What is the difference between doing 100x1 kg dumbell moves vs 8x12,5?

dunno man

100 times 1kg is 100kg?? after all

scientifique proof on this?

It's about tearing the muscle. I doubt 1kg would make much of a difference. Do fat people who have 1kg fat surrounding their arms have big arms? No.

What would be the point of doing 94 reps feeling absolutely nothing just to feel a slight sensation at the last 6 reps? You're just wasting time. Here's what you do. Get a gym membership. Get yourself a decent program that focusses on progresive overload for compound lifts, with some additional volume exercices. Use the time you're saving from those 1kg dumbell presses to find a program, make a decent diet, and watch (and possibly practice) the form.

You will get dumb gains

I started with a 2 kilo weight and did 100 reps every day of the exercise. Now I am buff

How about you just join a gym now? retard

can you tell which one of those two is the marathoner and which one is the sprinter? if you can guess correctly you will realize the difference between 100x1kg and 8x12.5kg

Attached: 1529239184330.png (837x449, 685K)

Read literally any meta study.

strongerbyscience.com/hypertrophy-range-fact-fiction/

dummy what it comes down to is aerobic vs anaerobic

anything below 30sec is anaerobic, anything above 2 minutes is aerobic

it doesnt matter how many reps you do as long as theyre in the anaerobic range they will work on hypertrophy

this is why i gave myself premature ejaculation. gotta maintain my gains

Firas zahir and other performance coaches are moving away from heavy lifts precisely because they reduce explosive strength. The russian strength research supports this.

They're getting athletes to go 75% of max because it allows them to complete the movement in a shorter time while still providing adequate stress to improve strength. As opposed to doing 90% of max which, be necessity, reduces the rate at which the movement is completed and increases fatigue and the rate of injury which reduces overall volume.

Zahabi*

no need to shitpost this is actually a highly fascinating topic. for the average sprinter his 200m time will be roughly double his 100m time. a linear increase. however afterwards this linearity breaks down. that's because the average person can maintain a sprint for roughly 25-30 seconds. you can't train this and there seems to be nobody who can maintain it for longer or that person would have broken the 400m record by a significant margin

the length of the anaerobic component depends on the intensity and at maximum intensity is as mentioned above not longer than 30 seconds. during that time your body relies on high energy phosphates, adenosine triphosphate, creatine phosphate and anaerobic glycolysis. yeah, you read that right, creatine. that's why creatine supplementation increases your performance. the body contains only very low amounts of ATP and other phosphates and they are used up extremely quickly after which point you need aerobic generation of new ATP for your cells to work. thus unlike so many other things it can not be improved through training and a 40 second sprint is impossible for humans

Attached: 1502054299584.png (675x508, 50K)

first, all these russian studies, especially the often cited soviet ones, are based on people who are on a shitton of roids and other PED. what they do can not be applied to a natural. also, what you talk about has nothing to do with musculature but everything to do with training. the neurological component is why when you dont do an exercise for 4 weeks or switch to a new exercise you will be much weaker even when you have not lost any muscle mass. doing even 50% of your max at max speed will still have the same intensity as 100% of your max done slowly. the only difference is the duration of the intensity. so when they train 'explosive strength' at 75% the intensity is still at their maximum but they train their neurons to fire the muscle fibers much more quickly

this has nothing to do with fiber type as both use the exact same muscle fibers. it has everything to do with neuronal firing of said fibers

This

its actually not about 'tearing' the muscle. thats broscience. of course microdamage is part of it, the body is a regulator. what is not used gets degraded, what is used too much gets built up. organs, bones, muscle fibers, even synapses in the brain work that way. but its not like endurance activity does not lead to microdamage if not even moreso than intense activity. the real process is a different one. this also makes sense when applying evolution. when you have to walk 50km a day as a hunter gatherer, you dont want your legs to become huge because huge legs will require more energy and be detrimental to your lifestyle, making those 50km a day much much harder because the larger muscles do not just require more energy for the same work but also more energy because of your increased bodyweight. so the body only initiates hypertrophy when it detects high intensity usage, in simpler terms when the fast twitch fibers were used to their maximum they grow big but the slow twitch fibers dont grow big

this has almost nothing to do with hypertrophy though you absolute retard
the definition or the energy requirements of an exercise and its parameters has almost fuckall to do with its effectiveness in recruiting a high threshold of motor units, it's all about the degree of mechanical tension and the ammount of fatigue your muscles are on during said mechanical tension.

And that's why 10RM and 30RM training have the same hypertrophy benefits on the resistance trained and that the intensity minimum is actually far lower than what people have been spouting all these years.

1kg dumbbells? literally worthless for anything except maybe shoulder training
just do calisthenics instead.