Wondering if anyone has experience with Dans programs? Specifically the MMS - Mass Made Simple programs. I'm looking to put on some size during the next 6 months and I'm kind of burnt on the bodybuilding training.
Dans stuff, specifically this: http://danjohn.net/2012/01/mass-made-simple-lite/ looked like a simple, varied workout I could do.
Any experiences/advice? 
I took a glance. Reps seem too low if you want size. Clean and press singles for size? Nah
My take though, do what you want.
vermonter - I took a glance. Reps seem too low if you want size. Clean and press singles for size? NahI'm confused, nowhere does he recommend anything lower than a set of 5 reps. Also the daily volume seems pretty high once you add in all the backsquatting but maybe I'm missing something.
My take though, do what you want.
I'm currently doing a 2 week Easy Strength cycle and have enjoyed it thus far.
vermonter - I took a glance. Reps seem too low if you want size. Clean and press singles for size? NahDoesn't recommend singles?
My take though, do what you want.
Made a mistake on my quick glance. I read the cleans section and he says something like "each clean and press is one rep" which I thought meant singles.
That said, his upper body workhorse moves, bench and row are never done for more than five reps. For size, I am no longer of the belief that that low reps are sufficient. I have a mountain of data I've compiled that indicates this is so. I used to heavily espouse 5 rep sets, but no longer. In my data, basic compound lifts (bar, db and machine) are correlated most strongly to size, even in the arms. When they are selected exclusively, the correlation between volume-load and size was very high (~0.91) when the weight of the moves was greater than 180 lbs. (I don't have enough data over about 250 lbs to know how efficacious it is, because I can only manage two presses and one pull for 10+ reps over that weight).
The leg work seems better, but i dont like back squats for most people. Too stressful on the upper body and not necessary for most people. Volume wise i like it.
Id have to examine more in depth to give a better answer than that. For Tom, these answers dont necessarily apply. Weight classes matter, and managing leg vs upper body size is important for fighters. Leg muscles tend to be over powered in fighters, and too heavy for optimal performance.
Sub 
vermonter - Made a mistake on my quick glance. I read the cleans section and he says something like "each clean and press is one rep" which I thought meant singles.https://youtu.be/Wm8BU429MuI
That said, his upper body workhorse moves, bench and row are never done for more than five reps. For size, I am no longer of the belief that that low reps are sufficient. I have a mountain of data I've compiled that indicates this is so. I used to heavily espouse 5 rep sets, but no longer. In my data, basic compound lifts (bar, db and machine) are correlated most strongly to size, even in the arms. When they are selected exclusively, the correlation between volume and size was almost perfect (0.95) when the weight of the moves was greater than 180 lbs. (I don't have enough data over about 250 lbs to know how efficacious it is, because I can only manage two presses and one pull for 10+ reps over that weight).
The leg work seems better, but i dont like back squats for most people. Too stressful on the upper body and not necessary for most people. Volume wise i like it.
Id have to examine more in depth to give a better answer than that. For Tom, these answers dont necessarily apply. Weight classes matter, and managing leg vs upper body size is important for fighters. Leg muscles tend to be over powered in fighters, and too heavy for optimal performance.
:-)
vermonter - Made a mistake on my quick glance. I read the cleans section and he says something like "each clean and press is one rep" which I thought meant singles.So what sort of training would you recommend for someone trying to gain muscle?
That said, his upper body workhorse moves, bench and row are never done for more than five reps. For size, I am no longer of the belief that that low reps are sufficient. I have a mountain of data I've compiled that indicates this is so. I used to heavily espouse 5 rep sets, but no longer. In my data, basic compound lifts (bar, db and machine) are correlated most strongly to size, even in the arms. When they are selected exclusively, the correlation between volume and size was almost perfect (0.95) when the weight of the moves was greater than 180 lbs. (I don't have enough data over about 250 lbs to know how efficacious it is, because I can only manage two presses and one pull for 10+ reps over that weight).
The leg work seems better, but i dont like back squats for most people. Too stressful on the upper body and not necessary for most people. Volume wise i like it.
Id have to examine more in depth to give a better answer than that. For Tom, these answers dont necessarily apply. Weight classes matter, and managing leg vs upper body size is important for fighters. Leg muscles tend to be over powered in fighters, and too heavy for optimal performance.
"When they are selected exclusively, the correlation between volume and size was almost perfect (0.95) when the weight of the moves was greater than 180 lbs. (I don't have enough data over about 250 lbs to know how efficacious it is, because I can only manage two presses and one pull for 10+ reps over that weight)"
Is it TUT that is responsible for the size increases here or just overall volume? What about 5 reps but a shitload of sets?
I mean 3 sets of 10 reps or 6 sets of 5 reps is still 30 reps but i suspect the 5 reps will allow a higher weightload (with enough rest between sets)
The more research I've done the more positive reviews I've found for both the author and the program. It seems Dan is held in very high regard. I'm going to buy his book. Will report back.
Triple X Guard - http://www.strengtheory.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume/
This is pretty long, but interesting so i'll have to look more in depth later.
At a glance though, it's fairly uncompelling. Most of the studies he included controlled for volume. Since my own findings were that more volume is better, these are pretty much useless. Also, I'm not surprised that a heavy weight for a lot of reps outperforms a lower weight for the same number.
As for the other 3 studies (sort of, one had varying numbers of sets, so doesn't really count, and one used the same rep range...) they seem to refute the central thesis of the article, which looks like set number is a more important factor than people think. The problem with this reasoning is that most research is done with either untrained or recreationally trained people who aren't really strong enough for there to be an important difference in weight. Volume will start to make a massive difference in hypertrophy when your 30 rep sets are with 200 lbs or more for upper body and 300 lbs or more with the lower. In other words, the results of weak noobs doing a routine for the first time aren't really all that useful to me.
I also usually try to avoid failure, while this guy promotes all sets to failure.
Ultimately, his conclusion doesn't really seem all that different to mine. Volume, in some regard, seems important and that's about that.
That song you posted was HILARIOUS, by the way.
GSPsShadyHandWraps - "When they are selected exclusively, the correlation between volume and size was almost perfect (0.95) when the weight of the moves was greater than 180 lbs. (I don't have enough data over about 250 lbs to know how efficacious it is, because I can only manage two presses and one pull for 10+ reps over that weight)"
Is it TUT that is responsible for the size increases here or just overall volume? What about 5 reps but a shitload of sets?
I mean 3 sets of 10 reps or 6 sets of 5 reps is still 30 reps but i suspect the 5 reps will allow a higher weightload (with enough rest between sets)
Good question about TUT. Simple answer is: I don't know. I suspect that it plays a significant role, as does the volume of exposure to a weight, but I couldn't say to what extent because there are too many limitations in attempting to measure TUT, especially when we consider that the correlation between volume and TUT is probably pretty high. There doesn't really seem to be a point in the headache of measuring it.
I also am subject to the "best routine is the one you'll do" limitation. Counting out the cadence of my reps is tedious as fuck, and since just counting rep numbers works pretty well, what's the point?
Could you do a lot of 5 rep sets to get as many reps (but greater volume-load) and still see the same results or better? Maybe, but the data I collected pointed to volume-load as having a very strong association with hypertrophy as long as the weight was over ~180 for the major upper body lifts and between about 80 - 100 lbs for isolations (the most extensive correlations I ran were for the arms, because I was looking to exceed 17 inches cold or close to 18 w/ pump).
With that in mind, on an example "busy" week for primary presses I was doing ~100 reps total. The average weight of workings sets was 207.5 lbs, and the average reps per set was 12.5. This is an example of a week that correlated highly with hypertrophy, and to have replaced it with sets of 5 would have meant 4 days of 5x5 with just presses (I did lots of other stuff this week as well), and I'd be doing 260 - 270 lbs. I'm no Jeremy Hamilton brother, so that routine sounds like hell.
Would it have been effective? I guess... brutal though, and boring as shit. I doubt I'd be able to tolerate that kind of routine for very long.
mkou -vermonter - Made a mistake on my quick glance. I read the cleans section and he says something like "each clean and press is one rep" which I thought meant singles.So what sort of training would you recommend for someone trying to gain muscle?
That said, his upper body workhorse moves, bench and row are never done for more than five reps. For size, I am no longer of the belief that that low reps are sufficient. I have a mountain of data I've compiled that indicates this is so. I used to heavily espouse 5 rep sets, but no longer. In my data, basic compound lifts (bar, db and machine) are correlated most strongly to size, even in the arms. When they are selected exclusively, the correlation between volume and size was almost perfect (0.95) when the weight of the moves was greater than 180 lbs. (I don't have enough data over about 250 lbs to know how efficacious it is, because I can only manage two presses and one pull for 10+ reps over that weight).
The leg work seems better, but i dont like back squats for most people. Too stressful on the upper body and not necessary for most people. Volume wise i like it.
Id have to examine more in depth to give a better answer than that. For Tom, these answers dont necessarily apply. Weight classes matter, and managing leg vs upper body size is important for fighters. Leg muscles tend to be over powered in fighters, and too heavy for optimal performance.
See my above reply and I think it will give you a good idea of what I did and found to be effective.
For someone other than myself, however, it sort of depends on how strong you are. How many times can you bench 200 lbs (any kind)? How about a chest supported row on a properly calibrated machine? How many times can you deadlift or squat 300 lbs?
If the answer to these questions is "Not much" or "Not at all" then you'd need to get stronger before worrying about size.
vermonter -You're right. Eric Helms confirms: https://youtu.be/xTDapcklnV8Triple X Guard - http://www.strengtheory.com/the-new-approach-to-training-volume/
This is pretty long, but interesting so i'll have to look more in depth later.
At a glance though, it's fairly uncompelling. Most of the studies he included controlled for volume. Since my own findings were that more volume is better, these are pretty much useless. Also, I'm not surprised that a heavy weight for a lot of reps outperforms a lower weight for the same number.
As for the other 3 studies (sort of, one had varying numbers of sets, so doesn't really count, and one used the same rep range...) they seem to refute the central thesis of the article, which looks like set number is a more important factor than people think. The problem with this reasoning is that most research is done with either untrained or recreationally trained people who aren't really strong enough for there to be an important difference in weight. Volume will start to make a massive difference in hypertrophy when your 30 rep sets are with 200 lbs or more for upper body and 300 lbs or more with the lower. In other words, the results of weak noobs doing a routine for the first time aren't really all that useful to me.
I also usually try to avoid failure, while this guy promotes all sets to failure.
Ultimately, his conclusion doesn't really seem all that different to mine. Volume, in some regard, seems important and that's about that.
That song you posted was HILARIOUS, by the way.
I've only heard good things about Dan John.
You need to put things in context. MMS was written for high school kids. He tells them to eat PB and Js FFS to help gain size. If you get a kid going through puberty, make them eat a lot, and add some weights, anything at all really, they'll gain weight. Have I ever seen or heard of MMS working in an adult? Nope. Not once.
Dan John is a hoax. A high school throwing coach who has done a great job marketing himself. I've been and trained at Dan's. Had dinner with him numerous times and talked training. And I've yet to see any beasts training with him using his methods. You'd be more likely to find strong fit dudes at any crossfit gym before his.
If you want mass go with Poliquin. Or Thibeadeau. Or just about anyone else. But if you want to be a fifty-year old guy who hasn't seen his toes in years and needs another fake hip then his advice might be worthwhile following.
^^ Oh snap, Mr. Read keeping it real.
bull neck - You need to put things in context. MMS was written for high school kids. He tells them to eat PB and Js FFS to help gain size. If you get a kid going through puberty, make them eat a lot, and add some weights, anything at all really, they'll gain weight. Have I ever seen or heard of MMS working in an adult? Nope. Not once.Wow. I really respect your opinion and I can't tell you how surprised I am. Thanks for posting.
Dan John is a hoax. A high school throwing coach who has done a great job marketing himself. I've been and trained at Dan's. Had dinner with him numerous times and talked training. And I've yet to see any beasts training with him using his methods. You'd be more likely to find strong fit dudes at any crossfit gym before his.
If you want mass go with Poliquin. Or Thibeadeau. Or just about anyone else. But if you want to be a fifty-year old guy who hasn't seen his toes in years and needs another fake hip then his advice might be worthwhile following.
Thibadeaux the T Nation writer? Has some stuff he put out that he later said he doesn't agree with anymore, like his modified GVT program. Do you have any specific recommendations? I really want to try something new.
My advice, now I've got the hate out of my system, is do the opposite of what you've been doing. If you've been doing higher rep, isolated type work go onto a powerlifting type program. If you've been following the PL approach get onto a multi-day bodypart split like most bodybuilders would use.
Another alternative is to swap between Accumulation plans (high volume) and intensification (higher load), which is what I just said above, but you can still do this via normal bodybuilding exercises too. Poliquin probably has an article on this somewhere because I first read of it through him.
Then you've got options like 5/3/1 at one end of the spectrum (with many tack on options available to suit your purposes) or at the opposite end something like the original GVT. Again, note that you're cycling from intensity to volume and see the trend.
But the key to really gaining size is food. If you want to gain mass you have to eat to gain mass. A lot of guys want to keep their abs and gain weight. If you want to take shitloads of anabolics that's going to be possible but if you want to do it clean you're going to have to accept that gaining mass = gaining fat too.
The keys to mass are pretty simple - eat more and lift more. Eating more is obvious. Just get more calories in. Lifting more can be either more load or more reps/ sets. Both will do the trick as you can see above, but remember to cycle between the two.
Pick bigger lifts over isolated ones where possible as the body responds to having to deal with the greater load by adding weight. As an example, most of the spec op guys I know are starting to retire and they are all dropping about 5kg in weight because they're not wearing body armor anymore. (This is one of the drawbacks of trying to use kettlebells to add mass - they're just not heavy enough to force this in the body compared to holding a heavy bar on your back).
There's no secret perfect plan for mass just like there isn't for anything else. But the bedrock of mass gain is made up of more food and lifting more.