Jump to content

Hypertrophietraining (Bodybuilding) - Praxisthread


Empfohlene Beiträge

Neu hier? Immer einlesen auf Science-fitness.de

Am 9/28/2023 um 1:55 PM schrieb Steven:

ich schätze danach wäre nur eine Aufteilung möglich, wie ich sie genannt habe oder OK/UK/OK oder aber P/P/L 3 Days per Week (wird zumindest des Öfteren im Netz empfohlen).


Bei 3 Einheiten kannst du auch Push/Pull-Einheiten abwechseln.


Bei PPL mit 3 Einheiten kommt es auf den Aufbau an, aber da kommst du mit 3 Einheiten schon eher in den Bereich, der nach aktuellem Wissensstand weniger optimal wäre. (Gibt aber sicher Viele, die (trotzdem) so trainieren und wieviel schlechter es dann in der Praxis wirklich ist, kann ich nicht beziffern (vermutlich könnte man etwas aus den Studien ableiten).)

Link zu diesem Kommentar

Der Thread begann in 2019. Fast Forward bis heute, ein aktueller Podcast (inkl. Transcript) von Henselmans zum Thema:

What’s MOST important for muscle growth & strength? - What are the most important things you have to do in your training to build muscle and strength?


Er untersucht und fasst die Ergebnisse einer aktuellen Metastudie aus 2023 zusammen.



They analyzed 178 studies and they concluded the highest ranked prescriptions for strength involved higher loads, whereas the highest ranked prescriptions for hypertrophy included multiple sets.


Quasi als Fazit für die Praxis (Hervorhebung für "Untrainierte/Anfänger)" von mir):




So to conclude, if training intensity is the most important thing for strength development and training volume is the most important thing for muscle growth, what training volume and what training intensity should you be using? Well, for strength development, it basically seems be the case that the heavier you go, the bigger your strength gains – in trained individuals. Most studies in untrained individuals do not find very appreciable differences in strength development. So typically in untrained individuals or novices in general, I would say don’t bother going with 1RM attempts and the like. It’s just needlessly injurious. It’s not a good way to practice good technique. It’s much easier, much more comfortable to get them used to high repetitions first and then start lifting heavier. As they progress as lifters, they get better muscular control, their technique improves, and they also start benefiting more from these higher training intensities. And then the training intensity depends in large part on your preference for strength versus size. If you want to maximize strength development, then for the exercises that you want to maximize strength development in, you will need to use very heavy weights. And if you really want to maximize strength development, I think there is no substitute for 1RM attempts, even. You don’t have to do them often, but you should probably do them sometimes and you should spend a considerable portion of your training in the 1 to 5 rep range. Now this comes with the trade off of having to do multiple sets and having to do very long workouts.

If you still want to get your optimum volume in for muscle growth. It might also be problematic for your joints because getting in tons and tons of super heavy sets like squats, 1 to 5 rep range, super high set volume, super heavy weights is going to take a toll on your joints, say for deadlifts, bench presses… Pretty much any exercise honestly that you do with high volume and high intensity is going to take its toll. So for a lot of people that is simply a practical concern that you have to navigate and that will go into a whole different video of injury management and the like. Suffice to say here, for maximum strength development, you will need to spend a considerable portion of your time in the 1 to 5 rep range. For muscle hypertrophy. It’s more important to maximize the total number of sets that you can do without burning out, without getting injured, etc.



Aus dem Transcript kurz zusammengefasst:

Für Hypertrophie

- 10 - 30 Sätze pro Woche

- 5 - 30 Wdh. pro Satz

- dicht am (technischen) Versagen (1-2 RIR)

- individuell so gestaltet, dass eine Regeneration der Belastung mögl. ist (vgl. letzten Satz des vorherigen Zitats)


Weiterhin die Bestätigung, dass die Kraftentwicklung neben der neurologischen Komponente auch durch die vorhandene Muskelmasse beeinflusst wird. D. h. wenn die neurologische Komponente quasi "maximiert" wurde, entscheidet die Muskelmasse im Vergleich zweier Athleten. Muskelmassenaufbau dauert i. d. R. aber seine Zeit.


bearbeitet von Gast
Link zu diesem Kommentar

Nochmal Henselmans, zum Thema:

How to count training volume and design a sensible training split


Ein, zwei Abschnitte daraus:




However, you don’t have to overcomplicate things. Don’t bother with crazy fractionals like counting 84.9% of the volume of an exercise. The science isn’t there yet to be that precise. If a muscle is causing a particular movement (so it’s an agonist or a synergist), and you don’t have a good reason to doubt that the muscle is subject to high tension, you can probably count it as being 100% stimulated.


Moreover, you can probably round down anything below 40% stimulus to 0%. Muscles require a minimum tension that seems to be equivalent to around 40-60%of maximum voluntary isometric contraction strength to get stronger.




In conclusion, muscle growth is best predicted by the number of effective sets you do for that muscle group per week. How effective an exercise is for a particular muscle group, or part of the muscle, depends on the exercise’s biomechanics and the exercise technique you use. There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. To optimize a training program, you should assign a percentage to each exercise that denotes how well it stimulates each involved muscle. Then you need to combine exercises with the numbers of sets that results in your target number of total sets for each muscle group. How you call the resulting training split doesn’t matter. Don’t let yourself get limited by simplistic categories like push/pull/legs. Whatever program optimizes your training volume, frequency and other program parameters is ideal for you. Optimal program design requires some puzzling, but the reward is maximum muscle growth throughout the body and an aesthetically balanced physique.


In diesem Sinne wohl nichts für Einsteiger und (wenig) Fortgeschrittene. Wer sich aber die Mühe machen möchte, dem könnte die "Übungsbibliothek" von EXRX helfen, die Agonisten und Synergisten zu identifizieren.

Link zu diesem Kommentar
Am 6/19/2021 um 4:53 PM schrieb Ghost:

Nochmal eine Wiederaufnahme des Themas "Non-Responder" (Hardgainer) von Seite 3 des Threads.


In dem Podcast aus 2019 (ab Minute 50) wird auf ein paar Fragen eingegangen.


Zuvor gab es aus 2017 den Artikel von Nuckols in dem es hauptsächlich einerseits um den genetischen Aspekt geht und andererseits um die Definition, d. h. dass es bei jeder Studie, bei jedem (Standard-) Trainingsplan sog. Non-Responder gibt, ebenso wie Leute, die eine mittlere oder gar extrem hohe Anpassungsreaktion gezeigt haben. Quintessenz aus dem Artikel war wie folgt:


Now, it is possible, of course, that a lot of non-responders really are just screwed, and that nothing will help them build muscle.  After all, markers of metabolic health actually worsen in a non-negligible amount of people when they take up exercise (which, strangely, not many people talk about), so it’s clear that some people’s bodies just respond to training in very unexpected ways.  However, I think it’s unlikely that the “true” hypertrophic non-response rate is nearly as high as most studies report.  With that in mind, here are 4 simple strategies to try to get more out of your training if you’ve been disappointed by how much muscle you’ve been able to build:

  1. Take care of business outside the gym.  Sleep moreManage stress as well as you can (if there’s nothing you can do to decrease the stressors in your day-to-day life, I’d strongly recommend taking up meditation).  Eat more calories and especially protein (up to around 1g/lb, or 2g/kg).
  2. Assuming you’ve already tried increasing training volume (which should be your first thought, since higher training volumes generally mean more muscle growth) instead try decreasing your training volume for a while to maybe ~4-5 sets per muscle per week. Since non-responders have a magnified inflammatory response to training (which may be one of the major factors inhibiting hypertrophy), decreasing the intensity of the stressor may put it back into a beneficial, hormetic range.
  3. Give it time. Post-training inflammation tends to decrease with continued training, and the muscles’ protective adaptations continue accruing over time.  It may be that muscles of people who respond well to training go through the initial “shock” phase in 1-3 weeks, and then start growing, but that “non-responders’” muscles take a few months to get through that phase, but will eventually toughen up and start growing.
  4. Try something new. As mentioned in the last article, a couple of papers (one, two) show that certain styles of training produce great results for some people but not others.  If your muscles haven’t grown from heavy sets of 5 with long rest periods, they may instead grow from lighter sets of 20 with short rest periods, or from explosive training with low reps and no grinders.  An approach to training that produces great results for the majority of people may not be what your body responds to.

At the end of the day, it’s crystal clear that some people simply respond way better to training than others.  It’s also clear that damn near everyone gets stronger when they start training.  However, muscle growth is a bit trickier, and almost every study (especially large studies) has some non-responders.  Unlike aerobic training, we don’t know yet if simple programming modifications can ensure that everyone improves, though my hunch is that “true” non-response rate (i.e. people who simply cannot gain muscle in response to any sort of training)  is considerably lower than the ~10-20% often seen in research.

Addendum, June 2017:

A new study showed that there were way fewer nonresponders when people were put on personalized training programs instead of one-size-fits-all standardized programs.  This study was primarily looking at aerobic fitness, but it also examined strength measures (bench press and leg press 5RM).  It found that all the subjects on personalized programs got stronger, while only 64.3% of the subjects on standardized programs got stronger.  This gives us more evidence that “nonresponders” in scientific studies aren’t necessarily “true” nonresponders.



Zu Punkt 2 in der Aufzählung oben... Der "übliche Entscheidungsbaum" ist ja: Machst du keine Fortschritte und bist erholt zur nächsten Einheit? Erhöhe die Umfänge; Machst du keine Fortschritte und bist nicht erholt zur nächsten Einheit? Verringere die Umfänge.


Insgesamt scheint es so zu sein, dass ein großer Anteil von echten Non-Respondern - vorausgesetzt die Hinweise aus den Artikeln wurden beherzigt und zeigen keinen Erfolg - durch bestimmte genetische Gegebenheiten auffallen, die im Prinzip vereinfacht formuliert alle "negativen Reaktionen" auf das Training aufweisen bzw. bei ihnen erhöht sind (bspw. (chronisch) erhöhte Cortisolspiegel, Überproduktion von Myostatin, langsamerer Adrenalinabbau nach dem Training, bestimmte Gene (ACTN3-Varianten und viele weitere Gene) o. ä.).


Allermeistens ist dann die Trainingsempfehlung für diese Leute, sich auf GK-Training (3 Einheiten/Woche) mit rel. geringen Umfängen zu begrenzen (am Minimum der Empfehlungen zu Beginn des Threads). Also bspw. pro Training 3-4 Übungen (Mehrgelenksübungen bevorzugt) je 2-4 Arbeitssätze (5-8 Wdh.) mit eher langen Pausen zwischen den Sätzen.

Allgemein formuliert: Die "Basics" bei Training (progressives T.), Ernährung und Erholung einhalten und nicht verzetteln.

Eine Anmerkung, die mir gerade einfällt. Das deckt sich sehr mit dem Neurotypen-Training von einem gewissen Herren. 

Link zu diesem Kommentar
Am 10/11/2023 um 12:34 AM schrieb Steven:

Eine Anmerkung, die mir gerade einfällt. Das deckt sich sehr mit dem Neurotypen-Training von einem gewissen Herren. 

Das Thema "Nonresponder" hat nichts mit "Neurotyping" zu tun. Solche Anmerkungen sind nicht hilfreich.


Edit: Halte dich lieber (nur) an die Artikel auf den Hauptseiten (und meinetwegen die Threads aus meiner Signatur ;) ).

Hier gibt es weitere Infos zu "Nonrespondern" und "individualisierten Programmen".

bearbeitet von Gast
Link zu diesem Kommentar

Optimal program design 2.0 (Menno Henselmans)


Daraus ein paar Punkte zitiert:




Rest intervals: how long should you rest in between your sets?


In conclusion, your rest interval matters primarily because it affects your training volume. As long as you perform a given amount of total training volume, it normally doesn’t matter how long you rest in between sets. If you don’t enjoy being constantly out of breath and running from machine to machine, it’s fine to take your time in the gym. It’s the total volume, not how you distribute it over time, that determines the signal for muscle growth. However, in practice, ‘work-equated’ doesn’t exist, as it’s just you, so resting shorter for a given amount of sets decreases how many reps you can do in later sets and thereby your training volume. This means for most people, resting only a minute or less in between sets is probably detrimental for muscle growth rather than beneficial. Programs with short rest periods only work if a large amount of total sets are performed to compensate for the low work capacity you’ll have when you’re constantly fatigued. On the other hand, if you’re already on a high volume program and you increase your rest periods, this could result in overreaching and reduce muscle growth.





Training frequency: how often should you train a muscle per week?


In conclusion, for maximum muscle growth you’ll probably need to train each muscle at least twice a week. A bro split where you hit each muscle just once a week doesn’t cut it. In fact, most of the debate currently centers on whether considerably higher training frequencies than twice per week are even more beneficial. I’ve recently reviewed several new studies on this that you can read here*.



* Anmerkung: Er bezieht sich auf einen Artikel zu einer Studie, die ergeben haben soll, dass eine höhere Trainingsfrequenz (je Muskel) Vorteile bietet, wenn es ermöglicht höhere Umfänge (bspw. pro Woche) zu absolvieren.




Training intensity: how many reps should you perform per set?


In conclusion, do not limit yourself to the supposed hypertrophy range. It may be outright detrimental and it greatly limits your training design options for no reason. Sets of 6-12 reps are not inherently better at stimulating muscle growth than that same volume of heavier work or the same amount of sets performed close to failure with lighter loads.





Should you train to failure?


In conclusion, you don’t have to take all your sets to failure. While training to failure can be beneficial, your total training volume is what matters most. As long as you achieve the same overall stimulation of your muscles, you can get the same results with submaximal training.




Link zu diesem Kommentar

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Auf dieses Thema antworten...

×   Du hast formatierten Text eingefügt.   Formatierung jetzt entfernen

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Dein Link wurde automatisch eingebettet.   Einbetten rückgängig machen und als Link darstellen

×   Dein vorheriger Inhalt wurde wiederhergestellt.   Clear editor

×   Du kannst Bilder nicht direkt einfügen. Lade Bilder hoch oder lade sie von einer URL.

  • Neu erstellen...