, he recommends a staggered approach, program to program to keep gains fresh and get as much as you can from each training cycle. MOST of chads programs have an average of fairly high reps.

As far as I'm able to gather there's a volume and a strength level to where hypertrophy occurs. Both have to reach a certain level to where hypertrophy CAN occur. Where that line is...I don't know.

Most people will agree that their are two distinct froms of hypertrophy AND higher rep sets will lead to more sarcoplastic hypertrophy...which bottom line equals bigger muscles.

IMO the argument is simular to a bulk\cut cycle or a more constant bf level while gaining muscle more slowly. Which one is "right" isn't so much the issue as which one is easier to accomplish.

of course I may be totally in left field here.

[Chris Correia]

I have simply assumed that, as far as hypertrophy is concerned, it's a case of "both/and" rather than "either/or". The human body is made to lift lighter more often and heavier less often; it can, and perhaps wants to do, both. Combining the two types of training takes advantage of our natural gifts or natural make-up and, as a result, the muscles grow. As in much of nature and life, a balance of forces/elements leads to a completeness or greater fullness. Of course, one can focus their attention more one way or the other (hypertrophy or strength). How's that for a scientific understanding?

.............................. ...........
An aside:
GOBBLA: what is that article in your sig line from?

[dos]

Some of the biggest guys out there are the ones who do absolutely no heavy training, and tend to be “all show and no go.”

Doesn't this quote basically say that if you want to get big you should use higher volume / lower (or relatively lower) loads? Remember that this was the basis for this entire discussion. If we want to talk about getting as STRONG as possible, let's start another thread so that we don't confuse the original issue.

also...

Low rep/high intensity strength training is effective mainly due to the fact that it leads to degradation of the contractile proteins actin and myosin, which results in sarcomere hypertrophy. In layman’s terms, this means increased thickness and density of the ACTUAL muscle fibers. On the flip side, higher rep/lower intensity training leads to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, which increases the size of non-contractile elements such as collagen and improves one’s ability to store substrates such as glycogen. Including training protocols that target BOTH types of hypertrophy is definitely going to elicit the greatest amount of muscle growth than if you were to just concentrate on one or the other. However, if you want to be big and strong, implementing heavy, low-rep strength training is a must and is a concept that many tend to overlook.

First off, don't agree nor have I ever seen any research to state that higher volume training only elicits hypertropy in non-contractile elements (actually sounds pretty made up to me) but isn't this quote just an endoresement for a periodized training program? It's not rocket science guys but it IS science so let's not get too crazy here. Nobody is saying to do 4 x 10 every workout for eternity right?

P.S. according to the logic of this article, all those huge guys who are running around the gym lifting 'light' weights sure have a ton of collagen huh?

[gobbla]

chris> I agree. It's just the method of achieving "both\and" that people have fun arguing.

code of conduct

[Chris Correia]

I think I'll just work the extremes, then: 1x30 and 30x1!

Your last paragraph there sums it up nicely, I think, Dos. I think it's just a case where there is a (temporary, perhaps) big backlash against whatever the usual/current extreme or rut is. So if so many people are just always doing 3x10 (or whatever), then somebody is going to address it and, intended or not, start a new bandwagon (e.g., 10x3)

Dos: If you have the time, I'm a bit curious as to when you do use or might use undulating periodization, versus the linear models such as posted on your site. I like those, and they worked really well for my son. I would tend to follow that myself, but what's the deal with when to consider an undulating scheme? Do you have a example of what you do with undulation and when/why?

[luniz]

Ok I have a question about this. Right now I am trying to train specifically for hypertrophy. I started off doing 2 sets of 12 reps at 70% of my one rep max. I am going to go up to 72-73% at the same sets and reps for my next workout. However I don't believe that I will be able to go up to 75% at 12 reps for the workout after that.

So if I want to keep increasing the weight (progressive overload is the key for hypertrophy, right?) I will have to reduce the number of reps per set. OTOH if I do that I'm looking at either a decrease in volume or a big increase (probably too big). I kinda doubt I could handle 3x10 of 75% my 1RM. But 2x10 is only 83% of the volume so that's no good. I could obviously go to 3 sets of 8 reps but then the next time I wanted to decrease the reps per set I'd have to go to 5 or 6 which would be lower than the 'ideal' hypertrophy range.

So what do you guys recommend here?

[Chris Correia]

You can't keep increasing the %RM and stay at a given rep range. But you CAN increase weight at that rep range. Increasing the weight is the progressive overload. As you get stronger, your 1RM increases. So, you can begin to up the weight at the 10-12 rep range, but that weight can still be, say, 70% of your CURRENT/NEW 1RM.

I think the issue would be to work intensely at that rep range (use a weight that is hard/that you can just squeeze out in good form, say), but also work intensely at some other rep ranges. Obviously, to work intensely at a higher rep range, you'd lighten the weight, and to work intensely at a lower rep range, you'd increase the weight.

I'm not a program expert, but if you're looking for hypertrophy, working the range from 8-15 looks to be fair game, and some routines even seem to vary from 6-20. In any case, there is value in varying things up some.