Hypertrophy help!

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Ok, so basically tired of my current routine and I'm looking for a good hypertrophy program

Any recommendations? Also, anyone else hate trawling through bodybuilding sites looking for an easy to read and print program!?

I train four days a week but would be willing to make it five for the right program

Hanley

GVT

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Hanley wrote: »

GVT

link?

Hanley

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

link?

Google.com

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Hanley wrote: »

Google.com

ah sorry, wasn't being lazy, just didn't think I'd find it that easily. Firsts result, cheers

Mr. Manager

Here

Theresalwaysone

Hanley wrote: »

GVT

Agree. Ive seen some decent results and about 2 months in.

Op, just google German Volume Training. Loads there.

As Hanley was at pains to tell me too, follow the programme as laid out.

Theresalwaysone

Hanley wrote: »

GVT

Agree. Ive seen some decent results and about 2 months in.

Op, just google German Volume Training. Loads there.

As Hanley was at pains to tell me too, follow the programme as laid out.

ThunbergsAreGo

How long does a GVT session take? seems really intense

Theresalwaysone

naughtb4 wrote: »

How long does a GVT session take? seems really intense

45-55 mins usually including warm up and I usually finish with a slow row to cool down.

You'll sweat a lot, and you'll hate the thought of it before you get stuck in but once mid sets its fine as it moves so fast.

Id recommend. I was hesitant and also sceptical but I like finding things out for myself and this was something that worked.

Mr. Manager

I've 1 more session this week plus a deloading week next week on my current 5/3/1 program and am really looking forward to giving this a go afterwards.

Duck's hoop

I always say this but Lyle McDonald's Generic Bulk is simple and effective.

Push something, pull something, push something else, pull something else, bis and tris, increase weight or reps, eat for two, deload after 6 weeks and go again.

I did it for 4 months last year and not only did I put on appreciable mass, I also stopped getting niggly shoulder and elbowy things.

Recommend.

dor843088

Anything that involves intensity and progressive overload. Gvt was desingned for steroid users who dont need to worry about recovery and can destroy a muscle on a bodypart split without worry of recovery and thats who I feel should use it.For naturals higher frequency lower volume per workout is better for gains. Upper lower split undulating periodization gets my vote or something like a phat or phul routine.

Hatfry

dor843088 wrote: »

Anything that involves intensity and progressive overload. Gvt was desingned for steroid users who dont need to worry about recovery and can destroy a muscle on a bodypart split without worry of recovery and thats who I feel should use it.For naturals higher frequency lower volume per workout is better for gains. Upper lower split undulating periodization gets my vote or something like a phat or phul routine.

Do you have any sources or links to back up that GVT was designed for steroid users? I find that hard to believe after all I've read and heard about.

dor843088

Hatfry wrote: »

Do you have any sources or links to back up that GVT was designed for steroid users? I find that hard to believe after all I've read and heard about.

Nowhere on the internet is it going to say this programme is for steroid users is it? Afaik it was first used or made popular by the german and subsequently other Olympic weightlifting teams in the 70's and at the time steroids were used freely and not even banned from use in the olympics so its not even up for debate whether they were using or not. Once a week bodypart splits are far more suited to the enhanced lifter thats just the way it is. Its common sense imo.

amazingemmet

dor843088 wrote: »

Anything that involves intensity and progressive overload. Gvt was desingned for steroid users who dont need to worry about recovery and can destroy a muscle on a bodypart split without worry of recovery and thats who I feel should use it.For naturals higher frequency lower volume per workout is better for gains. Upper lower split undulating periodization gets my vote or something like a phat or phul routine.

GVT is for steroid users. Yet PHAT is ok? PHAT made by the king of the fake natties.

The original 10x10 started back in the 40's and was used extensively by Vince Gironda. Poliquin just calls it GVT as he learned it in the 70's from the Germans.

dor843088

amazingemmet wrote: »

GVT is for steroid users. Yet PHAT is ok? PHAT made by the king of the fake natties.

The original 10x10 started back in the 40's and was used extensively by Vince Gironda. Poliquin just calls it GVT as he learned it in the 70's from the Germans.

Whats layne nortons steroid use got to do with phat? Its a great routine for a natural lifter imo . A lot better than hammering a muscle once a week like an ifbb pro. Doesnt the science say that higher frequency lower volume produces better gains than low frequency high volume?

Theresalwaysone

GVT is pretty high frequency though. You are training 5 days of 7. So twice a week per bodypart just about.

I havent tried Generic Bulk or Phat yet but I will next time Im trying to put on some size and then I can compare properly.

Mr. Manager

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

GVT is pretty high frequency though. You are training 5 days of 7. So twice a week per bodypart just about.

I havent tried Generic Bulk or Phat yet but I will next time Im trying to put on some size and then I can compare properly.

How does the split work? The one I'm looking at is 3 of a 5 day week.

Monday: Chest/Back
Tuesday: Legs/Abs
Thursday: Arms/Shoulders

Where do the other 2 days come from to make it 5 out of 7 days and what is to be done on those 2 days?

amazingemmet

dor843088 wrote: »

Whats layne nortons steroid use got to do with phat? Its a great routine for a natural lifter imo . A lot better than hammering a muscle once a week like an ifbb pro. Doesnt the science say that higher frequency lower volume produces better gains than low frequency high volume?

Its his go to routine, you're claiming GVT is only do able by enhanced lifters then supporting a routine that is made by king fake-nattie. I actually think both routines are good.

GVT isn't low frequency, training each bodypart once every five days. Have you actually worked out the volume of what you'd do in PHAT and compared it to GVT. I just quickly crunched my numbers and weekly tonnage is about the same just on PHAT its spread out over various exercises.

I challenge you to do GVT as laid out, eat a 500cal surplus, possibly carb cycle and not be happy with the results. It'll only cost you 50 days of your training life and assuming you're not just a training blow in and in this for life its a very short time. If you do it then you'll see why so many people are happy with the results.

dor843088

amazingemmet wrote: »

Its his go to routine, you're claiming GVT is only do able by enhanced lifters then supporting a routine that is made by king fake-nattie. I actually think both routines are good.

GVT isn't low frequency, training each bodypart once every five days. Have you actually worked out the volume of what you'd do in PHAT and compared it to GVT. I just quickly crunched my numbers and weekly tonnage is about the same just on PHAT its spread out over various exercises.

I challenge you to do GVT as laid out, eat a 500cal surplus, possibly carb cycle and not be happy with the results. It'll only cost you 50 days of your training life and assuming you're not just a training blow in and in this for life its a very short time. If you do it then you'll see why so many people are happy with the results.

Op said he has max 5 days a week to train so hell only be hitting a bodypart once a week on gvt . Gvt is a poor choice for him (imo) and almost any decent routine that hits muscles twice a week will be a better choice. Exercise science has come a long way since the 40s and if 10 sets of 10 a little more than once a week was a great way to build muscle we would all be doing it. Im not saying op shouldn't do gvt just that there are better options.

Mr. Manager

Copying these posts here to get more info

dor843088 wrote: »

Op said he has max 5 days a week to train so hell only be hitting a bodypart once a week on gvt . Gvt is a poor choice for him (imo) and almost any decent routine that hits muscles twice a week will be a better choice.

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

GVT is pretty high frequency though. You are training 5 days of 7. So twice a week per bodypart just about.

I havent tried Generic Bulk or Phat yet but I will next time Im trying to put on some size and then I can compare properly.

I Love PPPP Longtime wrote: »

How does the split work? The one I'm looking at is 3 of a 5 day week.

Monday: Chest/Back
Tuesday: Legs/Abs
Thursday: Arms/Shoulders

Where do the other 2 days come from to make it 5 out of 7 days and what is to be done on those 2 days?

amazingemmet

[QUOTE=dor843088;86932403 Exercise science has come a long way since the 40s and if 10 sets of 10 a little more than once a week was a great way to build muscle we would all be doing it.[/QUOTE]

Exercise science says one of the three ways to hypertrophy a muscle is low intensity, high time under tension which GVT fulfills.

Ref:

Super training, Mel siff
Science and Practice of Strength Training, Vladimir Zatsiorsky

dor843088

amazingemmet wrote: »

Exercise science says one of the three ways to hypertrophy a muscle is low intensity, high time under tension which GVT fulfills.

Ref:

Super training, Mel siff
Science and Practice of Strength Training, Vladimir Zatsiorsky

I never said gvt wouldnt induce hypertrophy. I could get from dublin to cork on a unicycle but that doesn't mean its the best way to get there. This debate could go on . You may have tried gvt and made gains I went for the higher frequency approach and made gains . Were probably just wasting each others time here because at the end of the day its a matter of opinion .

Theresalwaysone

I Love PPPP Longtime wrote: »

Copying these posts here to get more info

Sorry didnt see that.

I train 5 days of 7.

Mon Chest/Back
Tue Legs/Abs
Wed Off
Thurs Arms/Shoulders
Fri Off
Sat Chest/Back
Sun Legs/Abs
Mon off
Tue Arms/Shoulders
Wed off

And on. and on.

Mr. Manager

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Sorry didnt see that.

I train 5 days of 7.

Mon Chest/Back
Tue Legs/Abs
Wed Off
Thurs Arms/Shoulders
Fri Off
Sat Chest/Back
Sun Legs/Abs
Mon off
Tue Arms/Shoulders
Wed off

And on. and on.

Thanks for that. I actually posted that in the wrong thread

Was meant to take my questions over to the GVT thread. My bad

Mellor

dor843088 wrote: »

This debate could go on . You may have tried gvt and made gains I went for the higher frequency approach and made gains . Were probably just wasting each others time here because at the end of the day its a matter of opinion .

Differing opinion is one thing but your criticism isn't making a whole lot of sense.
You advised against GVT for being low frequency, and recommend a split twice a week. But GVT is a 3/5 cycle so ends up being repeated 1.5 times a week on average. The frequency isn't as significant as you are making out.

dor843088 wrote: »

Op said he has max 5 days a week to train so hell only be hitting a bodypart once a week on gvt.

This makes no sense either.
GVT works out as 5 days a week max, so the OP can run it as prescribed without reducing frequency. Some weeks are only 4 days, which sounds like it suits the OP also.

dor843088

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8brhySqyDw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

dor843088

Mellor wrote: »

Differing opinion is one thing but your criticism isn't making a whole lot of sense.
You advised against GVT for being low frequency, and recommend a split twice a week. But GVT is a 3/5 cycle so ends up being repeated 1.5 times a week on average. The frequency isn't as significant as you are making out.

25% more frequency would be significant in my book.

This makes no sense either.
GVT works out as 5 days a week max, so the OP can run it as prescribed without reducing frequency. Some weeks are only 4 days, which sounds like it suits the OP also.

The routines I saw was a three day over 7 or a body part split over 7 days .

deadlybuzzman

So aaaaanyway, GVT aside, anyone got any other recommendations? I've done GVT for the last 3-4 weeks and leg day just leaves me feeling like **** for the day and I cant be having that.

Mellor

dor843088 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8brhySqyDw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Relevance? As I pointed out the frequency is the pretty similar.

dor843088 wrote: »

The routines I saw was a three day over 7 or a body part split over 7 days .

What routines are you talking about, because its not GVT?
GVT isn't 3/7, its 3/5. You low frequency comments would make more sense if it was 3 days a week, but it isn’t.

So basically, if somebody don't actually know what a program is, then you can’t possibly criticise it. I’m sure you’d agree.
I don’t know if you saw a different GVT, or you were told it was something else, or if you just misread it. It doesn’t matter, what you are describing is not GVT. And I’m not saying you don’t know your stuff regarding training frequency, etc, just simply, you misunderstood how GVT is laid out.

dor843088

Mellor wrote: »

Relevance? As I pointed out the frequency is the pretty similar.

What routines are you talking about, because its not GVT?
GVT isn't 3/7, its 3/5. You low frequency comments would make more sense if it was 3 days a week, but it isn’t.

So basically, if somebody don't actually know what a program is, then you can’t possibly criticise it. I’m sure you’d agree.
I don’t know if you saw a different GVT, or you were told it was something else, or if you just misread it. It doesn’t matter, what you are describing is not GVT. And I’m not saying you don’t know your stuff regarding training frequency, etc, just simply, you misunderstood how GVT is laid out.

Its 25% more frequency . Thats inducing hypertrophy 25% more times and your body will be building muscle for 25% more time every single week . Thats very significant. You dont need ten sets to bring a muscle to its point of adaptation. Its pretty common knowledge now that more frequent training styles are better.
That pretty much sums up my case for a higher frequency than gvt allows .

Mellor

dor843088 wrote: »

Its 25% more frequency . Thats inducing hypertrophy 25% more times and your body will be building muscle for 25% more time every single week .

LMFAO
yeah because body part frequency is the only factor that matters. :rolleyes:

You dont need ten sets to bring a muscle to its point of adaptation.

Of course you don't, it's one of many methods.

Its pretty common knowledge now that more frequent training styles are better.
That pretty much sums up my case for a higher frequency than gvt allows .

Both programs are 5 days a week.
This is making no sense and going nowhere.

dor843088

Mellor wrote: »

LMFAO
yeah because body part frequency is the only factor that matters. :rolleyes:


Of course you don't, it's one of many methods.


Both programs are 5 days a week.
This is making no sense and going nowhere.

.It makes no sense to you because you dont understand the concept of training frequency and then laugh your ass off and post roll eyes . No wonder you couldnt understand the relevance of the video I posted or the basis of my case in favour of something other than gvt .Maybe someone will explain training frequency to you.

Its the most basic of knowledge im surprised you know so little and have the balls to argue.

MaceFace

dor843088 wrote: »

.It makes no sense to you because you dont understand the concept of training frequency and then laugh your ass off and post roll eyes . No wonder you couldnt understand the relevance of the video I posted or the basis of my case in favour of something other than gvt .Maybe someone will explain training frequency to you.

Its the most basic of knowledge im surprised you know so little and have the balls to argue.

Is there a need to be condescending in so many of your replies. I don't think anyone else on this thread has been claiming that GVT is some uber-training routine that beats every other type of training, but for some reason, you just want to knock it and claim it as totally inferior to the other way (sorry, I don't know what "the other way" is because you're preaching 25% more frequency (4 extra sessions in a month) without giving any sort of detail as the many other variables involved.
Can you be specific in what you mean by intense and specific overload as I would love to know what beats GVT for packing on muscle fast (as I read in both articles and reviews of individuals who have done the program)?

For what it is worth, I coincidently started GVT this week after reading a lot about it over the last few weeks from a bunch of places. In all the reading I saw nothing suggesting it was aimed at juicers. I'll give it a go for the 6 cycles and come to my own conclusion but what I do know now is there is no absolute right or wrong way.

dor843088

MaceFace wrote: »

Is there a need to be condescending in so many of your replies. I don't think anyone else on this thread has been claiming that GVT is some uber-training routine that beats every other type of training, but for some reason, you just want to knock it and claim it as totally inferior to the other way (sorry, I don't know what "the other way" is because you're preaching 25% more frequency (4 extra sessions in a month) without giving any sort of detail as the many other variables involved.
Can you be specific in what you mean by intense and specific overload as I would love to know what beats GVT for packing on muscle fast (as I read in both articles and reviews of individuals who have done the program)?

For what it is worth, I coincidently started GVT this week after reading a lot about it over the last few weeks from a bunch of places. In all the reading I saw nothing suggesting it was aimed at juicers. I'll give it a go for the 6 cycles and come to my own conclusion but what I do know now is there is no absolute right or wrong way.

Nowhere in the entire thread was I condescending or smart apart from my last post which was in response to someone who was posting rolleyes and lmfao when they could not grasp the argument themselves.


I merely stated my opinion and gave my reasons why . All I seemed to get in return was people trying to nit pick my posts and not a single reason why gvt is great for hypertrophy.

Alf Veedersane

dor843088 wrote: »

All I seemed to get in return was people trying to nit pick my posts and not a single reason why gvt is great for hypertrophy.

Just to clarify...you're saying it's not great for hypertrophy?

dor843088

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Just to clarify...you're saying it's not great for hypertrophy?

Are you trolling me?

If you read the thread you should be quite clear on my position . I stated that imo there are better options thqn gvt and gave reasons why I had that opinion .

Alf Veedersane

dor843088 wrote: »

Are you trolling me?

If you read the thread you should be quite clear on my position . I stated that imo there are better options thqn gvt and gave reasons why I had that opinion .

No, I'm not trolling you. Take a deep breath.

But in light of that I may have may have misinterpreted what I quoted.

Lean ar aghaidh.

Mellor

dor843088 wrote: »

.It makes no sense to you because you dont understand the concept of training frequency and then laugh your ass off and post roll eyes . No wonder you couldnt understand the relevance of the video I posted or the basis of my case in favour of something other than gvt .Maybe someone will explain training frequency to you.

Its the most basic of knowledge im surprised you know so little and have the balls to argue.

I'm not sure if you can't grasp my point, or are ignoring it.
I understand the point (re:frequency) that you were making.
My counter point, was that relevance was diminished due to that fact you obviously misunderstood the GVT program. You said yourself you thought it was 3/7, I pointed out that it wasn't. Instead of admitting this mistake, you've just gotten aggressive and resorted to a ridiculous argument that I "couldnt understand the relevance".
For the record, I never said frequency wasn't relevant, I said your criticism on frequency don't really apply if frequency is the part you misunderstand. I don't think you can disagree with that.

I wasn't trying to be a dick, or get into another BS internet argument. I was pointing it out the error so that I could get a balanced opinion on it.


The two programs;
GVT: 3 days out of 5
(Chest/Back, Legs, Arms/Shoulders)
All days have a 10x10 hypertrophy format

PHAT: 5 out a 7.
2 days power (Upper, Lower),
3 days hypertrophy (Back/Shoulders, Legs, Chest/Arms)

GVT works out at 4.2 days per week, so PHAT has slightly more training days (not 25% more btw). Are you seriously trying to say 4.2 days a week is not frequent enough, and that 5 is completely different?
You could also make the point that due to the two power days, Phat's Hypertrophy days are less frequent than GVT - equally ridiculous imo.

They both have their differences. Sets, reps, power days, speed work etc. But out of everything, frequency is where they are closest.

dor843088

Mellor wrote: »

I'm not sure if you can't grasp my point, or are ignoring it.
I understand the point (re:frequency) that you were making.
My counter point, was that relevance was diminished due to that fact you obviously misunderstood the GVT program. You said yourself you thought it was 3/7, I pointed out that it wasn't. Instead of admitting this mistake, you've just gotten aggressive and resorted to a ridiculous argument that I "couldnt understand the relevance".
For the record, I never said frequency wasn't relevant, I said your criticism on frequency don't really apply if frequency is the part you misunderstand. I don't think you can disagree with that.

I wasn't trying to be a dick, or get into another BS internet argument. I was pointing it out the error so that I could get a balanced opinion on it.


The two programs;
GVT: 3 days out of 5
(Chest/Back, Legs, Arms/Shoulders)
All days have a 10x10 hypertrophy format

PHAT: 5 out a 7.
2 days power (Upper, Lower),
3 days hypertrophy (Back/Shoulders, Legs, Chest/Arms)

GVT works out at 4.2 days per week, so PHAT has slightly more training days (not 25% more btw). Are you seriously trying to say 4.2 days a week is not frequent enough, and that 5 is completely different?
You could also make the point that due to the two power days, Phat's Hypertrophy days are less frequent than GVT - equally ridiculous imo.

They both have their differences. Sets, reps, power days, speed work etc. But out of everything, frequency is where they are closest.

For **** sake training frequency is not days per week in the gym . You still dont get it . Your making yourself look increasingly silly .

Mellor

dor843088 wrote: »

For **** sake training frequency is not days per week in the gym . You still dont get it . Your making yourself look increasingly silly .

Because that's exactly what I said, right.

dor843088

Mellor wrote: »

Because that's exactly what I said, right.

You said gvt has 4.2 days per week and phat has 5 so its not 25% more frequency. When training days per week have nothing to do with frequency at all . 2 programmes could be 3 days a week and one could be 3 times the frequency of the other.
I feel like your trolling me now because either youv no idea still what training frequency is or your winding me up .

Either way Im done.

Theresalwaysone

I don't know what you mean when you say training frequency. Can you explain?

Alf Veedersane

amazingemmet wrote: »

Exercise science says one of the three ways to hypertrophy a muscle is low intensity, high time under tension which GVT fulfills.

Ref:

Super training, Mel siff
Science and Practice of Strength Training, Vladimir Zatsiorsky

Started reading this on holidays. Great read. And the graphs appeal to the long lost physicist inside.