Nick Smith gains LEAN MASS

[nicksmith3]

wil be interesting to c how this goes for u as it seams ur doing more power lifting routines there fore going to gain strenght but mabe not peek in muslce size and deff?

i have recently been told by 3 nz pro's that hi reps is where its at for mass development, deffinition and muscle maturity (which is hard to believe) but as i have been implying this theroy for the past 6wks while cutting, i have acually put on nerly 2kg of lean mass while losing fat at the same time. (reps range have been concisting of anything from 20s-50s rep sets)

but as i said will be interesting to follow ur progress to see how u go

gud luck

Despite what most people believe, doing higher reps does not etch more grooves into your muscles, nor does it give you conditioning.

Muscle maturity and size coupled with low bodyfat is what gives you conditioning/striations.

Glad to hear you're happy with your gains!

[auck_builder]

i agree nick :nod:

[1day]

each to there own i guess, but im happy to follow in the foot steps of these guys that have done there time and trials with hi/low reps to come up with these conclusions.

[gazza]

i think both rep ranges have their places in training at various times or for certain muscles.

doesn't hurt to cycle through different rep/weight ranges for a bit of variety. little changes still shock the body into adapting which is what it comes down to imo, be that getting stronger/growing etc :grin:

[nicksmith3]

each to there own i guess, but im happy to follow in the foot steps of these guys that have done there time and trials with hi/low reps to come up with these conclusions.

Agreed. - Although these same guys base a lot of their knowledge from both science and in house training. Doing higher reptitive ranges to add seperation and conditioning to the muscle. - Will science back this theory up? Absolutely not.

i think both rep ranges have their places in training at various times or for certain muscles.

doesn't hurt to cycle through different rep/weight ranges for a bit of variety. little changes still shock the body into adapting which is what it comes down to imo, be that getting stronger/growing etc :grin:

For sure, no harm in trying a few different methods. Because once ya stumble across that golden method that works for you, why change it?

As the old saying goes, "If it aint broke, why fix it!" :grin:

[Bobsta]

Agreed. - Although these same guys base a lot of their knowledge from both science and in house training. Doing higher reptitive ranges to add seperation and conditioning to the muscle. - Will science back this theory up? Absolutely not.

Mate its good to see you doing another journal, but i just need to say that bodybuilding is as much an ART as it is SCIENCE, although it may not be scientifically supported, high reps do offer great benefits, infact not long ago I read an artilcle about an study done in germany recently where it proved the notion "that you can not spot reduce" (lose fat from a specific area) to be wrong.

This was achieved by doing extreme high repitition for a target muscle group, increased blood flow in the area coupled with a calorie deficit diet caused the increased breakdown of fatty acids in the targeted area.

And instintively most experienced bodybuilders have known and done this for years.

P.s. sorry i cant find a link to the article for you to look at

I have done and do high reps, low reps, medium reps and everything in between, for me and my clients and i can tell you the human body is a lot more complicated than what some scientists give it credit.

[nicksmith3]

Agreed. - Although these same guys base a lot of their knowledge from both science and in house training. Doing higher reptitive ranges to add seperation and conditioning to the muscle. - Will science back this theory up? Absolutely not.

Mate its good to see you doing another journal, but i just need to say that bodybuilding is as much an ART as it is SCIENCE, although it may not be scientifically supported, high reps do offer great benefits, infact not long ago I read an artilcle about an study done in germany recently where it proved the notion "that you can not spot reduce" (lose fat from a specific area) to be wrong.

This was achieved by doing extreme high repitition for a target muscle group, increased blood flow in the area coupled with a calorie deficit diet caused the increased breakdown of fatty acids in the targeted area.

And instintively most experienced bodybuilders have known and done this for years.

P.s. sorry i cant find a link to the article for you to look at

I have done and do high reps, low reps, medium reps and everything in between, for me and my clients and i can tell you the human body is a lot more complicated than what some scientists give it credit.

Hey Bob!

That last comment may have come across as me saying there were NO benefits, however i agree that there certainly are benefits to high repeitive work. I read that study also, (i think it may have been scientists in switzerland? i could be wrong) and tested that theory during my ten week challenge and compared the results to my last pre-competition training. By doing NO direct abdominal work, as opposed to pre-comp where i worked abdominals 2-3 times per week.

The result, my legs dialled in really quick due to the HIIT work i was doing, and my abdominals held back this time. I found the experiment very interesting! :grin:

[Bobsta]

cool dude

[nicksmith3]

I just read this interesting article which i figure wouldn't hurt sharing here:

Report says: steroid users are not cheats!

March 3rd, 2009 By Paul Cribb Ph.D. CSCS.

Research Now days the public will almost always associate the words “anabolic steroids” with elite athletes, sensational drug scandals and cheating.

However, according to a recent report involving the largest sample group to date; the majority of (anabolic) steroid users are not athletes. These people do not aspire to win world titles or Olympic gold medals. They don’t even compete in organized competition.

According to this scientific survey, published last month in a leading sports science journal, the typical anabolic steroid user is around 30 years old, well-educated, and earning an above-average income in a white-collar occupation.

This report concluded that the majority of non-medical anabolic steroid users are just regular people that want to build muscle, get lean and improve their physical attractiveness.

Other significant but less highly ranked factors included increased confidence, improved mood and attraction of sexual partners.

The authors suggest that steroid users don’t fall into the same category as abusers of narcotics and other illicit drugs – steroid users are “different”.

According to the report, most steroid users follow carefully planned drug regimens in conjunction with a healthy diet, ancillary drugs and exercise. With these people, everything is strategically planned to “maximize benefits and minimize harm” - behavior that is directly opposite to the spontaneous and haphazard approach seen in abusers of psychotropic drugs.

I agree, most bodybuilders that use anabolic steroids hardly exhibit the drug-hooked, out-of-control “junkie” behavioral patterns the public usually associates with drug abuse and addiction. (However, the lifestyle of your typical aspiring IFBB Pro comes pretty darn close!)

However, I’m not sure where the researchers found such a large group of virtuous souls to complete this survey.

I’ve worked with hundreds of bodybuilders over the years. Many have used drugs. Lots of drugs, and I could count on one hand the amount that took a single step to “minimize harm,” let alone any “strategic planning”. Heck, I couldn’t get most of them to go for a blood test.

Just for a moment, let’s just give the researchers the benefit of doubt that they managed to flesh out such a substantial number of highly-organized, health-conscious bodybuilders among the zoo of people that regularly frequent the gym.

After reading the conclusions of this report you’d almost be forgiven for thinking that taking the juice to get big was a benign and almost virtuous endeavor.

I’m neither pro or anti anabolic steroids - I believe any individual should be allowed to put anything they want into their body so long as it doesn’t affect anyone else. Everyone should be allowed to be a free individual to make their own choices.

Setting the obvious legality issues aside for one moment, I still don’t believe that non-medical anabolic steroid use (by healthy people) is a “cool” thing to do. It’s not even an “okay” thing to do.

I’ll explain why.

Using steroids won’t kill you. Heck, it probably won’t even make you sick. However, relying on the juice to build your muscle is not as benign as the dickhead writers in the muscle mags try to make you believe.

Firstly, many aspects of muscle metabolism and growth are controlled by the classic steroid-hormone binding mechanism. Both anabolic and catabolic hormones (the hormones that breakdown muscle tissue) exert their effects by binding to a cell membrane-receptor. Once attached, they activate a receptor complex so that the hormone can enter the nucleus and bind specific response elements on DNA to act directly at the genetic level. This is how all hormones both natural and artificial alter the production (transcription and subsequent translation) of specific proteins in cells. This is what ultimately influences results from exercise.

People that use anabolic steroids must use higher doses than physiological (normal) levels. That’s what ensures the benefit. However, these doses only stimulate growth via the previously mentioned process, for a short period of time. After this, the artificially introduced anabolic steroid exerts its effects mostly by attaching to (and blocking) cortisol receptors.

Even after just a few short cycles, muscles and other tissues express more and more cortisol receptors in an effort to keep a natural balance.

Higher and higher doses are required each steroid cycle just to provide the same anabolic effect.

When a person stops using anabolic steroids, their muscles contain an abnormally high level of cortisol receptors. There is no way around this.

Therefore, along with the suppression of their own natural production of anabolic hormones, the former steroid user also has to contend with a higher than normal number of cortisol receptors. The end result of going off the juice is always the loss of a substantial amount of hard earned muscle. Just as the saying goes, if you want to dance, you’ve gotta pay the band!

For this reason alone, steroids are an extremely poor solution to a lifelong pursuit. However, there is another problem.

Unfortunately, they mask the training and nutrition mistakes that most people make.

The gains come much easier. Therefore, most users don’t bother with learning about the right nutritional approach to building muscle or how to structure an effective exercise program that fits in with a 50 hour work week, the spouse and kids.

Some bodybuilders get so hooked by the gains and the powerful feeling from steroids that they can’t stand being in the gym when they’re not using. Even the pro bodybuilders find it real tough to train when they’re not on the juice. I’ve got to admit, it would be tough to focus on training when you know that no matter what, you’re getting smaller, weaker and fatter.

These are the psychological consequences of anabolic steroid abuse and they are far more damaging than any of the physical side-effects the medical profession tries to scare athletes about.

Here is the real shame; all the scientific research shows that no other type of exercise provides as many direct health benefits as weight training. Bodybuilding without drugs is the healthiest past-time a person can devote their time to.

Based on the physiological and psychological ramifications I’ve highlighted, the use of anabolic steroids among healthy people can wreck the healthiest, most beneficial past-time a person can participate in.

Sure, most people that use anabolic drugs are not elite athletes, they may never enter a competitive area. They can never be accused of cheating fellow competitors and the respective governing sports organization. However, most healthy people that take anabolic steroids will never admit that they are cheating one very, very important entity….themselves.

http://ast-ss.com/information/?p=217

[nicksmith3]

Meal #1

Scivation sludge

blueberries

oatmeal

Meal #2

scrambled eggs

brown rice

green beans

Meal #3

steak

avocado

green beans

oatmeal

Meal #4

salmon

almonds

green beans

Meal #5

cottage cheese

walnuts

green beans

Meal #6

Scivation sludge

grapefruit

Note - Off day today, starchy carbs are centered around the AM.

pro/carb/fat

240/180/90

Insulin control with GOOD fats, fibre and protein!

[steak]

Clean eats :clap: making me hungry again :wink:

[nicksmith3]

Clean eats :clap: making me hungry again :wink:

That salmon was EPIC! :grin:

[nicksmith3]

20-8-09

Chest

Bench press

85x6

85x5

85x4

Incline bench press

80x5

80x5

80x5

Dips

+20x6

+20x5

Note - I'm still waiting on strength to come back to 100%, overall a good workout. I increased my numbers from the previous week, while gaining a better range of motion and more control on all exercises.

Cardio is also performed post-workout for 15 minutes, in which ever capacity i choose. Mostly low intensity, but last night i picked up to a steady jog.

I will go into current pre/intra/post-workout nutrition soon...

[bambam]

Just mad sludge for the first time... its freaking awesome.

Where are you sourcing your scivation products from ?

[vivalamia]

bodybuilding.com aye Nick!

[nicksmith3]

Just mad sludge for the first time... its freaking awesome.

Where are you sourcing your scivation products from ?

Anyone who does not like sludge, is not human!

For Scivation visit here! http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/sv/sv.htm

bodybuilding.com aye Nick!

[diamond]

Good on you for doing a journal nick. I think your rep range is to low to nail any decent size gains but it will be interesting to see how you go. I have tried low, high and medium rep ranges over the last few years and without a doubt my best muscle gains were when i stuck to between 8 - 12 reps.

[nicksmith3]

Good on you for doing a journal nick. I think your rep range is to low to nail any decent size gains but it will be interesting to see how you go. I have tried low, high and medium rep ranges over the last few years and without a doubt my best muscle gains were when i stuck to between 8 - 12 reps.

Kool bro! - Yeah, where as i've seen my BEST gains in size and strength through lower workout volume/reps!

Max-OT uses overload to stimulate muscle growth, not hypertrophy/fatigue.

Either way, finding that volume/intensity/range that works for you at the time is just part of the puzzle.

[nicksmith3]

27-8-09

Meal #1

Scivation sludge

blueberries

oatmeal

Meal #2

scrambled eggs

brown rice

green beans

Meal #3

fatty tuna

green beans

rice

Meal #4

cottage cheese

almonds

green beans

rice

Meal #5

sludge

oatmeal

grapefruit

Meal #6

cottage cheese

walnuts

green beans

oatmeal

Note - Carbs have been added to every meal, putting me 500kcals above maintenance. Still with no visible signs of increased bodyfat, while i'm now GROWING again. So will be sure to post some update shots soon enough!

Current macros - pro/carb/fat 240/360/90

3210kcals. (If including veg/fruit would be 3500.)

Update - Training has been going smooth, with steady increases in weight each week, while gaining better feel and form for each exercise. In two days i'll be into week 5 of Max-OT which gives me a change in the routine split. Still same reps/volume/frequency. Just variation in exercises, and order. Bring it ON! :grin:

[nicksmith3]

As you guys know, i like posting thought provoking ideas and information. So here's another one for some people who think that they can reach unprecedented size naturally, when in reality, we all have our limit.

Enjoy. :grin:

What’s My Genetic Muscular Potential?

A question that comes up with some frequency on forums and message boards, usually from newbie lifters is along the lines of “What is my maximum muscular potential?” Invariably this leads to a repetitive and pointless argument between those who believe that there are genetic limits to such things as muscular gains and athletic performance and those who believe that anything can be accomplished if you just try hard enough or have the right work ethic.

Now, it should go without saying that nobody can really say upfront what someones genetic potential actually is. Until we live in the world of Gattaca where we can do a full genetic scan and know what it means, nobody can say ahead of time what someone can or can’t achieve. Well, not unless you look at some pretty ludicrous extremes (you’re not going to see someone at 400 pounds ripped any time soon for example).

And, of course, worrying about such things before you even start training is sort of missing the point in my opinion. At a fundamental level, trainees should train and eat properly and let the cards fall where they may. Worrying abut what you might or might not accomplish is putting the cart far before the horse. But that’s another topic for another day. And, of course, doesn’t really answer the question in the title of this article.

I’d note that while I do believe trainees should simply get into proper training and not worry up front what they may or may not accomplish, I also believe that there are genetic limits set by underlying biology (again, modulated by behavioral choices and patterns). That’s just reality and recognizing them can save people from a lot of mental anguish about what they think they should be able to or could be able to accomplish if they just worked hard enough.

Which is a long way of introducing the topic of today’s article, what is the maximum amount of muscle that someone can gain over a career of proper lifting and nutrition. I’m going to look at it from a few different perspectives but I think you’ll find that, on average, they all end up with pretty similar results.

I’d note that most of what I’m going to talk about applies to male lifters, data on females being much more difficult to come by. Just realize that the average female potential for muscle mass gains is even lower than that in males.

The McDonald Model

I’m not sure if I came up with this idea on my own or stole it from somewhere else (probably a combination of the two) but, in a slightly different context (how quickly can someone gain muscle), I have often thrown out the following values for rates of muscle gain.

Year of Proper Training Potential Rate of Muscle Gain per Year

1 20-25 pounds (2 pounds per month)

2 10-12 pounds (1 pound per month)

3 5-6 pounds (0.5 pound per month)

4+ 2-3 pounds (not worth calculating)

Again, these values are for males, females would use roughly half of those values (e.g. 10-12 pounds in the first year of proper training).

Please note that these are averages and make a few assumptions about proper training and nutrition and such. As well, age will interact with this; older individuals won’t gain as quickly and younger individuals may gain more quickly. For example, it’s not unheard of for underweight high school kids to gain muscle very rapidly. But they are usually starting out very underweight and have the natural anabolic steroid cycle called puberty working for them.

Year of training also refers to proper years of training. Someone who has been training poorly for 4 years and gained squat for muscle gains may still have roughly the Year 1 potential when they start training properly.

Now, if you total up those values, you get a gain of roughly 40-50 pounds of total muscle mass over a lifting career although it might take a solid 4+ years of proper training to achieve that. So if you started with 130 pound of lean body mass (say in high school you were 150 pounds with 12% body fat), you might have the potential to reach a level of 170-180 pounds of lean body mass after 4-5 years of proper training. At 12% body fat, that would put you at a weight of 190-200 pounds.

Again, that’s a rough average, you might find some who gain a bit more and some who gain a bit less. And there will be other factors that impact on the above numbers (e.g. age, hormones, etc.).

The Alan Aragon Model

In discussing this topic with Alan Aragon, who’s book Girth Control should be read by anyone interested in this topic. In his monthly Research Review, he addressed the issue of rates of muscle gain a bit differently although the results end up being pretty similar. He has found that that the following rates of muscle gain are roughly achievable for natural lifters. Note that this ignores things like creatine loading or temporary glycogen supercompensation which can cause rapid changes in ‘lean body mass’ but don’t represent actual skeletal muscle tissue.

Category Rate of Muscle Gain

Beginner 1-1.5% total body weight per month

Intermediate 0.5-1% total body weight per month

Advanced 0.25-0.5% total body weight per month

So a 150 pound beginner might be able to gain 1.5-2.25 pounds of muscle per month (18-27 pounds per year). After a year, he’s now an intermediate at 170 pounds and might be capable of gaining 0.85-1.7 lbs per month (10-20 pounds per year; I’d consider 20 lbs. an exceptional gain). After another year, he’s an advanced lifter at 180 and might only gain 0.5-1 lb per month (a true 1 lb/month gain in muscle mass for an advanced athlete would be pretty rare).

So he might top out at 190-200 pounds or thereabouts after another year or two of training, at 10% body fat, he’d have 170-180 pounds of lean body mass. Pretty much identical to my model even if we got there by a slightly different path.

Casey Butt’s Frame Size Model

Of course, both my and Alan’s model for maximum muscle growth are pretty simplified and don’t take into account some of the other factors that can go into determining maximum muscular potential. One that has been argued to impact on overall size and strength gain potential is frame size, usually assessed by wrist and/or ankle size (or other measurements).

Natural bodybuilder and all-around smart guy Casey Butt has done an exhaustive analysis of top level natural bodybuilders and developed a calculator that will predict maximum muscular potential based on height, ankle and wrist size along with goal body fat percentage. He’s also written an extensive, math heavy book showing how he came up with his model. You can find it here.

Casey Butt’s Maximum Muscular Potential Calculator

I’ve run a lifter of different heights with a 7″ wrist and 8.75″ ankle through the calculator to show his predicted body weights (at 10% body fat) and lean body mass.

Height Weight at 10% Body Fat Lean Body Mass

5′8″ 189 lbs. 170 lbs.

5′10″ 198 lbs. 178 lbs.

6′ 206 lbs. 185 lbs.

Of course, variations in ankle and wrist will change the numbers but you can go plug in your own numbers. I’d note that Casey’s calculations end up being a bit more conservative than mine or Alan’s but they are all at least within shooting distance of one another. You’d need to be towards the taller end of things to reach the highest levels suggested by my or Alan’s method.

And while some might argue that frame size has nothing to do with this, there is research to support the idea (I’d mention again that Caseys analysis is based on examination of real-world bodybuilders, arguably the group that you’d expect to surpass any supposed limits if it were possible).

At least one study showed that light framed individuals gained less muscle mass compared to heavier framed individuals on the same training program and, at a more basic level, hormones such as testosterone/etc. impact on things like bone growth and frame size. So there is a biologically potential link between frame size and hormone levels that would contribute to trainability and ultimate gains in muscle mass.

It’s also no accident that top strength athletes typically have large frames and robust joints (or that those with relatively smaller frames tend to be drawn/succeed in endurance sports). Some of this is simply so they can handle the level of training needed to succeed at their sport; but some of it is probably indicative of overall hormonal status as well.

Martin Berkhan’s Model

Martin Berkhan of Leangains.com has a somewhat simpler model than Casey’s, also based on his observation of top level natural bodybuilding competitors who are contest lean (e.g. 4-5% body fat).

His equation is:

Height in centimeters – 100 = upper limit of weight in kilograms in contest shape.

So take your height in inches and multiply by 2.54, that’s your height in centimeters. Subtract 100 and that’s your predicted maximum weight in contest shape (which is 5% body fat or less for males) in kilograms. Multiply that value by 2.2 to get pounds. So let’s look at body weight at 10% body fat using the same heights I used for Casey’s calculator. I’ve also calculated out lean body mass at 10% body fat.

Height Weight at 5% Body Fat Weight at 10% Body Fat Lean Body Mass

5′8″ 160 lbs. 170 lbs. 153 lbs.

5′10″ 171 lbs. 180 lbs. 162 lbs.

6′ 182 lbs. 192 lbs. 173 lbs.

While not identical, these values are certainly right in line with Casey’s calculator. I would note that contest lean bodybuilders are often highly dehydrated and may be glycogen depleted and this will tend to lower the measurement of lean body mass. We might realistically add 5-10 pounds of lean body mass to the above values to account for dehydration/etc. With that adjustment, they are more or less identical to Casey’s values.

A Final Reality Check

As I noted in the introduction, a lot of lifters get fairly angry or upset over the above types of estimations, assuming that they don’t take into account individual differences in motivation, work ethic, etc. To that I say nonsense.

Both Casey and Martin’s equations are based on top level natural bodybuilders, the group that you’d expect to surpass such limits if they existed (and who’s dedication and work ethic is pretty hard to question). Mine and Alan’s are based on years of experience in the field. If a massive number of exceptions to the above existed, someone would have seen them by now.

Now I think part of this has to do with exceedingly skewed ideas about what’s achievable, a problem driven by pro-bodybuilding. After seeing a pro-bodybuilder stepping on stage at 260 pounds or more and shredded, the idea that a natural may top out at 180-190 pounds of lean body mass (if that) can be disheartening.

Of course, to the general public, an individual at a lean 180-190 pounds is still pretty enormous. It’s just that compared to the absurd size of a pro bodybuilder, it seems absolutely tiny. But it is reality.

People forget that Arnold Schwarzenegger competed at perhaps 230 pounds (assuming 5% body fat, that’s only 220 pounds of lean body mass) and that was with (admittedly low doses) of anabolic steroids in the mixture.

The simple real-world fact, which can be verified by going to any natural bodybuilding show is that you simply don’t see naturals coming into contest shape much above 200 pounds (the exceptions can usually be counted on one hand) and few even achieve that level of size. It’s always the lighter classes (e.g. 165 lb class) that have the most competitors at natural shows with fewer and fewer coming in at the heavier weights, especially in contest shape.

Now, some guys on stage may weigh more than 200 pounds but they usually aren’t lean enough. At even 10% body fat, a guy at 220 pounds only has 200 pounds of lean body mass. By the time you got him contest lean, he’d likely come in with less than that.

Even when people point to large natural strength athletes who might be 270-280 lbs. natural, by the time you figure in 28-30% body fat, that still puts them right back at a maximum lean body mass of 189-196 lbs. Certainly near the higher end of things but not by that much.

And while many will argue that improvements in training methods and nutrition should change the above values, that simply doesn’t seem to be the case. Human genetics have not changed and you still don’t see natural bodybuilders or other athletes coming in with more lean body mass than would be predicted by the above models. They might get there a bit faster but the overall size of natural bodybuilders doesn’t seem to have changed much, if at all, in decades.

To quote from Casey’s site:

Over the years I’ve also received many emails full of unsubstantiated claims, hostile remarks and even personal attacks because of the information presented here. But in that time, though many have told me they’re easily going to surpass these predictions, I haven ‘t received any legitimate, verifiable statistics that significantly exceed the results of the equations presented above …including correspondence with some of today’s top-ranked drug-free bodybuilders upon which the equations were partially based.

I anticipate a similar response in the comments section of this article and I’d just refer you to what Casey wrote above.

I’d finish by only saying that I’m not writing this in an attempt to be negative in any way shape or form, as I noted in the introduction, I would rather see people put their energy into their training and nutrition than worrying ahead of time about what they might or might not accomplish. And while I certainly wish that everyone reading this is the lone exception to the values calculated above, well…that’s not what an exception is.

At the same time, a failure to recognize that there are genetic limitations can lead people to do some very silly things in terms of their training or diet. Folks nearing their genetic limits, in an attempt to gain muscle at a rate that simply not achievable will put on enormous amounts of fat in hopes that it will net them a ton of muscle gain. And that just doesn’t ever end up being the case.

I’d only note in closing that the above calculations also has some real-world implications in terms of diet (e.g. what kind of weekly or daily surplus should be attempted to maximize muscle gain without excessive fat gains) but that will have to wait for a future article.

Link - http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html

[Optimass]

Journal going well Nick - I have trained low rep ranges for years. Most of the text books will tell you more reps = more size, which is technically true but based on experience my fibre is a lot bulkier during offseason on 4 to 6 rep ranges. I also like the 40 minute training threshold - makes good use of the test in your system which runs low after about 50 minutes.

Not sure Delia invented low rep training for size :pfft: but he did bring it all together logically.

Here is a link for the program for those wanting to see it in full:

http://www.johnstonefitness.com/misc/MAX-OT.pdf

[nicksmith3]

Journal going well Nick - I have trained low rep ranges for years. Most of the text books will tell you more reps = more size, which is technically true but based on experience my fibre is a lot bulkier during offseason on 4 to 6 rep ranges. I also like the 40 minute training threshold - makes good use of the test in your system which runs low after about 50 minutes.

Not sure Delia invented low rep training for size :pfft: but he did bring it all together logically.

Here is a link for the program for those wanting to see it in full:

http://www.johnstonefitness.com/misc/MAX-OT.pdf

Agreed. Keeping training time under 45 minutes total seems to bring some really great results. Especially when you add the high intensity, high load work to the table. You walk out pumped! - Not fatigued.

That link is a little off... I've got the full Max-OT book including a 6 month training schedule if you want it? Email me if you want to take a look at it!

[Optimass]

I kind of prefer the blood and guts method :grin:

[nicksmith3]

I kind of prefer the blood and guts method :grin:

I gotta lot of respect for guys who can tap into that 'fight or flight' mechanism. In the end, intensity is what seperates the elite from the rest.

I've been following Jeff Willet's style of Max-OT from his DVD's:

You might be interested to check out Kevins log if you're into 'Blood and Guts' style training, his vids are sick!:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?p=377302251#post377302251

[steak]

Long read! Thank God for the clips at the end Is a combination of both high and low reps beneficial during the one work out or do you feel (and it guess its an individual thing so thoery only thoughts is fine of course ) that a programme using either/or is better? Any problem using both high and low reps?? surely as long as the fibres are getting a thorough blasting its all good....