Lyles Bulking Routine

mcraec

New Member
I've been visiting Lyle's boards lately and can't help wonder why he still advocates the "hypertrophy rep range" and the "strength rep range" etc. that are present in his periodization articles, the link for them is below

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/articles.html

Anyway I had always agreed with the evidence that it was rather the load that increased the hypertrophy strain not the level of fatigue or number of reps,
Lyle agrees the fact the progressive loading is necessary yet he also seems to agree that this progression must be made with a certain rep range for a certain result.

Maybe he has updated his stuff since and I'm just missing something. I know this guy definately knows his stuff so I was curious if anyone knew his reasons for such advice.

(Yes I know I should probably question Lyle at his own forum, I just thought I may get a more accurate response faster on the HST boards)
 
Er, surely it would be more accurate to ask the man himself - how can we second guess the rationale behind his thinking?
rock.gif
 
Yeh, theres some Campos study I remember on this point, basically if you get enough volume with a heavy weight, its all good for strength and size.
 
What I meant by accurate was the typical questions like these asked on his board usually end up with a reply such as "just do 20 REPZ FO DA GUNZ" or "ur an asshat" etc.
Not at all degrading his boards, I find them funny, I was just curious if the experts on the HST boards could shed some light on the matter
 
Well Im sure it has to do with the benefits from different rep ranges.

You can grow with all of them. Hell you can grow from singles...but its not the most effective at all.

You have to take into account total work...which sometimes higher reps gives you more volume and work...but then you take into account lower reps and strain.

Bottom line the 6 to 8 rep range gives you the most MU recruitment. However when you get the most MU recruitment you do it at a higher % of your 1 rep max.

You may...key word "may" lose out on some benefits of higher rep training which is why I Lyle throws a couple of sets of 12 to 15 into the mix for Metabolic work.

That my best guess maybe someone like MikeyNov or Dan could tell you the science side!
 
I agree with you Joe...tests with high rep have always failed to compare to lowrep for hypertrophy and strength, but have their place in the grand scheme of things for many other reasons.
I'd asked this question in another thread where Dan posted studies with graphs on rep and load ranges...and there were different results for quads than biceps, the two muscles studied. I asked (sort of) about the "perfect" workout having different rep and load percentages for different muscles in the body, and what I though about it's shortcomings. And I think that even HST could be improved from studies in this manner. Why do we think that what works for quads should work best for biceps, pecs for traps, etc. etc. - or maybe it's push/pull that requires adjusting, or simple/compound (I suspect this) that could be tweaked, you see?
It could be years of studies done before enough info is compiled to do this, but a roomful of lifters, coaches, trainers, etc. could do it by statistical analysis if they could ever set their egos aside for one project.
 
I think the rep range ordeal comes down to the

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">issue of whether or not cumulative fatigue plays a role in the growth stimulus, with some research saying yes and some saying no</div>

That quote is from Lyle on his boards

So in conclusion, I'll mix up my Max-stim training with some metabolic work on off days and see how it goes
wow.gif
 
Quad, my take on it is that it's muscle tissue whether it's in your legs or in your arms. Sure there may be different %ages of the different fibre types, but at the end of the day, work a muscle with a heavy enough load and you will get recruitment of all fibres. Then it's all about how much total work you do (ie. how many reps) to trigger signalling and PS.

When Joe says that 'you can grow from singles but that it's not the most effective at all', I think he's referring to doing just one heavy rep and then going home rather than if you did a MaxStim style workout where you string lots of heavy singles together to maximise strain while lessening the effects of fatigue? Even singles can be cool.
cool.gif
 
I'm agreeing with you but the charts didn't lie: the arms responded better in one rep range area (not a specific rep) and the quads in another.
Anecdotally, my traps like it heavy and medium rep, my lats low to medium, my triceps lowrep...you see? I'm talking about optimum results.
This could be skewed though, if you were comparing say, my triceps doing 165x5x2 twice aweek with skulls to triceps doing 85x10x2 for the same. You possibly could get the same growth since the load totals are the same, unless the weight goes too low, but just what ranges are best I don't think will fit into a formula that fits all - since we're not all the same.
So much for useless prattling
rock.gif
 
<div>
(codz3 @ Mar. 03 2007,21:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So in conclusion, I'll mix up my Max-stim training with some metabolic work on off days and see how it goes
wow.gif
</div>
If my recollection is accurate, Blade was doing exactly that with some of his trainees.
 
This one's from Blade at Lyle's
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think fatigue management is very important for hypertrophy, in order to get a proper high-tensions, high-volume stimulus. Strength and mass gains have been tremendous both in myself and for all my clients so far, of all experience levels. We're basically progressing from clusters to some MStim stuff depending on loading range and needs. Strength gains of 10% in 6 weeks are not unheard of, and all report feeling fresher and with a sense of having worked the muscle &quot;deeper&quot;. Still, some higher rep work is included to ensure proper training of the energy supply to the cell, so glycogen/fluids/capillarization/IS improvements and what have you. I still try to separate heavy loading and the high rep work for the same muscle group, as suggested by Dan - and not only does it seem to NOT interfere with strength gains, it also seems to function as a &quot;light&quot; type of training speaking in PP-terms for better recovery</div>

Seems accurate to me LNT
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I still try to separate heavy loading and the high rep work for the same muscle group, as suggested by Dan - and not only does it seem to NOT interfere with strength gains, it also seems to function as a &quot;light&quot; type of training speaking in PP-terms for better recovery</div>
Any idea what Dan suggested or what Blade means by 'separate' here? Is he meaning that he does both but in different sessions? Or that he alternates higher rep work and heavy work from cycle to cycle?
 
<div>
(Lol @ Mar. 03 2007,22:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Quad, my take on it is that it's muscle tissue whether it's in your legs or in your arms. Sure there may be different %ages of the different fibre types, but at the end of the day, work a muscle with a heavy enough load and you will get recruitment of all fibres. Then it's all about how much total work you do (ie. how many reps) to trigger signalling and PS.

When Joe says that 'you can grow from singles but that it's not the most effective at all', I think he's referring to doing just one heavy rep and then going home rather than if you did a MaxStim style workout where you string lots of heavy singles together to maximise strain while lessening the effects of fatigue? Even singles can be cool.  
cool.gif
</div>
Yes Lol.

You are correct. If you use singles in a Max-Stim fashion then of course you will grow.

I was talking around the fact of using singles as a workout.

As for what Quadancer is saying about different rep ranges for different muscle groups I understand were he is coming from. Like you Lol I think that even if fibers are somewhat different you can for the &quot;most&quot; part make them grow within a number of given reps.

But if you throw Science out the window and go back to the Golden era and there line of thinking its seems the Good ol Boys of bodybuilding seems to think Abs, Calves and legs were more slow twitch than fast twitch.

Is this true? I don't know but it was there theory and I can see why one would think that b/c of the high level of work these muscle are under ever day.

In the Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding by Arnold he references the belief among the bodybuilders in 70's and 80's were high reps were best for abs and calves and even legs.

They also believe that women tend to benefit better to high rep training than men.

So were ideal rep range for maximum growth for men is 6 to 8 reps they think 12 to 15 for women.

Again no science or studies behind this, just some big oger men and there claims.

I also have read somewhere were on average most people respond better to bench press in the 6 to 8 rep range. Again no science or even studies behind this just some article ( it could be all crap?) but they were saying in theory most people are fast twitch dominant in there chest?

Personally I use to lift heavy as hell for everything but my best gains came from lower weight and 8 to 10 reps with perfect form?

Food for thought I guess!
biggrin.gif
 
If I recall correctly he (Blade) is doing them on seperate days. This was also when he was doing some depletion at the time. I don't know if he would change it up during an all out bulk.

What I still question, when it comes to Lyle's comment is..........how important is high rep metabolic work.
I beleive that it is truly a matter of ATP tunover and not accumulation, More ATP will be turned over as force is increased, period.

The rep range isn't the main contributor or the difference. What the real difference is how many muscles and hence motor units are activated and at what level (rate coding) and for how long or how many times.

I know I've mentioned this before and I'm going to again, the Haddad and Adams guys are currently doing a study to ID the amount of work needed and what they are doing is

1 sec 100% MVC isometric
1 sec Concentric
1 sec Eccentric
20 sec rest
Wash, rinse, repeat

So far, when doing 4 sets, 10 reps are showing the highest molecular signalling but 7 isn't too different while 5 is inferior.

What's this telling us?

1. With the protocol they are using the muscles are being maximally stimulated IE optimal TTI
2. The rest in between each rep allows enough metabolic rejuvination to keep each successive rep at a near optimal TTI for repeated contractions
3. A certain number of reps is needed, not too many, not too few, but juuuuuuuuuuuust right

Now we aren't nearly producing an optimal TTI until either

1. You've already induced a certain level of fatigue
2. You are using enough load that each successive rep is near optimal.

Problem with #1
At this point you've also lost some force and hence strain

Problem with #2
You generally can not use this weight for enough reps (as the study is pointing out around 28-40 funny how this matches the other information I posted yesterday, coincidence
rock.gif
)

Solutions

1. Work to near failure with a light load then continue with intermitant reps past this point

2. Work with heavy loads and either cluster to near failure, wash, rinse, repeat.

3. Use heavy loads with brief rest between reps (just enough to complete another rep) but do enough of them.

In any case it's not metabolic accumulation that is the driving factor. Let me be clear that in this study they are looking at molecular signalling that is known to be in the pathway of hypertrophy. Whereas most other studies looking at whole muscle volume changes (MRI) are simply that and do not tell us how much of the volume increase is contractile, swelling, fluid shifts, or whatever.

Now because I'm naturally interested in this I had to ask Dr. Baldwin about the study by Schoot and Rooney and his response was

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">From my perspective the driving stimulus for increasing mass/size of individual fibers and hence the muscle as a whole is the volume of force that is imposed on the muscle. This stimulus signals to cascades that eventually control protein translational processes, net protein synthesis that exceeds the degree of degradation that occurs; hence increase in net protein in the fibers...............So I think that by having different
stimuli (force versus high contraction turnover of low
force) different regulatory cascades are turned on leading to bring about different effector responses, e.g., protein synthesis of the contractile apparatus versus biogenesis of mitochondria.</div>
 
Thank You

It's funny when I first released MS I got bashed by many (Lyle included) but lately I'm seeing more and more about the positive aspects of fatigue management.

I ran across a Charles Staley (EDT fame) article that he wrote, someone pointed me to it, in which he is talking about the benefits of rest/pause type training (not MS per se but still fatigue management). Coming from someone who's made emphasis on training was not fatigue management based.

Also, not sure who remembers him, but Pauly who used to post here often was commenting over at Lyle's board on how MS is definately showing use in his toolbelt, both visible size changes and strength.

Blade and his guys, again not MS per se, but very fatigue management oriented are showing good results.

On this board, I think it was Lcars (maybe wrong there but it was someone who is large and strong) who mentioned how MS helped him add some serious weight to his weighted Chins, maybe Dips (my memory is getting bad
sad.gif
).

Pierre saw some good sucess with 10X3.

Not forgetting to mention my numbero uno promoter Scientific Muscle and the results he saw.

So although I make several extrapolated correlations scientiffically I am beginnning to now get some good anecdotal evidence as well that some day fatigue management will RULE THE WORLD a ha ha ha ha ha
mad.gif
.
 
Translation...MAX-STIM=Good.

Also the study would explain....why I made such good gains on 40 reps 3 times a week.

Well to be fair I made great gains on that as long as I was eating a ton.
 
What the theory of max-stim and fatigue management showed me is very simple, yet quite profound.

1) To stimulate strength and size increases, adequate volume/frequency and intensity levels are needed. (obvious).

2) Ultimately, HOW these adequate levels are performed DOESN&quot;T MATTER. If you can do 1 set of 40 reps with a heavy load three times/week, then go for it, but for most people this is physically impossible and even if it were possible it would likely put you in the hospital!
ghostface.gif


3) Clustering the total workload into smaller sets (like 5x5 for example) is one way to manage the fatigue of lifting with adequate load intensity and volume. Max-stim (resting between every single rep) is another. I have recently strayed slightly from doing pure max-stim workouts because they tend to take a long time. Although in my quest for strength I am still utilizing the principle of fatigue management. I never do more than 5 continuous reps, (except warm-ups or metabolic work) and I utilize small sets and singles just like ALL strength athletes do.
Westside barbell has some of the strongest squatters in the world, and even when they do high volume they usually do multiple sets of 2 reps! That is right 2 reps, Louie Simmons recommends to keep the reps very low to keep stress from accumulating on the shoulders, and because this gives the powerlifting trainess more FIRST REPS, which is what they do in competition- one rep.

Yes...Max-stim rocks, and if I had more time I would do single reps all the time, but sometimes I need to just push out a quick 5 reps in a row for time's sake!
smile.gif
 
Just for the record to clarify.

I don't want anyone thinking I am using my max for 40 reps.

Normally its around 65 to 75% of my max for 4 sets of 10 reps. Nothing toooo heavy but its not light.

For example for me thats dumbell press with 70 pound dumbells.

However I like the 20 reps sets of lately were I just use 3 to 4 sets to hit 20 reps with heavier weight!
biggrin.gif
 
Back
Top