http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l ifestyle/fitness/in-dept

>less exercise is more, goyim

>>38751745
>can

File: image001.jpg (64KB, 350x335px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 350x335px

>>38751745

Id rather take lifting advice from pic related. High volume full body workouts 3 times per week + a fuckload of steak and milk.

>>38751745
Datasstho

>>38751745
They're right. That is all it would take.
BUT roid shillers can't make money on that so they'll push the get fat as shit and do 5x5 or rando bullshit in the gym meme.

>>38752155
>Roid shills want you to get fat

What the fuck?

>5x5
A beginner routine...?

>>38751745
isnt that what's commonly said though?

>do 3-5 sets of 8-12 reps

unless youre aiming for strength and then thats something else

but for the vast majority out there, isnt the standard "3x8" is what is most commonly advised?

>>38752214
Yes. That means they can push fast food and fat burners too.

Yes 5x5 is a beginner routine if you are going for absolute strength.
Once you're out of baby lifts routine and aren't a teen boy with shit lifts in the first place you aren't going to be able to do 5x5 and make any strength gains for months at a time like that.
You simply will not have the volume.
You will hit your absolute peak and without changing you will never go anywhere. UNLESS you get on gear.

>>38752280
You really only need to do one single set of 5-12 reps on any exercise ONCE A WEEK to get strength and mass gains.
Period.
Not 3x8-12 or 5x5.
1x5-12 reps.

>>38752346
pretty sure in terms of hypertrophy, what really matters is overall volume

overall volume includes both volume within a single workout session, and volume in terms of frequency of workout sessions

maximum hypertrophy appears to be had with substantial volume for both, aka volume in your workout, and working out several times a week

you could technically build muscle doing just one exercise, and doing a shit load of volume for that one exercise, but i dont see why you shoulndt just do variations of a certain exercise instead

so instead of doing 6x8 bench, you would do 3x8 bench, 3x8 incline db bench

long story short, i disagree with you, but i am willing to hear your argument

>>38752400
Volume = overall lifts. More volume means you can fully exploit your potential go build mass and strength.
5x5 and 3x8 are just simple. Not the best, just simple to teach and to learn.

HOWEVER
1 single set of 5-12 ONCE A WEEK is the bare minimum to see strength and muscle mass gains and to maintain.

>a single set of 12 repetitions with the proper weight can build muscle efficiently in most people
Lemme translate for those of you who can't read bullshit:
>we took a bunch of DYELs who had never stepped in a gym before and made then do curls and showed that they got slightly stronger even if they only did 1 set
this doesn't mean:
>doing 1 set a week is the best way to build muscle kekekekekekekekekek im retarded

>>38752442
i think this is where we differ
i agree that 1 set of 5-12 once a week can allow for some gains

but i disagree with the OP and the quote of "effieicnt" and "as effective as" part

but i dont think people browsing a fitness based forum care too much about bare minimum

most everyone here is arguing about the pedantics and tiniest of details for that little 1%

lifting is really like 85% this
>lift, eat, sleep

but we like to argue over all the other little details that add up to the remaining 25%, such as
>program, supplements (fish oil, etc), training style, and others

>>38752442
>HOWEVER
>1 single set of 5-12 ONCE A WEEK is the bare minimum to see strength and muscle mass gains and to maintain.
where are you getting this once a week thing?
the article says

>You can see significant improvement in your strength with just two or three 20- or 30-minute weight training sessions a week. That frequency also meets activity recommendations for healthy adults.

>The Department of Health and Human Services recommends incorporating strength training exercises of all the major muscle groups into a fitness routine at least two times a week.

there was someone that once said something like "you only need one single rep each workout session to get stronger" but what he meant was that one rep would be your absolute max, then you'd go home and recover and then go back and add more weight.
but your absolute max would be something impossible to calculate, which is why several sets of reps is the best we have

>>38752445
Top level power lifters only do one single set of max dead lifts a week and see gains.

It's been proven that even advanced lifters can make gains doing one single set a week.

Actually fucking read about this instead of assuming it's wrong because it goes against your beginners understanding of lifting.

>>38752479
One set of 5-12 once a week.
That is the minimum you need to build and maintain strength and mass.
Period.

Second of all, no one comes to fit to learn how to become a strength trainer bodybuilder or how to spend alot of time working out. They come here to learn how to get fit and strong.

Teaching them powerlifting is not as efficient for their time as telling them something as simple as that.

>>38752712
A fairly famous powerlifter had a talk where he stated quite plainly that, one single maximum effort set of 3-5 reps is ALL you need to do for a lift to see strength gains.
It's been found to be the same multiple times in a few other studies and in one anecdotal study by some quasi famous guy I forget the name of.

The 20-30 minute time frame is an assumption based on nothing I've read in their article outside of it being nominal to fit the "20-30 minutes of activity" time frame the dept of health has going an the 2-3 times a week has more to do with the dept of health.
They don't actually go into WHY 2 times a week is nominal only that it is.

With what we know we can safely ignore that.

>>38752853

Show me a single top level powerlifter who only does one set a week to improve that lift.

File: image.png (42KB, 1008x1008px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1008x1008px

>>38751745
>1x12 to failure is equivalent to 3x12 babbyweight
I can buy it.

>>38752998
Dude, every other person on /fit/ has completely dissected that picture you keep posting. Stop posting it.

I think everyone ITT would benefit greatly from watching
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S1_FN1MaI5k

>>38752875
Hancott
Coan
Many elite powerlifters train once a fucking week.

>>38753035

Nice of you to switch from "one set per week" to "one session per week". Hell of a difference there.

>>38753012
"Dissected" as in refuted?
Because that would be silly to think/fit/ is smarter than dr. brad schoenfeld
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4qv6GONkEGc

Or dr. eric helms
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bRevyyFM82w

I am sure i could find dr. Mike israetel or menno henselmans speaking on the subject if you prefer.

If by "dissect" you mean understood, I disagree, i see you dyels arguing over this as if it were up for debate every day

>>38753052
Three things
1.Lifting heavy shit will get noobs built strong and fast
2.Total volume is the one most important factor no matter what. Find someone who'll say different.

>>38753045
No, those two do one set a week.

And they all don't do a dozen fucking sets with three reps for one day or whatever bullshit you're thinking.

>>38752853
i dunno, vast majority of all posts outside of "general" threads can all be broadly catageroized as "bodybuilding"

>how do i get muscle fast?
>how do i look like "insert celeb"
>what mode is this?

>>38753113

That would be the same Hancott who says that his main training approach is, and I quote "lots of volume, variation on all exercises"? The guy squats and benches three times a week going in to competition. And he's not doing one set a day either.

Not like Ed Coan did one set a week either. His old programing is not hard to find and its mostly linear progression stuff on the main lifts (plus bodybuilding assistance) - starting at 3x12-15 and tapering down as the meet approaches.

Sample size of one, but I've seen the best size results from a 6 times a week relatively high volume PPL.

>>38751745

>in most people

I feel like they just took a bunch of dyels and made them do max effort on some sort of machine that is regulated to only move so fast, regardless of pressure.

>>38753035
you keep saying "once a week 5-12 reps is enough"

and i understnad you mean bare minimum, but your overall tone gives the impression that you seem to think thats enough, or acceptable

powerlifting is more than just strength, there is a lot of techniqwue, and that needs practice, not just one set

>>38753107
The crux of the picture is your second point.

I absolutely agree with your first point.

Why don't you like the picture, anon?

>>38753150
In the off season they train single maximal strength sets.
They ramp up during competition time because they have too to attain maximal strength and power production.

For the average natural? Once a week is more then enough to get gains and maintain gains.

Find some single bit of scientific evidence that says I'm wrong. Anything.

Even two sentences at the ass end of an article written by a dietician.

>>38753208

I can only assume at this point you're trolling or outright retarded, because that's literally the opposite of how offseason training works in powerlifting.

>>38753208
i think what most have a problem with is that you keep saying "more than enough to get gains and maintain gains"

most of us here dont give a fuck about just getting and maintaining gains

we want to maximize gains, hence all the stupid discussions when really its about as simple as
>lift, eat, sleep

>>38751745
>tfw i'll never have a thick asian cutie.

I've never even seen one in real life tbqh.

>>38753052
I dont think youre wrong about the subject and the picture is fine, but remember that claiming an argument isnt correct because the person arguing it isnt that knowledgeable or isnt as knowledgeable as someone else on the other side of the argument is foolish

>>38753223
Which powerlifters are you referring too if I might be so bold?
And how long have you been powerlifting?

>>38753335
Two things.
No that's not true. Most people here want to know how to attain and maintain gains with the least amount of effort.
Litterally every person who clicks on /fit/ one day wants to know that.

They don't want to become bodybuilders, or strength traininers or power liftters. cause they'd go to other sites to do that.

They want to get fit, they want to get healthy, and they want to know how to do it without bending their lives around modern fitness trends and dieting.

The only people who say otherwise are people who have something to sell.

OP is full of shit and links and article with no sources.
http://www.trainingscience.net/?page_id=94

eat shit faggot, stay weak

File: 2016-09-18_163047.png (43KB, 512x703px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 512x703px

>>38753768
>OP is full of shit and links and article with no sources.
I don't agree with the OP but you're also wrong

>>38753657

Literally every powerlifter I've ever dealt with or seen the programming of. The basics of offseason training is that the intensity goes down (usually the specificity too) and the volume goes up so you can get a break from being under heavy loads, add more mass and generally prime yourself for the next peaking cycle. The 'go in, hit one super heavy set, go out' stuff doesn't reappear until a couple weeks before the meet when you're peaking and trying to get rid of all the fatigue you built up before that point.

Pick a powerlifter. Look at their training log or programming. I guarantee you won't find them doing one max effort set as their offseason work.

>>38753609
It is less an "appeal to authority" fallacy as it is "appeal to scientific consensus regarding a scientific question as opposed to DYEL memers on 4chan"

If you consider that fallacious reasoning that is fine... But at a certain point i feel education vs uneducation is significant enough to exist out of fallacious appeals to authority.

Surely a mathematician is a better source of math than a toddler?
Is that a fallacious appeal to authority?
I think you would be hard pressed to argue that with a straight face

File: 14269293_1093657227349065_1841215154_n.jpg (112KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 960x960px

>>38751745