Questions? https://www.researchgate.net/public ation/381453

are hamburgers a kind of sandwich or like their own species?

>>42770693
>are hamburgers a kind of sandwich or like their own species?

If you're interested from a legal perspective, burritos were just declared in the US to NOT be considered a type of sand which.

I suppose burgers are next, I would assume that they are sandwiches? Just like how raviolis are little cheese sandwiches too.

>>42770680
Yeah, sure. Go do 1 set of bench at 8-12 reps per week and see how far that gets you. Whoever wrote this never trained a day in their life.

>>42770727

What part of their methods do you disagree with?
Also it's one set to failure.

Mike Menzer trained like this
Sergio Oliva trained like this
Dorian Yates trained like this
Casey Viator trained like this

File: sshot-1.jpg (20KB, 304x382px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 304x382px

>>42770760
You know nothing, bro.

>>42770680
I'm curious if by one set they literally only mean one set or one "working set". If the latter that's literally 5/3/1 only the last set of the day is "real" the rest are warm ups.

File: 1504107676355.png (30KB, 700x965px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 700x965px

>>42770680
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22158142
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300012
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14971985
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19661829

>There was a tendency for increasing ESs for an increasing number of sets (0.24 for 1 set, 0.34 for 2-3 sets, and 0.44 for 4-6 sets).

>Sensitivity analysis revealed no highly influential studies, and no evidence of publication bias was observed. In conclusion, 2 to 3 sets per exercise are associated with 46% greater strength gains than 1 set, in both trained and untrained subjects.

>This quantitative review indicates that single-set programs for an initial short training period in untrained individuals result in similar strength gains as multiple-set programs. However, as progression occurs and higher gains are desired, multiple-set programs are more effective.

>In addition to significant strength increases in all groups at the end of the 6-week period, increases were observed at 3 weeks under the 4- and 8-SET conditions, which were greater than the improvement under the 1-SET condition.

>In conclusion, multiple sets are associated with 40% greater hypertrophy-related ESs than 1 set, in both trained and untrained subjects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1reYKpJ0Wk
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/more-is-more/

More volume (multiple-set protocol) has repeatedly been proven to be superior to single-set protocols, and one poorly conducted study does not refute this. I think it's funny that you mention Dorian Yates, because he would train using HIT principles but would do multiple different exercises for each muscle group (amounting to multiple sets).

>>42770680
>explosive repetitions involve more momentum and less muscle force
What is this even supposed to mean? However fast the concentric portion of a lift is, the same amount of work is still performed (work = force x distance, and with consistent form all 3 of these terms remain constant). The only change is in the power, which is greater for more explosive reps. As for the "involve more momentum" statement, the only possible explanations seem to be: 1) utilising the stretch reflex after the eccentric portion of the lift to provide additional force (which is completely unrelated to explosiveness in the concentric movement) or 2) literally cheating and using momentum to lift more by bouncing the bar on, say, the bench or deadlift - this is also unrelated to explosiveness as it's a form issue.
>do not produce greater increases in power
lifting more explosively (ie: decreasing the time taken to complete the concentric portion of a lift, with form remaining constant) necessarily results in a greater display of power (power = force x distance / time so with decreased time and other factors remaining constant power increases). I'll leave it to you to think about whether or not training to produce more power in the gym might allow you to... produce more power.
>may involve greater injury risk
If you lift with shitty form (which apparently is how the author defines "explosive" reps) then no shit you get injured more often.

TL;DR dumb post is dumb

>>42770760
All of these guys were on roids though. Like very very clearly explicitly on roids.

>>42770760
don't forget Bastionhead
>lifetime drug-free