Forums SuperPhysique

Body a écrit:tu m appeleras flash quand ca arrivera ca

FlashGordon a écrit:

Body a écrit:tu m appeleras flash quand ca arrivera ca

Je voulais dire que Vincent est une personne qui a de meilleurs performances sur des séries plus longues par rapport aux séries courtes. Certes Vincent ne progresse pas vraiment en masse, mais le jour où il comprendra que la régularité et la fidélité à une routine, il progressera à nouveau.

Sébastien a écrit:Tu fais les 2 !
Des séries en 8-10 et des séries en 20-25 et tu ne te poses plus la question. T'es sur que tu tappes dans les 2 situations
Non je suis sérieux en plus .. c'est comme ça que je faisais .. j'alternais une semaine des séries en 8-10 avec des semaines en 20-25, vu les cuissos et les charges que je prends aujourd'hui, ça avait l'air de me réussir

SQUATS (20-rep sets & upper body mass)

Q. I've heard that high rep squats (sets of 20 reps) are not only a great mass producer for the legs, but has an indirect carry-over effect to the rest of the body. In other words, it helps to increase upper body mass. Is this true? I've noticed mass increases in my upper legs, but never noticed it in my upper body. Apparently I didn't stick with the 20-rep squat program long enough to derive an upper body benefit.

A. As addressed in Apex, if something isn't working now, it certainly won't work months from now. Hence, if you did not notice a 'carry over' effect (growth in the upper body occuring the same time as growth in the legs), then you're not suddenly going to notice it months later. Think about it... what was holding back growth in the upper body during the initial stages, when the legs were growing? Why would your upper body suddenly 'cave in', particularly after months of adaptation to the 'same old' routine? This does not make physiological sense.

As for myself (Brian D. Johnston), I gained 3/4 inch on each leg over the course of 5 workouts, so high-rep squats worked well (I stopped after the 7th workout when I no longer noticed mass increases), but I gained nothing in the upper body at all. Keep in mind tht I may have been overtraining my upper body at the time, particularly WITH the inclusion of 20-rep squats. Regardless, and I hypothesize on this point, I believe that any indirect carry over is something that would be experienced primarily by neophytes. Consider that if my lats, chest, shoulders and arms were used to going to muscular failure, sometimes with forced or negative reps, why would a weaker catalyst of 20-rep squats suddenly increase my upper body musculature? Such intense training (going to failure, forced & negative reps) is not common with neophytes, so I can understand the carry over effect of high rep squats, particularly if those squat sets are pushed rather hard.

Lastly, an increase in testosterone may occur with 20-rep squats or deadlifts, as supporters of this training method contend. I'm not sure if that has ever been absolutely proven or merely suggested. Regardless, is the testosterone increase sufficient cause to suddenly produce more upper body mass than usual (particularly in those used to hard work, such as myself)? I don't see why it would. To produce muscle mass beyond what is 'normal' (due to rising testosterone from high rep squats) would mean one heck of a jump in serum levels. In other words, abnormal levels (i.e., steroid use). I'm uncertain if the body would allow (or permit) such high levels based on a performing a particular exercise such as squats (especially after 2-3 workouts, when the body begins to adapt to the stimulus).