So you're saying the baseline minimum in things is sufficient for optimal "performance" whether it's riboflavin or testosterone or estrogen or protein etc?

I'm not saying anything about dosages for 'you' to feel/perform best.

If you're going to make a completely absurd comment like that, you better bring an absurd amount of support. You should note that the Examine article explicitly states that "optimal" does not apply to any of the levels that they're describing. So you'd be guessing that a targeted level is "optimal" or smth.

Beyond this, the scientific support for "optimal" levels of supplemental sources is weak. Almost everything points to reaching adequate levels of supplementation in order to avoid illness/dysfunction.

The final issue would be whether many of these sort of things are even worthwhile. Simply advocating a methodology in lieu of extensive bloodwork is asinine. You'd need to make some sort of coherent argument that the "optimal" levels (if they even exist) would be superior to an "adequate" level when factoring in time/cost/etc. Considering many people wanna do HIIT for a time saving benefit. I doubt monthly bloodwork would even be a reasonable starting ground for most people.

I don't believe that the first part is even remotely true based on what I've read (the establishment of an existing "optimal" level that is superior to other levels within non-sick adults), but I'm happy for you to provide several meta-reviews that support your view on even a handful of vitamins/minerals/hormones. (Please, no reviews with deficient patients. Healthy to "optimal" only.)

Agreed, but I don't consider it absurd at all. I didn't even bother reading the article because I was talking generalities, not specific to vitamin D. I should have made that clear I suppose, it was right in line with the rest of the Vit D "discussion"

Is this a case of absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence?

In addition to the generality I meant performance geared individuals. People who are demanding more of their body than Joe Six Pack Arm Chair Quarterback who sees the sun only when he needs to buy beer. Is more Vitamin D needed for performance geared individuals? :shrug: It has anabolic properties in supporting Testosterone so maybe?

Cool speculation. Hopefully no one considers you seriously given your entire body of work, nor is this remotely a concept that is "Beginner". Great posting.

Let me know when you have any actual evidence of any of that even in specifics.

Don't mean to disrupt the vitamine D debate but any evidence/studies that muscle growth is hindered by not having a dead set workout routine always doing the same exercice following the same rep and sets count?

I, as a beginner, like to diversify the machines I do based on how i feel, how busy the machines are and other minor factors. Sometimes i also switch the rep count in minor fashion like do 2 sets instead of 3 for this one and many other details that mean my workout routine is not religiously consistent but i do mostly the same exercises but i kinda adjust my sessions to my own sauce and goof around with several exercises. I'm sure it's not recommended just wondering how much it's going to be detrimental to my progress as a beginner

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

Progressive overload is important for gains, which means you have to do more work (reps or weight) every workout. And it's gonna be hard to keep track of what you did last time if you're doing different things every workout.

so ive been pretty ill recently and havent trained in about a week im really conscious about my weight whenever im ill because it usually flies off if i dont eat or train properly so whats the best way to keep it on or best cause of action when i return to the gym?

Eat more when you're sick.

Start off where you left or more or less, or if you're really cautious or feel weak or whatever, back off 5-10% for the first few sessions.

If seriously sick I would encourage everyone to try something like a jog or something first.

Very few people are seriously sick. As in literally never going outside of the bedroom/bathroom corridor.

Sick as "cold", lol.

i had tonsillitis so i struggled to eat anything and ive lost 4lbs i really struggle in this area in general due to sleeping habits too like i could be in bed by 11pm not sleep til 3am then get up at 12pm thats alot of time wasted.

Cliffs on why SenseiSingh was permanated?

He lost sanity after battling Thremp in a flamewar and withdrew completely.

I'm sure it might depend on the exercise but what is the scientific/common consensus regarding (not) going up in weight to warm up for an exercise?

I mean say for example you take a bench press and your resistance level is 100kg, what's generally considered best to do prior to putting 100kgs in terms of sets/reps/weight. e.g. empty bar then 30kg then 60kg then 80kg then 100kg. Or straight to 100kg (i'm aware that's likely not gonna be the answer), etc...

Just seen many different answers and different approaches from people

Scientific, I have no idea.

The goal should simply be to prepare yourself to make the best possible effort on your worksets safely. Which means you should do enough work to make sure your body is sufficiently warmed up, but not so much so that it would take away energy for your worksets.

Generally people do some more reps at lower weights, and less as they get closer to the workset. If you do too much warmup work in a percentage too close to your workset weight, you might tire yourself before you start doing the actual programmed work.

In your bench example let's say you want to go for 3x5x100kg, you could do:

1x20xbar
2x5x40
1x5x60
1x3x80
1x2x90
1x1x95
3x5x100

You can adjust this in whichever way feels best to you, of course. You might prefer more/less work depending on the movement.

Also, if your goal is more hypertrophy oriented than strength oriented (i.e. your worksets are in reps of 8-12), you might choose to take a different route and simply do all the warmup sets in those same rep ranges - since the added volume and higher rep work might actually help that goal.

Thanks for that. if anybody else got a different approach/input on the matter, it's more than welcome.

Your example seems sensible even though assuming a bit of rest time between each set in your it seems quite time consuming for a single exercise

I take much simpler approach. I do 3 sets of 5 reps at 30, 40 and 50 percent of the max weight i'm going to do. This might not be optimal though

Usually the weights will be so low and the reps so small that you won't really need any rest. And for any subsequent exercise you'll generally need less warmups too, unless maybe it's an entirely different muscle group (like presses after squats).

It's 40., 50 and 60 percent actually

For 100x5 squats I'd do a few minutes of stretching and body weight reps, then 20x10 40x5 60x5 75x3 90x2 probably. So a bit less than syndrom.

The Sheiko method to warmup usually involves something like mobility and barbell work, 60x5 70x4 80x2x3 90x2 100x2

I would say this is about as ideal as it's going to get for strength training

However, Sheiko will usually build up to sets of 2-3, not 5, so for a set of 5, I'm unsure if aiming for 5 reps during the warmup is ideal or not. I would say it's fine up to a certain %, but once you're working with say 90 when your main set will be 100x5, doing a set of 5 is too high intensity and will detract from the set with 100. In that case 85x5 or 90x2-3 would be a more reasonable preceding set before 100x5. I would probably go with 80x5 and 90x2-3 and take a nice rest before 100 but other approaches can be reasonable

I would also cite olympic weightlifters who tend to make pretty big jumps in work weight for squats in the many videos I've seen of elite WLer training

I should add that Sheiko also might include 95x2 in that workout following 85x2x3 instead of 90x2. This doesn't compromise ability to perform 100x2 because Sheiko work sets are submaximal. The training effect and additional volume/intensity one gains from 95x2 is viewed as being more important than being slightly fresher for 100x2. Of course some workouts could certainly prioritize the heaviest set(s) and involve a full 10% jump between the final warmup set and the heaviest work sets, but this generally isn't the case, at least in the beginner and intermediate programming I've studied

For working sets of day, 365, I'd do following:

General warm-up (walk some laps while doing arm circles, hurdle walks, leg swings, etc, or maybe just on the bike, or if pressed for time just a bunch of air squats and getting loose)

45x5-10 for 1-3 sets based on feel
135x5 (1-2 sets based on feel)
185x4
225x3
275x2
315x1
335x1

Then work sets.

Warm ups are for potentiation. The extra reps at lower weights are for general warm-up, blood flow, grooving the movement. As weights increase it's just about priming the nervous system. No need for rep work there.

If I were weaker and my work sets for 225, I'd use the same principle, but still make sure I get in enough light reps. It might be:

45x5x1-3
95x5x1-2
135x4
165x3
195x2
205x1
225x5x3

The best, most successful coach in Russia, completely disagrees

Kind of a related note, but I find that my second work set (doing sets across) is almost always better form than my first, so that might indicate that I'm not doing enough reps when ramping up. But more likely it's probably me just being a not athletic person.

You aren't alone in that. Nearly everyone feels that I believe.

And that's more about the warmup weights being <= ~90% of working set.

10% doesn't sound like much necessarily, but 10% could be 5lbs or 30 or 50 (duh). And it can make a marked difference in CNS activation.