100 Reps for bigger muscles? Article

[Legion Kreinak]

'Cuz I'm a lil' buzzed now, and possibly high somewhat, I need to ask you to put this in simple terms... I can't comprehend this now. Is this good to use then, in between workout days? Sort of like AR?

It's hard after chasing frogs, that turn out to be leaves...

 

[skaman607]

It's sort of like AR

 

[guldukat]

dude you didnt read the whole post and u put it down, you make yourself look bad with the ignorance in your posts.

Durham eh? I'm in Charlotte.

But chill out, dude...accusing someone of ignorance when you
abbreviate "you" to "u" in the same post is sorta pot-kettle-black
(I'm teasing. Don't take it personally, Tall in Durham.)

I'm with Nelson. The 100 rep thing is re-hased in some
form or another pretty often. People cite a few studies
about how it aides in recovery by enhancing nutrient
uptake, but IMO, that draws us away from the point at
hand:

Will it #$%^&*@ make me grow?!

To prove that, we need empirical data, with all of the
"study's" variables at hand no less. (I can't tell you how
many dumb, dumb, DUMB conclusions so called sports
medicine specialists have made that are packaged
as verifiable, scientific studies.) The Bob Gajda (sp?)
citation is a start, though, to be frank, I honestly don't
think a measley 1" increase in calf girth over 2 months
is anything to write home about. I've seen the guy's
pictures; and no, he wasn't anywhere *near* his potential,
so concluding that his was really hard-fought growth is
a hasty generalization.

I also think even highly intelligent people, like the original
poster of this thread, get too hung up in such derivative
concerns as reps, tempo, etc. and miss out on the big
picture, the greater context. Could very high reps on
a frequent basis be productive for awhile? Sure.

However, ANY sufficiently hard, unusual stimulus would
result in growth provided you weren't already burned
out. The 100 reps are not magical. And judging from
the one case cited (the former Mr. America's calf routine),
I'd rather run with Trevor Smith's crazy intensity workouts
for quicker gratification.

Anyway, the idea sounds interesting, but if you don't even
regard how effective it is, it's clear that there is a *firm* upper-limit to how much "increased blood flow" and the sort are going to
boost your recovery ability. Long-distance runners don't
have incredible recovery from a hard leg workout--no more so
than anyone else that I've ever noticed. Yet according
to this theory, they--or sprinters, at least--should be
able to bounce right back, given how often they're feeding
themselves with [an ill-measured, and probably insignificant]
increased blood flow in the lower body. Though that's
inherently positive, it doesn't just exist in a VACUUM...
cortisol levels shoot up at the same time. Most of the
anabolic benefits someone thinks they're getting will be
cancelled out.

I also can't help but to wonder what's so magical about
100 reps. Why not 82? Why not 174? Did anyone study
the "effectiveness" of, say, 90 reps vs. 120?

 

[the nature boy]

correct on both accounts.

nc lifter-you dont need to read the whole post if you understand the principle they are trying to use. its not a mass principle, its periodization. increase your work capacity and then return to your true hypertrophy training with the ability to do more work. more work=more overload stress=more growth. an increase, however slight, in the SR will give some size but basically its just tuning up the "feed lines" going to the "pistons". then you go back and bore out the cylinders and put bigger pistons in. if you follow that analogy.

lets all play nice.

but isn't the whole point of this scheme to increase the permanent blood flow to the targeted muscles? I was under the impression that the 100 reps weren't supposed to build muscle, only aid in a vairable that helps muscle size (blood flow).