Basic strength training plan

[mlke6]

Don't go to failure with free weights unless you have an experienced spotter. Machines are way safer. Once you get to the point where you can't complete repetitions with full range of motion, do some long length partials.

at home with limited space bands are an excellent option.

 

[hexagonal]

I would bet my next paycheck that >90% are on at least one if not all three hormones.

It’s like saying pro bicycling is clean. Or pro baseball. I would expect hormones to be a very basic price of entry, parked next to the creatine and protein shakes.

Pray tell, what data says they’re clean? Yes all three hormones.

I do not believe pro sports are clean - particularly since I am aware of how easy it is to get around bloodtests. I fully believe ~100% of pro athletes are on PEDs in the MLB, NFL, etc.

For the majority of anabolics, virilization is a significant and very noticeable concern for women. For those that are on the anabolics that women can use without virilization, it still produces a very different physique than a natural lifter.

Enhanced male bodybuilders are frequently easy to have a good idea on because of how they impact certain parts of the musculature, but with women the effect is even more noticeable in comparison to what a natural physique looks like.

 

[hexagonal]

All those many years ago, Mentzer was right.

Mentzer was right in that training close to failure with low volume will still induce hypertrophy, and for some people low volume might work better, but the overwhelming majority of people respond better to higher volume, and the science on this is incredibly clear.

There are diminishing returns, but even at 40 weekly sets we still see additional hypertrophy.

 

[hexagonal]

Don't go to failure with free weights unless you have an experienced spotter. Machines are way safer. Once you get to the point where you can't complete repetitions with full range of motion, do some long length partials.

You can go to failure safely with free weights as well without a spotter, it just requires proper setup.

Dumbbells you basically just have to learn how to drop. Barbells you just need a physical spotter rather than a person. I prefer rack mounted safety straps when I use them since you can position them/the bench/yourself in such a way to basically guarantee a good height, whereas rigid ones might not have a good height for bench. Squats this isn't as important, since you are effectively just dropping the bar onto the safety. It's effort to do all of this, though, so I usually don't go to failure unless I bother a friend to come spot me - less effort than arranging all of the stuff.

Machines are safer in general, but not always. A smith machine can be more dangerous than a barbell bench press, for example - depending on the configuration, your height, etc., you can pin yourself while benching and not be at a place where the smith can be racked. With a regular bench press, just leave the collars off and tip the bar to the side and the weights slide off. Not an option with a smith.

 

[Zydeceltico]

Mentzer was right in that training close to failure with low volume will still induce hypertrophy, and for some people low volume might work better, but the overwhelming majority of people respond better to higher volume, and the science on this is incredibly clear.

There are diminishing returns, but even at 40 weekly sets we still see additional hypertrophy.

Can you describe/explain low vs high volume a little more? I think you're talking about more weight with fewer reps. ....and the rest also. THX

 

[hexagonal]

Can you describe/explain low vs high volume a little more? I think you're talking about more weight with fewer reps. ....and the rest also. THX

More sets.

Rep ranges are more about optimizing across a few different factors. Basically, your rep range you should be one that lets you accurately gauge how close you to are to local muscular failure, gets you to local muscular failure without overly fatiguing you in other ways or getting you to failure somewhere else first, doesn't give you joint issues, and doesn't take forever to get through. In practice, for me at least, this means I try to keep my reps per set in the 8-12 rep range.

There's been a good amount of research done on # of sets over the past few decades and the studies are pretty consistent. Assuming the set is take 0-3 reps from failure, we see growth happen even at ~5 weekly sets. The more sets you add, the less additional hypertrophy you get per set, but studies have gone up to 40 weekly sets and still seen growth continue. There are some tiktok influencers that try to claim this is edema, but some of the studies have use muscle biopsies to help measure the growth and these match the results - something edema would not show. We don't have evidence that 40 is the cap, either, it's just the studies haven't continued beyond it.

For me, the 15-20 weekly set range is about where I personally feel the reward:effort ratio makes the most sense.

This is assuming you can recover from the volume - you're not going yourself any good training more than you can recover from. There are lots of factors in determining how quickly you can recover, and lots of things can cause week to week variance, but if you find that long term you're just not recovering and other tweaks to diet/rest/etc. aren't doing it, backing off on volume makes sense. As you get stronger and have to keep working with heavier weights, you might not be able to keep up the volume for every muscle group. In some cases, it's total volume - if you're trying to increase the size of your arms and your legs are already where you want them to be, maybe drop down to 10 sets per week for quads/hamstrings instead of 20, and see if this lets you keep up the arm volume you want. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. There's lots of levers to pull here and could be the subject of quite a few paragraphs of discussion in and of itself.

(This is all per muscle and sets can be counted in a fractional manner, particularly for compound movements. The primary muscle might get a counted as full set, the secondary half a set, tertiary a third of a set, etc.)


TLDR: As long as you can keep recovering from it, more sets per muscle per week taken close to or to failure has not yet been found to have a cap where you stop getting additional growth. There are diminishing returns, and the higher you get, the more the ratio shifts.

 

[Zydeceltico]

More sets.

Rep ranges are more about optimizing across a few different factors. Basically, your rep range you should be one that lets you accurately gauge how close you to are to local muscular failure, gets you to local muscular failure without overly fatiguing you in other ways or getting you to failure somewhere else first, doesn't give you joint issues, and doesn't take forever to get through. In practice, for me at least, this means I try to keep my reps per set in the 8-12 rep range.

There's been a good amount of research done on # of sets over the past few decades and the studies are pretty consistent. Assuming the set is take 0-3 reps from failure, we see growth happen even at ~5 weekly sets. The more sets you add, the less additional hypertrophy you get per set, but studies have gone up to 40 weekly sets and still seen growth continue. There are some tiktok influencers that try to claim this is edema, but some of the studies have use muscle biopsies to help measure the growth and these match the results - something edema would not show. We don't have evidence that 40 is the cap, either, it's just the studies haven't continued beyond it.

For me, the 15-20 weekly set range is about where I personally feel the reward:effort ratio makes the most sense.

This is assuming you can recover from the volume - you're not going yourself any good training more than you can recover from. There are lots of factors in determining how quickly you can recover, and lots of things can cause week to week variance, but if you find that long term you're just not recovering and other tweaks to diet/rest/etc. aren't doing it, backing off on volume makes sense. As you get stronger and have to keep working with heavier weights, you might not be able to keep up the volume for every muscle group. In some cases, it's total volume - if you're trying to increase the size of your arms and your legs are already where you want them to be, maybe drop down to 10 sets per week for quads/hamstrings instead of 20, and see if this lets you keep up the arm volume you want. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. There's lots of levers to pull here and could be the subject of quite a few paragraphs of discussion in and of itself.

(This is all per muscle and sets can be counted in a fractional manner, particularly for compound movements. The primary muscle might get a counted as full set, the secondary half a set, tertiary a third of a set, etc.)


TLDR: As long as you can keep recovering from it, more sets per muscle per week taken close to or to failure has not yet been found to have a cap where you stop getting additional growth. There are diminishing returns, and the higher you get, the more the ratio shifts.

Thx Hex. That is exactly the info and guidance I was hoping to find! Helps me beileve I can tailor my training instead of just blindly running through sets. Again - thank you.

 

[Foggy-Hollow]

I do not believe pro sports are clean - particularly since I am aware of how easy it is to get around bloodtests. I fully believe ~100% of pro athletes are on PEDs in the MLB, NFL, etc.

For the majority of anabolics, virilization is a significant and very noticeable concern for women. For those that are on the anabolics that women can use without virilization, it still produces a very different physique than a natural lifter.

Enhanced male bodybuilders are frequently easy to have a good idea on because of how they impact certain parts of the musculature, but with women the effect is even more noticeable in comparison to what a natural physique looks like.

Thanks for the discussion.

I’m not talking about “juicing” over the top. No unusual steroids. Testosterone is an anabolic but it is produced in childbearing-aged women’s bodies. It’s in much lower amounts the men, but it’s definitely there and it disappears along with our other hormones with menopause.

There’s a no-man’s land between natural levels and virilization in women, so there’s a space to park levels and not have negative effects—mileage varies of course as to exact numbers.

My question is: if my testosterone levels are parked at 100, a good bit below virilization of 250-300, could you look at my physique and say “anabolics?” I think normal range tops out at 90ish.

I’m not in the BB community but my workouts have benefited enough that I can’t imagine someone not taking levels “back to normal” when trying to get every benefit from macros, calorie cycling, etc.

 

[hexagonal]

Thanks for the discussion.

I’m not talking about “juicing” over the top. No unusual steroids. Testosterone is an anabolic but it is produced in childbearing-aged women’s bodies. It’s in much lower amounts the men, but it’s definitely there and it disappears along with our other hormones with menopause.

I mean, I've explicitly raised the topic of female TRT in this thread, so I'm certainly aware.

There’s a no-man’s land between natural levels and virilization in women, so there’s a space to park levels and not have negative effects—mileage varies of course as to exact numbers.

My question is: if my testosterone levels are parked at 100, a good bit below virilization of 250-300, could you look at my physique and say “anabolics?” I think normal range tops out at 90ish.

I’m not in the BB community but my workouts have benefited enough that I can’t imagine someone not taking levels “back to normal” when trying to get every benefit from macros, calorie cycling, etc.

If we're talking ng/dl, quest and labcorp have the top of range for test for adult women at 45/64 respectively, so at 100 you're quite a bit above reference range and I do suspect that extended use while training at a level to compete would result in a noticeable difference in physique vs. most naturals if getting down to BB competition levels of leanness.

We also have case reports of virilization starting to occur at levels just slightly above 150 ng/dl, and hirsutism well below that.

One thing to remember about bodybuilding is that if you're going to do PEDs, sticking to the natty competitions just doesn't make much sense for either men or women. The enhanced federations like the IFBB are where the vast majority of the prestige, sponsorships, social media influence, etc. are - the natural competitions are just way less popular. There's certainly some amount of cheating going on in them for both men and women, and people do get caught, but there's just much more incentive to go to the enhanced federations if you're going to bother. It's not like pro sports where there are millions of dollars on the table all while having to wink wink nudge nudge not touch any drugs.

 

[desinr-gal]

Mentzer was right in that training close to failure with low volume will still induce hypertrophy, and for some people low volume might work better, but the overwhelming majority of people respond better to higher volume, and the science on this is incredibly clear.

I was told that I should:
1) Warm up with light weights, doing the same lifts I will do with heavier weights and some range of motion..
2) Then start at a weight I can do 10-12 reps at, and do them. Then 3) move up to a weight that I can only do 3-7 reps at, and do 2-3 sets, resting and or alternating in the other lifts for a different area, then after that, drop back to the next lower weight and finish with 10-12 reps.
thoughts?