# how important are repetitions in bodybuilding?



## kniterider (Nov 24, 2011)

The only reason I ask is the differences in people's training.

I've been following a similar style to Dorian Yates blood and guts using two working sets of between 6-8 reps then moving to the next exercise. This has worked very well for me these last 6 months.

Before this I used a 8-12 rep range and more working sets.

The reason I ask is I'm wondering what people's general consensus is on this?

Could low reps such as 5x5 have a place in bodybuilding? Does high reps have a negative effect or is change between the two key?

Obviously form is key, so let's suppose all exercises are done with correct form what do you prefer? Low reps higher weight? High reps lower weight? Bit of both?

Cheers all


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

I can tell you now there will be no consensus.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

I use a variety of rep ranges.

All muscle groups have varying degrees of fibre types. Therefore not one method of training hits them all.

So I use 5x5 for say squats or deads. Or bench. I generally don't for pulling exercises as the weight needed for 5 reps to be taxing would stress my tendons too much.


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

ive tried both lower reps (5-6 reps) and higher reps (8-12 reps)...preferred Lower reps, simply from an ego point of view as I was lifting a decent amount of weight...but think all rep ranges etc have a place, otherwise people would use them...trial and error fella


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

L11 said:


> I can tell you now there will be no consensus.


Very true, but what I tend to do now is if it a compound exercise I do low reps, isolation high reps. Perhaps not very scientific but it gives a good balance.


----------



## kniterider (Nov 24, 2011)

Reason I ask is there is such a split with how people train. The likes of arnie said he trained for the pump. The likes of Yates trained to do what he needed to do in the least amount of time possible.

Would 5x5 create a well developed chest or just a barrel chest like you see on a lot of powerlifters?


----------



## k3z (Oct 17, 2007)

Blinkey said:


> Very true, but what I tend to do now is if it a compound exercise I do low reps, isolation high reps. Perhaps not very scientific but it gives a good balance.


x2


----------



## ableton (May 24, 2013)

I use higher reps when training my back, so i can really concentrate on contracting the muscles. It's the only way my back grows. I do 6-10 reps for everything else


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

People differ, and their make ups differ with fibre types.

Personally I am very fast twitch, even as a child I was always the quickest sprinter in the school, yet my body shut down after 100m, 400m was a long distance run for me.

In training I don't think I ever tried, as it is pointless, but I doubt I could bench 100kg x 20 right off the bat without training for it, even though it is only 44% of my 1RM.

Reps 13, 14, 15 would probably feel like lifting nothing, then on 17 it would be like someone flipped a switch and shut me down, (and it has nothing to do with lactic acid).

My triceps however can deal with a higher rep range and still carry on pushing, so dips I've done 30+ strict with body weight but could not do that on bench as my pecs are very fast twitch, as Tom said above, even within a person certain muscles are of a different make up.

Since starting training I've trained mostly in the 3-6 rep range, and gained over 100lbs of lean tissue, with a low volume approach too, so low reps do work, there is no doubt about that.

What rep range is optimal for you is the question you need to ask and answer, but don't be afraid of going low just because you read something on the internet.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

It's not the rep ranges that do the magic it's the consistent overreaching within the confines of them that do


----------



## kniterider (Nov 24, 2011)

Awesome reply. Just the sort of response I was looking for 

I really enjoy lifting heavy but I'm training for overall size and physique rather than strength. It's nice to know people are packing g the pounds on with low low reps. May even try this tonight with chest. Can't hurt to mix it up again


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Pick one rep range stick to it until you stop making progress. Swap rep ranges lower the weight and repeat.

Nothing works forever


----------



## Ricky12345 (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm seeing better changes in the past 2 months going for 12 reps on everything than I have in the past couple years going for 2-8 reps strength on the outher hand isn't doing so good


----------



## BritishAssassin (Nov 26, 2007)

I don't count reps any more.

I tend to go for how I feel on the day now.


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

kniterider said:


> Awesome reply. Just the sort of response I was looking for
> 
> I really enjoy lifting heavy but I'm training for overall size and physique rather than strength. It's nice to know people are packing g the pounds on with low low reps. May even try this tonight with chest. Can't hurt to mix it up again


In 4 years ive gone from 12-20 stone with mostly under 5 reps .

Im now changing things up a bit and dropping some fat as I add muscle .


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

kniterider said:


> Awesome reply. Just the sort of response I was looking for
> 
> I really enjoy lifting heavy but I'm training for overall size and physique rather than strength. It's nice to know people are packing g the pounds on with low low reps. May even try this tonight with chest. Can't hurt to mix it up again


My best advice for pure muscle volume would be to ore exhaust the target muscle with an isolation on upper body.

The reason being that most people get tired in their arms before being tired on chest or back or shoulder movements which involve a press or pull.

I've had the best results pre exhausting so that the target muscle receives the most attention.

But the pre exhaust is not light by any means. It's intended to target the main muscle in a compound.

If you want some pointers look at my vids on you tube 'beefcakewarrior' username. I think Nytol has some too. Both very different approaches but it's what works for us and that's the paramount important point.


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

Nytol said:


> People differ, and their make ups differ with fibre types.
> 
> Personally I am very fast twitch, even as a child I was always the quickest sprinter in the school, yet my body shut down after 100m, 400m was a long distance run for me.
> 
> ...


When working in these low rep ranges were you resting like a powerlifter would, say 5 mins, or as a bodybuilder would no more than 2 min?


----------



## Big Kris (Aug 25, 2009)

Tinytom said:


> I use a variety of rep ranges.
> 
> All muscle groups have varying degrees of fibre types. Therefore not one method of training hits them all.
> 
> So I use 5x5 for say squats or deads. Or bench. I generally don't for pulling exercises as the weight needed for 5 reps to be taxing would stress my tendons too much.


Ive just moved on to this style of training done the 5/5 on compound exercises


----------



## mozzwigan (Apr 20, 2012)

used low reps for a while now on all main compounds, just this week I'm switching back to 10-15 rep range, my god I'm sore!


----------



## LeVzi (Nov 18, 2013)

I have gone back to doing 4 sets, first 3 will be 8-12 reps with a weight to positive fail. Then 4th set will be 6 reps to fail , heavier weight, then if I feel I need more, i'll do another set or two with lighter weights to the 15 rep marker just to get the pump.

I am with @Tinytom about pre-exhausting, I get better results especially for say chest by doing 4 sets of flies before pressing, or doing single arm rows before BB rows or something like that. Even more beneficial if the muscle groups are smaller, like delts. Legs I just tend to go as heavy as I can on squats, then do assistance work.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

kniterider said:


> Awesome reply. Just the sort of response I was looking for
> 
> I really enjoy lifting heavy but I'm training for overall size and physique rather than strength. It's nice to know people are packing g the pounds on with low low reps. May even try this tonight with chest. Can't hurt to mix it up again


I train for size and strength, the two are very much correlated.

Keep in mind that Tom has superior genetics for adding muscle too, if I trained like him, I'd gain f*ck all, no disrespect to my Swiss Ball flyeing bum chum 



Dark sim said:


> When working in these low rep ranges were you resting like a powerlifter would, say 5 mins, or as a bodybuilder would no more than 2 min?


I rested long enough to do the next set justice, I think it is ridiculous to do otherwise.

If you are short on time, do less sets rather than rush between them and have a substandard training session.

Being a very impatient kind of chap I do have a tendency to rush between sets, but have a stop watch attached to my bag so I ensure I get 3-5min even if I feel like I can go again. There is science behind this that can be looked up if anyone is interested in the why.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

LeVzi said:


> I have gone back to doing 4 sets, first 3 will be 8-12 reps with a weight to positive fail. Then 4th set will be 6 reps to fail , heavier weight, then if I feel I need more, i'll do another set or two with lighter weights to the 15 rep marker just to get the pump.


Regardless of my thoughts on your volume, doing lighter sets to failure first then heavier set makes no sense.

Why tire yourself out first, then go heavy?

It's like running a 1500m race, then trying to get your best 100m sprint time in. No one would do that.


----------



## DigIt (Jun 20, 2012)

Nytol said:


> Regardless of my thoughts on your volume, doing lighter sets to failure first then heavier set makes no sense.
> 
> Why tire yourself out first, then go heavy?
> 
> It's like running a 1500m race, then trying to get your best 100m sprint time in. No one would do that.


Outright, I agree 100%

But for the sake of overcoming a plateu for example, this method of training would work. But I still wouldn't advise it, there's plenty other methods and routines out there.


----------



## LeVzi (Nov 18, 2013)

Nytol said:


> Regardless of my thoughts on your volume, doing lighter sets to failure first then heavier set makes no sense.
> 
> Why tire yourself out first, then go heavy?
> 
> It's like running a 1500m race, then trying to get your best 100m sprint time in. No one would do that.


Not everyone is the same, this method works for me, might not work for you, but I do ok with it.


----------



## Chelsea (Sep 19, 2009)

LeVzi said:
 

> Not everyone is the same, this method works for me, might not work for you, but I do ok with it.


Its not really about "doing ok" mate its about doing whats optimal for you I think that's what Nytol is getting at and tbf he knows a thing or 2.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

LeVzi said:


> Not everyone is the same, this method works for me, might not work for you, but I do ok with it.


I'm glad it works, and many things do work esp for people far from their genetic potential, but my interest in training has always been to do what is optimal, not just do something for the sake of it, with no rhyme or reason.

Training that way is illogical.

If you feel you need more sets then why not warm up, do your heavy set, then reduce the weight for subsequent sets as your muscles fatigue?

I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts and ideas.


----------



## LeVzi (Nov 18, 2013)

Chelsea said:


> Its not really about "doing ok" mate its about doing whats optimal for you I think that's what Nytol is getting at and tbf he knows a thing or 2.


I know that mate, I just found it to work well for me.



Nytol said:


> I'm glad it works, and many things do work esp for people far from their genetic potential, but my interest in training has always been to do what is optimal, not just do something for the sake of it, with no rhyme or reason.
> 
> Training that way is illogical.
> 
> ...


Well I used to do the Yates style of training, basically 2 warm up sets, medium tension, then 1 heavy working set to 6 reps to complete fail. It used to work well for me, for most body parts (Other than legs) but then I changed to a more strength based style, keeping it all heavier and less reps. When I started training again for size, I was doing the same sort of thing as I started, 2 "warm up sets" then the heavy set and depending on the muscle group, a dropset. I was doing more sets of 6-8 reps so I made a definiate effort to include at least 2 sets before the heavy one of 8-12, pref 12. And over the last month or so, i've upped the weights so I fail in the 8-12 range for sets 1 and 2 (after a very light warm up if needed) then do a heavy set of 4-6 , sometimes twice (esp for things like bench press) then another set or 2 of a lighter weight , not to fail, just to get a full pump.

I can only go by how I feel after the workout, and the results I get, and tbh since I have been doing this, I am getting DOMS from hell each time, and there is obvious muscle growth in the areas I train.

It's not the same for legs or back though, I still do deads and squats up to 90% of my 1RM, or beyond if I am stronger, then just assistance work.


----------



## DigIt (Jun 20, 2012)

Look, an interesting discussion re. training in the GC department. Can I get a yee haw..?

Lets here it Nytol.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

LeVzi said:


> I can only go by how I feel after the workout, and the results I get, and tbh since I have been doing this, I am getting DOMS from hell each time, and there is obvious muscle growth in the areas I train.
> 
> It's not the same for legs or back though, I still do deads and squats up to 90% of my 1RM, or beyond if I am stronger, then just assistance work.


I'm still not totally clear on the logic behind going to failure, then upping the weight.

Funny I was emailing a friend of mine in Dubai this morning on a similar subject, he used to be in the Marines and still has that 'I have to be close to death after each training session mentality'.

He has been having motivation issues, so yesterday I told him to go and just DL, do triples from 60kg adding 10kg each set until he could not get 3 reps in good form.

This morning he came back to me telling me his weights and saying, "I'll do that every day!" plus, "I'm still going to do strongman circuits every afternoon".

He is putting way too much emphasis on how he feels after training and not enough on the long term plan.

A pump and DOMS don't really mean anything, if training is sensible then DOMS is a good sign of intensity, but I can cause DOMS in anyone with the most retarded of programs that would not lead to any long term gains, just short term discomfort.

If you are getting stronger then that is great, but if you are getting stronger after doing all that work, my thoughts are that your body is learning to become more efficient at coping with the demands you put on it.

It takes a while to be able to develop the intensity to put everything into 1 or 2 all out sets, and like wise, adding more sets will cause your body to adapt to the endurance stresses you are putting on it.

Not adapting by laying down new muscle.

Clearly it does not affect me in anyway, and I do not have an 'I am always right' complex, but I don't like to see people waisting their time on inefficient training programs, (unless they are annoying cocks, then they can crack on  ).


----------



## DigIt (Jun 20, 2012)

Posts like that (Nytol) are why I love this site.

Cheers to UKM...


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

Nytol said:


> I'm still not totally clear on the logic behind going to failure, then upping the weight.
> 
> Funny I was emailing a friend of mine in Dubai this morning on a similar subject, he used to be in the Marines and still has that 'I have to be close to death after each training session mentality'.
> 
> ...


This^^^^.

Pumps and doms are meaningless. You can get doms from painting the ceiling but you won't gain much size that way. IMO most people do way more than they need to, whether that is through reps, sets or frequency of training sessions. I've posted before about how many people go to the gym for the buzz, to assuage guilt, for social reasons etc - anything other than doing the most productive workout to achieve their goals.


----------



## LeVzi (Nov 18, 2013)

Nytol said:


> I'm still not totally clear on the logic behind going to failure, then upping the weight.
> 
> Funny I was emailing a friend of mine in Dubai this morning on a similar subject, he used to be in the Marines and still has that 'I have to be close to death after each training session mentality'.
> 
> ...


lol thanks man, I appreciate you taking the time to read it all 

Like I said, it's only really a month old in terms of a routine, and it's by no means the final product , but it is giving me results right now, but I am always open to try new things.


----------



## LeVzi (Nov 18, 2013)

DigIt said:


> Posts like that (Nytol) are why I love this site.
> 
> Cheers to UKM...


It's also one of the reasons I came back here. There are some sound people who give good advice about. Once you sift through the drongo's


----------



## Prince Adam (Mar 17, 2012)




----------



## DigIt (Jun 20, 2012)

LeVzi said:


> It's also one of the reasons I came back here. There are some sound people who give good advice about. Once you sift through the drongo's


Indeed mate. Get a journal up if you're keen on getting good advice! 

At least check out and subscribe in the journal section, some of the experienced lads have given invaluable advice I need not name anyone.


----------



## LeVzi (Nov 18, 2013)

DigIt said:


> Indeed mate. Get a journal up if you're keen on getting good advice!
> 
> At least check out and subscribe in the journal section, some of the experienced lads have given invaluable advice I need not name anyone.


I used to run a journal here, I cba running one again tbh. But I will check out others


----------



## Laurieloz (Apr 8, 2013)

Low reps are great with heavy weights.

But now too few reps...

I suppose if you only do one rep and put it down again, you wouldn't get far in bodybuilding


----------



## DigIt (Jun 20, 2012)

Laurieloz said:


> Low reps are great with heavy weights.
> 
> But now too few reps...
> 
> I suppose if you only do one rep and put it down again, you wouldn't get far in bodybuilding


What about reverse pyramids?

Working up to a new 1RM...

(having done enough work previously like warming up 100k, 110k, 120k etc you get me?)


----------



## ConP (Aug 18, 2013)

Time under tension is more important for pure hypertrophy goals than number of reps.

It's all about finding the sweet spot for some it's a lot of fast pumping reps and for others (I guess but I don't personally like it) it's ultra slow 10 seconds up 10 seconds down.

I do a range from 2-3 reps all the way up to 100.


----------



## DigIt (Jun 20, 2012)

ConP said:


> *Time under tension is more important for pure hypertrophy goals than number of reps.*
> 
> It's all about finding the sweet spot for some it's a lot of fast pumping reps and for others (I guess but I don't personally like it) it's ultra slow 10 seconds up 10 seconds down.
> 
> I do a range from 2-3 reps all the way up to 100.


Quick, simple, direct question.

Is this considering the use of AAS or including natural trainers? In your opinion, of couse?

I'd be glad to hear your input Con as would many others.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Is well established that people have different fiber type ratios to one another (even before exercise induced changes occur), and also that different muscles have different fiber ratios in the same individual... there are some patterns such as specific muscle groups that are almost always dominated by fiber bundles of a specific type for all individuals, but interindividual variation is still quite large.

The thing to do is as said already, to experiment with, and vary rep ranges. This may result in for the most part using different default rep ranges for different exercises or body parts. Do not be a slave to the idea that all body parts are best trained to the same rep range, set volume and training frequency - such may not at all be the optimal for symmetrical whole body development.

A lot to be said for organised periodization techniques too, and I think organized periodized variation of different aspects of training is way way under utilised and under appreciated as an effective tool in bodybuilding... far too often the focus is too much upon linear load progression and misses out on what you can achieve by progressively manipulating training volume, density, frequency and TUT etc


----------



## Laurieloz (Apr 8, 2013)

DigIt said:


> What about reverse pyramids?
> 
> Working up to a new 1RM...
> 
> (having done enough work previously like warming up 100k, 110k, 120k etc you get me?)


Granted. And well said mate.

I haven't done pyramid training for years. You may have just encouraged me to start this excellent method of training once more


----------



## DigIt (Jun 20, 2012)

Laurieloz said:


> Granted. And well said mate.
> 
> I haven't done pyramid training for years. You may have just encouraged me to start this excellent method of training once more


Thanks, and no problem mate happy to contribute wherever I can. If you haven't done pyramids in a while then you should definitely benefit from them as a different method of training to achieve a similar goal (size/strength). Studying spots sometimes keeps it fresh in mind. It's good to mix and match ideally after 12 weeks but some may last a full 6 months gaining while others plateu at 6 weeks. We're all different.

All donations are accepted through direct debit, paypal or other means of funding of course 

..I really am skint btw :lol:


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

Nytol said:


> I train for size and strength, the two are very much correlated.
> 
> Keep in mind that Tom has superior genetics for adding muscle too, if I trained like him, I'd gain f*ck all, no disrespect to my Swiss Ball flyeing bum chum


Ha ha. To be fair mate you are a beast and have better genetics for lifting heavy than me evidenced by my injuries from pushing the weight boundary.

I do like to train heavy but my joints just can't take it. Recently after a few tendon injuries I've backed off a bit from maximal lifts and gone about 70-80% of maximum but focused on the contraction and tension more. Also varying volume between 6-20 reps depending on exercises.

I've grown more doing this and have no injuries now which is really important to me. That prolapsed disc I got 2 years ago really woke me up to the fact I'm not destined to be a power lifter lol.

That being said I trained quads today and did this

Leg press

20 x 120kg

20 x 200kg

15 x 280kg

10 x 360kg

All reps were done knees to chest (some smart ass probably Nytol will say that's a 2 inch movement) 

I've done 20 reps on 500kg before but my knees really didn't like it.

I've also done 70 reps on 280kg before (vid on you tube) but again my joints now can't handle that.

Therefore I perform each rep controlled and although explosive very strict. I also go full range. This increases the workload in another way. My quads have grown recently from this new method.

After leg press I did squats

10/10 front and rear bar squat superset 65kg 105kg

10 rear squat 145kg

5 rear squat 185kg

3 rear squat 225kg

That's with a 25kg thick bar included in the weight. All reps were below 90 degrees. I can get quite deep (again smart asses will say its a 2 inch squat) 

I strap up my knees for the last two.

Then I did leg extensions

20reps slow squeezing movement with 10,15,20kg. Doesn't sound much weight but my leg extension is a type where the cable is at the feet not the knees so it puts more pressure at the end of the movement.

In previous years I've done giant sets on quads

Leg press

Squat

Front squat

Hack squat

That's a killer. But good coming up to show time.

Point of this post is that it's not so much the weight you lift it's the stress you apply to the muscle. Muscles respond to stress placed on them. You have to be adaptive in your training to continually make them grow. Whether that's increasing weight, volume, ROM, or TUT.

Perfect example is me and Nytol. Both experienced trainers but two completely different methods for results.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

As several of our learned friends have already said, much of it comes down to fibre types.

Fast fibres respond well to heavy weight & low reps. Strong men have more fast fibre, so you will get a lot of the 'strongman' type trainers favouring low reps with heavy weights. Dorian Yates is a classic example of someone who is very high in fast fibre.

Nytol mentioned how he would struggle to bench 100k x 20 even though it's only 44% of his max.

I make his max 225kg. My max is more like 120kg, yet I can get 20 with 80kg (66% max). He's got way more fast fibre than I have - which is why he's twice as strong as me (and twice as big).

But load up the bar with 60k and I'd 'ave the bugger.

Fibre types vary from bodypart to bodypart. If I squat with 80% of my 1RM, I could probably get 20. Seated press with 80% and I'd do well to hit 10. Look in the textbooks, and you'll find that legs are generally thought of as more slow-twitch, and shoulders more fast-twitch


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Major Eyeswater said:


> I make his max 225kg.


227.5kg  (I rounded up the % from 43.95%)

Nice post, even non trained people could well bury me with light weight rep stuff, just carrying a baby/child around in my arms, I have to keep switching as they die off so easily.

Having worked my fast twitch fibres hard over the years, I've exasperated the issue.

As an example I took my daughter climbing a couple of weeks ago to an indoor centre with walls of varying difficulty.

It was great fun, but after a while as I was holding on my forearms shut down, I could feel them going, and I laughed as I fell off the wall, thinking that if this had been real Free Climbing, I'd be a crimson stain right now 

I can hold a 320kg DL at lock out for 5-10 seconds without too much difficulty so my grip is naturally pretty good, just not for this kind of thing.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

Isn't the fast twitch type 1 what you're talking about?

The type 2 is more the bodybuilder fibre which is not so much responsive to heavy weight and low reps as more volume and less weight (not light)

Bit rusty on my biology so genuine question.


----------



## eezy1 (Dec 14, 2010)

i like to mix it up. you can be productive with both


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

Tinytom said:


> Isn't the fast twitch type 1 what you're talking about?
> 
> The type 2 is more the bodybuilder fibre which is not so much responsive to heavy weight and low reps as more volume and less weight (not light)
> 
> Bit rusty on my biology so genuine question.


Broadly speaking, there is fast (white) & slow (red). However, these types are further subdivided

- Type I are the proper slow twitch. Thin, stringy & full of mitochondria. They run on fats & go for hours. They also consume lactic acid.

- Type IIa are probably the ones you are thinking of as the 'bodybuilder' fibre. They run on glycogen and are fairly resistant to fatigue. Unlike type I, they respond to training by getting bigger.

- Type IIx run on Creatine Phosphate, ATP & Glycogen. They are a faster twitch than Type IIa, and there is some evidence that they can change into faster or slower types in response to training - so powerlifters will eventually turn these faster, & volume junkies into slower

- Type IIb are the classic fast twitch. Big, fat & strong with little endurance. They run on ATP & Creatine Phosphate, and have the greatest capacity for hypertrophy.

Although IIb fibres themselves have the greatest capacity for hypertrophy, type IIa require additional infrastructure in the form of extra capillaries, mitochondria & sarcoplasm (cellular fluid). Higher reps stimulate these fibres, which is why people with a preponderance of red fibre can build big muscles by training them in the 10-20 rep range


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

eezy1 said:


> i like to mix it up. you can be productive with both


My routine is designed around such a mix.

I do 3x full body a week - 15-20reps on Friday, 8-12 reps on Sunday, 5 - 8 reps on Wednesday. Working just great for me


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

Major Eyeswater said:


> Broadly speaking, there is fast (white) & slow (red). However, these types are further subdivided
> 
> - Type I are the proper slow twitch. Thin, stringy & full of mitochondria. They run on fats & go for hours. They also consume lactic acid.
> 
> ...


That's awesome. I'm copying that for my notes. Cheers.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Tinytom said:


> That's awesome. I'm copying that for my notes. Cheers.


Plagiariser


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Nytol said:


> I'm still not totally clear on the logic behind going to failure, then upping the weight.
> 
> Funny I was emailing a friend of mine in Dubai this morning on a similar subject, he used to be in the Marines and still has that 'I have to be close to death after each training session mentality'.
> 
> ...


Fantastic post

@HDU read this ****


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

Nytol said:


> Plagiariser


Correct.

And I'll get paid loads for it.


----------



## Laurieloz (Apr 8, 2013)

DigIt said:


> Thanks, and no problem mate happy to contribute wherever I can. If you haven't done pyramids in a while then you should definitely benefit from them as a different method of training to achieve a similar goal (size/strength). Studying spots sometimes keeps it fresh in mind. It's good to mix and match ideally after 12 weeks but some may last a full 6 months gaining while others plateu at 6 weeks. We're all different.
> 
> All donations are accepted through direct debit, paypal or other means of funding of course
> 
> ..I really am skint btw :lol:


Good advice mate. Thanks from a seasoned oldie. 

And we're all skint:crying:


----------



## PaulB (Jun 6, 2010)

Wow, another interesting and educating thread. My faith in UKM is restored


----------



## HDU (Jul 27, 2012)

simonthepieman said:


> Fantastic post
> 
> @HDU read this ****


This was helpful mate thank you.


----------



## kniterider (Nov 24, 2011)

Wow.

Just got back from the gym (awesome session by the way) and read threw all of this.

Just want to say thank you to everyone who contributed. Really have learnt a lot on this thread 

One question tho. How does one know what type of muscle fibers they have more of an abundance of?

My deadlifts and squats are good with heavy weight. I've always had a strong legs and and a powerful back. My chest and shoulders however are average (shoulders less than) yet they still grow. Would this mean I have slower twitch fibers in my chest shoulders and arms as opposed to more fast twitch in my legs and back?

iF this sounds rite it gives me a hell of a lot more to take into consideration to how I train different body parts in future and means I can write myself up a training programme that takes things like this into account


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

kniterider said:


> Wow.
> 
> Just got back from the gym (awesome session by the way) and read threw all of this.
> 
> ...


A good way of getting a rough understanding would be to see how many reps you can get on certain things with different % of your 1RM.

As I said, for me to get 15-20 the % would have to be ridiculously low, far lower than most rough guides suggest.

Even going above 6 requires a significant drop on %, a trade off that does not make logical sense for me personally.

I've just had a Google and on one of the 1RM predictors, it says that 13 reps is on average 71% of a normal 1RM, well for me, when I did a rep set with 140kg out of interest, I only got 13 reps, despite it only being 62% of my 1RM, and that 9% adds up to a decent amount of KG's so to me it goes some way to proving what I know about my own body anyway.

Biceps are probably the worst muscle group for me in this respect, they switch off really early, yet I've done 20-25 rep on chins with bodyweight before.


----------



## big (Sep 14, 2004)

If high reps worked for me, my right forearm would be massive 

I find the same as Nytol (very nice posts btw) - when going higher reps, the weights drop off far more than "indicators" suggest they should. I have always found 3-5 reps to work best for me. That said I've always trained 99.9% for strength and 0.1% for vanity purposes.

As for volume, I find a short period of higher volume (as in the mid to higher end of Prilepin's chart for progressive overload) followed by a period of ramping intensity with low volume to work the best FOR ME.


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

Nytol said:


> A good way of getting a rough understanding would be to see how many reps you can get on certain things with different % of your 1RM.
> 
> As I said, for me to get 15-20 the % would have to be ridiculously low, far lower than most rough guides suggest.
> 
> ...


This comes back almost to a thread I started a short while back:

http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/strength-power/245948-calculation-1rm.html

I'm one of those genetic losers with slow-twitch fibres.

I generally train between 6 and 12 reps, although since started starting Wendler 5/3/1 this has changed to follow his program.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Bull Terrier said:


> This comes back almost to a thread I started a short while back:
> 
> http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/strength-power/245948-calculation-1rm.html
> 
> ...


Fibre types can change to an extent with training, and some people are fortunate in that they seem to be able to excel at both strength and endurance.

My friend Paul, who Tom and Pscarb also know, in his prime got 17 reps with 180kg on Bench press, and around 30 with 140kg, yet was also strong as f*ck at singles.

I met a guy last week in the gym who was doing chins with an added 50kg around his waist, and I spoke to him as apart from myself I'd never seen anyone do that in a gym.

He told me he had started off as a long distance runner, then went into powerlifting, but was not competitive enough to win, so started competing in Crossfit.

This guy was strong and had a very solid looking physique.

So don't condem yourself just yet, keep getting stronger with which ever rep range seems to work best for you, and you will improve


----------



## Slater8486 (Jul 14, 2010)

Nytol said:


> Fibre types can change to an extent with training, and some people are fortunate in that they seem to be able to excel at both strength and endurance.
> 
> My friend Paul, who Tom and Pscarb also know, in his prime got 17 reps with 180kg on Bench press, and around 30 with 140kg, yet was also strong as f*ck at singles.
> 
> ...


Thats impressive on both counts 180 for mass reps wow!

& then the 50kg around waist thats crazy, I reckon my best when I was hitting lots or pull ups hammer grip (fine them easiest) I could hang around 20 kg 8/10 reps like but 50 I don't reckon I could jump up to the bars lol!


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

Nytol said:


> Fibre types can change to an extent with training, and some people are fortunate in that they seem to be able to excel at both strength and endurance.
> 
> My friend Paul, who Tom and Pscarb also know, in his prime got 17 reps with 180kg on Bench press, and around 30 with 140kg, yet was also strong as f*ck at singles.
> 
> ...


Check out the Golden Eagle here in his prime:






Wow!


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Slater8486 said:


> Thats impressive on both counts 180 for mass reps wow!
> 
> & then the 50kg around waist thats crazy, I reckon my best when I was hitting lots or pull ups hammer grip (fine them easiest) I could hang around 20 kg 8/10 reps like but 50 I don't reckon I could jump up to the bars lol!


I've done 50kg for 5 with a pronated grip, (see bellow) and done 60kg for 5 with a reverse grip.


----------



## kniterider (Nov 24, 2011)

Your all beasts lol throwing them weights around and for reps is mental!!

I might sort myself a 5x5 workout and see how I get on. It can't hurt and seeing as I'm only getting 3 sessions in a week at present at least what I do will be heavy enough to promote more growth around all of my frame.

Just gotta start getting the calories in me now!!


----------



## 36-26 (Jun 30, 2009)

kniterider said:


> Wow.
> 
> Just got back from the gym (awesome session by the way) and read threw all of this.
> 
> ...


http://www.brianmac.co.uk/musclefibre.htm

There is a link to a couple of tests to see which fibre type you are dominant in. I'm not sure how accurate they are but might give a rough idea


----------



## martin brown (Dec 31, 2008)

You shouldn't mistake a lack of skill development in exercise with a lack of muscle fibre types though.

Most strength gains are neural in nature - if you haven't 'learnt' how to jump, squat etc you will perform badly. This is NOT an indicator of slow twitch fibre dominance but rather an indication of a lack of firing ability (skill).

This is also one of the major reasons why I believe everyone (regardless of aim) should lift heavy in the beginning as it massively increases skill levels in lifts.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

martin brown said:


> You shouldn't mistake a lack of skill development in exercise with a lack of muscle fibre types though.
> 
> Most strength gains are neural in nature - if you haven't 'learnt' how to jump, squat etc you will perform badly. This is NOT an indicator of slow twitch fibre dominance but rather an indication of a lack of firing ability (skill).
> 
> This is also one of the major reasons why I believe everyone (regardless of aim) should lift heavy in the beginning as it massively increases skill levels in lifts.


Good point. Is not just heavy lifting that develops neural control - repeating form exactly from rep to rep, especially when fatigued, also stimulates a high level of neural adaptation... look at gymnasts, acrobats and dancer and the strength they have relative to body size - that comes largely from repeated practice of precision in technique at body weight only loads.


----------



## Lawrence 82 (Jun 1, 2012)

say if you wanted to cover all bases, would a 1week low rep heavy, followed by a week of lower weight high rep seem sensible?? then repeat


----------



## Chunkee (Sep 1, 2012)

So can fibre types dictate how a session will go (so to speak) as in how fast you will fatigue ect?

I ask as i never seem to have a good chest session, i find after one push excersise (usually Flat/Decline bench) i can't give much for a second push, I end up on a light weight that seems pretty pointless apart from 'the pump' feeling but i tend to battle on regardless as i don't feel i've done enough...

Could this be an indicator of fast twitch? Would i be best to concentrate on a low rep system and put max effort into one push excersise?


----------



## 36-26 (Jun 30, 2009)

Lawrence 82 said:


> say if you wanted to cover all bases, would a 1week low rep heavy, followed by a week of lower weight high rep seem sensible?? then repeat


You could or you could do maybe 6 weeks low rep then 6 high rep


----------



## big (Sep 14, 2004)

Lawrence 82 said:


> say if you wanted to cover all bases, would a 1week low rep heavy, followed by a week of lower weight high rep seem sensible?? then repeat


This is why things like Wendler's 5/3/1 works so well. You've got heavy intense work in the 1-5 rep range followed by assistance work at a higher rep range.

Add into that the 3 week periodisation cycle (heavier each week as the reps reduce) and the deload, and you're covering off most of the important things for reasonable (albeit slow - but steady) progress.


----------



## big (Sep 14, 2004)

Chunkee said:


> So can fibre types dictate how a session will go (so to speak) as in how fast you will fatigue ect?
> 
> I ask as i never seem to have a good chest session, i find after one push excersise (usually Flat/Decline bench) i can't give much for a second push, I end up on a light weight that seems pretty pointless apart from 'the pump' feeling but i tend to battle on regardless as i don't feel i've done enough...
> 
> Could this be an indicator of fast twitch? Would i be best to concentrate on a low rep system and put max effort into one push excersise?


You're probably putting max effort into the lift. Which can be good - but as you're finding, it means you have to limit the volume.

It depends whether you progress best with volume or with intensity (by intensity I mean effort as opposed to traditional percentage of 1rm). If you want to try volume lifting, it is sensible to leave 2-3 reps in the tank each set. It's worth experimenting with both.

Many people would be best placed by trying a period (3-4 weeks) of volume followed by a brief deload and then 2-3 weeks of ramping intensity, and then repeat the phases with slightly higher numbers IMO. This volume base allows the realisation to come in the intensity phase.

Just IMO.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

big said:


> You're probably putting max effort into the lift. Which can be good - but as you're finding, it means you have to limit the volume.
> 
> It depends whether you progress best with volume or with intensity (by intensity I mean effort as opposed to traditional percentage of 1rm). If you want to try volume lifting, it is sensible to leave 2-3 reps in the tank each set. It's worth experimenting with both.
> 
> ...


Yay, someone else who likes playing around with a bit of periodization. I agree with that kind of block periodization, both that the first phase benefits performance in the second, and with the approximate time periods for the phases... IMO go beyond six weeks per block and it can hinder the overall progression; do it for just a week or two and it's not enough to make a decent adaptation.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

One of the best threads I've read in ages. Good theory from experienced guys.

Big - good to see you posting again mate.


----------



## LeVzi (Nov 18, 2013)

One thing I like to do with the 3 main compound lifts (deads, squats, bench) is have a heavy week on one of them, and the others with higher reps, unless it's a complete deload week then thats purely to give everything a rest.

But during the heavy week, i'll attempt to beat my current 1RM or just keep it the same and do a couple of 1 rep sets if I can manage more than 1.


----------



## 36-26 (Jun 30, 2009)

big said:


> You're probably putting max effort into the lift. Which can be good - but as you're finding, it means you have to limit the volume.
> 
> It depends whether you progress best with volume or with intensity (by intensity I mean effort as opposed to traditional percentage of 1rm). If you want to try volume lifting, it is sensible to leave 2-3 reps in the tank each set. It's worth experimenting with both.
> 
> ...


How exactly would you lay that out mate?


----------



## big (Sep 14, 2004)

36-26 said:


> How exactly would you lay that out mate?


Something like this:

Week 1: [email protected]%

Week 2: [email protected]%

Week 3: [email protected]%

Week 4: [email protected]%

Week 5: [email protected]% - deload

Week 6: [email protected]%

Week 7: [email protected]%

Week 8: [email protected]%

That would be an 8 week "dual factor" periodisation (there are actually 4 phases in traditional eastern bloc periodisation - this is focussing on just two of them). It is peaking, but you're peaking over 8 weeks rather than 4-5 months - so you're always a brief taper away from a max if you need it.

The first 4 weeks are volume - should be tiring but you should make every lift comfortably. I would suggest 3-4x/week training in this phase - with the core lifts hit at least 2x/week and lots of assistance (on weak areas only). In other words, 2 lifts done with those percentages each session, and then some assistance.

The deload should include some prehab/rehab work, stretching, some light tech work, cardio and not a lot else.

The last 3 weeks you should be limiting assistance, training no more than 3x/week with a lift done no more than once a week.

All percentages should be based off of a current training max not an "all out" or "best ever" max.

I honestly wouldn't bother maxing out at the end - just base the 2nd cycle off of an uplifted number based on the difficulty of the singles. But if you absolutely feel the urge, you could taper up to a max in the following two weeks, or alternatively the final week could be a singles at 90%, 100% and a 102%+ attempt.

All just IMO of course


----------



## big (Sep 14, 2004)

And yes, most of those percentages are (loosely) based off of Prilepin's chart. Most decent programming will use numbers from that chart somewhere.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Bull Terrier said:


> This comes back almost to a thread I started a short while back:
> 
> http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/strength-power/245948-calculation-1rm.html
> 
> ...


I'm super slow twitch and I'm not exactly weak. Granted I'll never be a competitive powerlifter, but it does have to hold you back


----------



## Chunkee (Sep 1, 2012)

big said:


> You're probably putting max effort into the lift. Which can be good - but as you're finding, it means you have to limit the volume.
> 
> It depends whether you progress best with volume or with intensity (by intensity I mean effort as opposed to traditional percentage of 1rm). If you want to try volume lifting, it is sensible to leave 2-3 reps in the tank each set. It's worth experimenting with both.
> 
> ...


Appreciate the reply mate, i will move onto a volume approach as you have outlined above and work with it to the letter, see how i get on.

Thanks again big.


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

big said:


> Something like this:
> 
> Week 1: [email protected]%
> 
> ...


That sounds like a fairly classic powerlifting type periodisation routine. It was reassuring to read what you wrote earlier about the Wendler 5/3/1 system being so good, considering that is what I'm using now, and results appear to be good so far.

What are your thoughts on other routines like the Russian Masters Routine, Smolov and Sheiko?


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

Nytol said:


> A good way of getting a rough understanding would be to see how many reps you can get on certain things with different % of your 1RM.
> 
> As I said, for me to get 15-20 the % would have to be ridiculously low, far lower than most rough guides suggest.
> 
> ...


I know what you're talking about here mate, although I'm kind of the opposite. Most 1RM predictors have my 1RM way over what it actually is. What I wonder though is if it skews all of the % calculations for popular systems like Wendler.

I'll give you an example.. I'm just onto the 3rd month of the Wendler 5/3/1 Boring But Big 3month challenge. The second exercise of each workout is done at 70% of my training max for 5 sets of 10 reps (training max being 90% of true 1RM). Now Wendler speaks often about how difficult it gets, intense DOMS etc. Quite honestly I don't have any DOMS after workouts. I'm guessing that since I'm more of a slow-twitch guy, doing 5 sets of 10 reps of 70% training max isn't really as taxing as it would be for a fast-twitch guy.

Perhaps it's possible to overthink things at times. So far results seem good, so I'm happy in any case. But a part of me wonders if when calculating percentages for powerlifting routines, if the type of muscle fibre (fast/slow twitch) should also be factored in?


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Bull Terrier said:


> I know what you're talking about here mate, although I'm kind of the opposite. Most 1RM predictors have my 1RM way over what it actually is. What I wonder though is if it skews all of the % calculations for popular systems like Wendler.
> 
> I'll give you an example.. I'm just onto the 3rd month of the Wendler 5/3/1 Boring But Big 3month challenge. The second exercise of each workout is done at 70% of my training max for 5 sets of 10 reps (training max being 90% of true 1RM). Now Wendler speaks often about how difficult it gets, intense DOMS etc. Quite honestly I don't have any DOMS after workouts. I'm guessing that since I'm more of a slow-twitch guy, doing 5 sets of 10 reps of 70% training max isn't really as taxing as it would be for a fast-twitch guy.
> 
> *Perhaps it's possible to overthink things at times*. So far results seem good, so I'm happy in any case. But a part of me wonders if when calculating percentages for powerlifting routines, if the type of muscle fibre (fast/slow twitch) should also be factored in?


It seems to be a case of extremes, some over think, some seem not to think for themselves at all.

The more you train, the more you will get to know your body and what equates to what for you.

In the beginning, I was interested in hitting new 1RM's, for ego more than anything if I'm honest, and after a while figured out that if I could get 6 reps with a weight, then that was about equal to 80% of a 1RM for me, and it was 99% accurate, (this was back in the dark ages before the internet and online calculators of RM's)

Once you establish this for yourself then go with it, makes no difference what anyone else is doing.

My main reason for posting in this thread was to assure people that the whole "you wont grow on less than 6 reps" mentality was b0llocks, and not to be afraid to try things for themselves and see if they work.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

John Andrew said:


> I agree 100% after 34 years I am certain of one thing. You need to always find some way to shock your body to get a response! When my squats were stuck round 200 kgs my mate had me try to do 30 sets of 10 at 140kgs. Got to set 28 and after 6 reps went down and stayed down. A week later I was doing 225 kgs! Good luck mate. John


Not sure I see the logic behind that? 

Did he explain his theory to you?

I'm pleased to hear that for whatever reason it worked though.


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

@Nytol - are you the same Nytol of the Dats forum?


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Bull Terrier said:


> @Nytol - are you the same Nytol of the Dats forum?


I am indeed  , I've not come across another one on my internet travels.


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

Nytol said:


> I am indeed  , I've not come across another one on my internet travels.


I really enjoy that forum, but I'm going to have to get a degree + phd in biology before I actually get to understand most of the stuff they write on that forum lol.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Bull Terrier said:


> I really enjoy that forum, but I'm going to have to get a degree + phd in biology before I actually get to understand most of the stuff they write on that forum lol.


It is a fantastic and unique forum, not sure how long you have been there but it used to be more exclusive.

I do/can understand most of the stuff posted, yet I read it to a level that interests me or that is practical to me at the time.

Sometimes they go too deep, to a point of 'OK that is interesting, but who really cares?'


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

Nytol said:


> It is a fantastic and unique forum, not sure how long you have been there but it used to be more exclusive.
> 
> I do/can understand most of the stuff posted, yet I read it to a level that interests me or that is practical to me at the time.
> 
> Sometimes they go too deep, to a point of 'OK that is interesting, but who really cares?'


Well the thing is it doesn't seem to have been conceived as a forum like uk-m (not meant as a pop at uk-m), but rather as a thinktank for exchanging scientific ideas. Discussion of practical application of PEDS is pretty much discouraged for example.


----------



## Nytol (Jul 16, 2005)

Bull Terrier said:


> Well the thing is it doesn't seem to have been conceived as a forum like uk-m (not meant as a pop at uk-m), but rather as a thinktank for exchanging scientific ideas. Discussion of practical application of PEDS is pretty much discouraged for example.


Exactly!

Hard to believe but UKM used to be a lot more like that


----------



## big (Sep 14, 2004)

Bull Terrier said:


> That sounds like a fairly classic powerlifting type periodisation routine. It was reassuring to read what you wrote earlier about the Wendler 5/3/1 system being so good, considering that is what I'm using now, and results appear to be good so far.
> 
> What are your thoughts on other routines like the Russian Masters Routine, Smolov and Sheiko?


They are all examples of effective programming when used appropriately.

RMR and Smolov are what I would call squat specialisation routines. Shieko is more general PLing.

By "appropriate use", I mean they are high volume, high frequency routines that need to be run:

1. When in a large calorie surplus (i.e. moving up a weight class)

2. When reasonable recovery is given (i.e. not having a full time job + kids + extra hobbies + 1001 commitments etc)

3. When sensible maxes are used to base the percentages on

4. You are not the type to pick up injuries through high volume + high frequency

The reasons(s) why they work well include:

All of them use (albeit high end) of Prilepin's chart (so does Wendler's, just about - although that is very low end)

All of them use a 3-4 week cycling (much like Wendler's)

All of them have built-in deloads (much like....)

All of them focus on core lifts (ok, a couple of them pretty much squats but not much fluff lol)

All of them have progressive overload

The above are what makes for good programming in theory. Wendler adds in a form of auto-regulation (i.e. the combination of AMRAP and flexibility on assistance) which can be very effective depending on how your body works.

All IMO. In practice it's all about what works for you of course


----------



## martin brown (Dec 31, 2008)

big said:


> They are all examples of effective programming when used appropriately.
> 
> RMR and Smolov are what I would call squat specialisation routines. Shieko is more general PLing.
> 
> ...


I am really starting to like the high freq / high volume routines, however, I strongly believe you must be conditioned for it first and you must have at least "good" form on all lifts. It will highlight problems very fast.

Just been putting together my plan for my next comp using a very scaled down sheiko approach. I certainly wouldn't like to start off with a full program


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

big said:


> Something like this:
> 
> Week 1: [email protected]%
> 
> ...


Your post really got me thinking alot..

But also raised a couple of questions..

If we were going to do the three classic powerlifts following your criteria of training 3-4 days per week, 2 main lifts per workout, training each lift (at least) twice per week - how would you lay it out exactly?? I'm presuming that you mean to follow the percentages for each week essentially twice per week for each lift. Is that right?


----------



## big (Sep 14, 2004)

Bull Terrier said:


> Your post really got me thinking alot..
> 
> But also raised a couple of questions..
> 
> If we were going to do the three classic powerlifts following your criteria of training 3-4 days per week, 2 main lifts per workout, training each lift (at least) twice per week - how would you lay it out exactly?? I'm presuming that you mean to follow the percentages for each week essentially twice per week for each lift. Is that right?


Yes, pretty much, for the volume phase.

Lay out would depend on your goals, weaknesses, limitations, nutrition, conditioning, PED use, etc etc. It is very individual.

For instance, some people just can't deadlift with volume. Others thrive on it. Some can squat and bench 4x/wk with no problems, while others end up with tendonitis if they even consider benching a 2nd time. Some can squat/bench/dead in the same workout 3x/wk... others just don't have the conditioning (yet?). Again, assistance would be based around the individual. During the volume phase you want to do as much as you can, while keeping injury-free. This should be increasing your conditioning as well as base strength. Justify every set and every rep - i.e. if your triceps are super strong, don't spend your time on them - make your weaknesses as strong instead.

So let's take a sample hypothetical person - they've been doing 5/3/1, have built a reasonable strength base, have fairly limited conditioning (lifting 3x/wk on a split with low-ish volume), fail on squats due to a weak posterior chain, fail on the deadlift because they're slow off the floor, are strong off of the chest on bench and at lock-out but fail when the delts come into play. I'd have them do something like this:

Mon: Squat (percentages), Bench (percentages), Rows (assistance), GHR (assistance)

Wed: OHP (percentages), Deads (percentages), Deficit speed pulls (assistance), RC work (assistance)

Fri: Box squat (percentages), Bench (percentages), Chins (assistance), Reverse hypers (assistance)

The considerable upper back work is to balance out the 3x/wk pushing and because nobody has ever said their upper back is too strong  The rest of the assistance is based around the weaknesses and is 2-3 sets of 8-12, increasing to 4-5 sets once conditioning is improved. Bear in mind in this phase, there is no reason not to swap in similar lifts (e.g. box squats - in the above example for the posterior chain, front squats if the weakness is folding over on squats, close-grip bench if the weakness on bench is triceps or there are joint/RC problems with multiple conventional bench sessions in a week) if more appropriate (i.e. they target the weakness better).

Then the deload and ramping phase switches to a Squat(Mon)/Push(Wed)/Pull(Fri) type 3 day split with infinitely lower volume across the week, using just the core lifts, and dropping assistance right back to 1-2 sets of 1-2 exercises if needed.

Just IMO


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

@big - first of all I have to say that I like your thinking.

Is your program an alternative to something like Wendler? Or else a good program to follow *after* doing Wendler for a while?


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

Bull Terrier said:


> I know what you're talking about here mate, although I'm kind of the opposite. Most 1RM predictors have my 1RM way over what it actually is. What I wonder though is if it skews all of the % calculations for popular systems like Wendler.


I use a calculation on all my working sets to attempt to 'score up' my performance. It's basically a method to give me an idea of whether 8 reps at 100kg is better or worse than 5 at 110kg.

I've worked it out myself based on what my max reps are at particular weights. (I'm a business analyst for a living, so this sort of thing is normal for me.)

It boils down to a factor (a percentage of your maximum weight) by which the weight on the bar needs to drop to get each additional rep.

What I've found is that for squats, my factor is 1.1% (of my max of ~140k) so every increase/drop of 1.5kg will cost/gain one rep.

For Bench it's 1.7% and on seated press, this factor is 2.2%.

Legs tend to be slow-fibre heavy and shoulders white heavy. The more white fiber, the higher your factor, and the more of a struggle you would find high reps at 75% of max.


----------



## big (Sep 14, 2004)

Bull Terrier said:


> @big - first of all I have to say that I like your thinking.
> 
> Is your program an alternative to something like Wendler? Or else a good program to follow *after* doing Wendler for a while?


I'd say if you're getting good gains on 5/3/1 and you're happy with progress, then stick with that for now. It's a great routine for slow but steady progress (and the key here is the word "progress"!) for those of us living in the real world (i.e. we can't live in the gym, and have other things going on that affect recovery, ability to eat 100% etc etc). It might only be uplifting a small amount every 4 weeks - but that adds up over the year to give solid and sustainable progress.

The programming I listed above is more aggressive in terms of volume but then switching to intensity. In theory it should give greater gains than a lower volume linear program... but only if you choose the parameters sensibly (this is where the theory turns to practice) and don't start missing lifts. The graft from the volume allows the greater realisation in the intensity phase.

I'd say if you're enjoying and progressing with what you're doing, then keep doing it while it's working. When it stops, then switch to something else - and a volume to intensity phased approach works well for many people.

All IMO of course


----------



## Bull Terrier (May 14, 2012)

@big - I notice that you frequently finish your posts with "all IMO"!

Nice to see somebody so unpretentious. Especially somebody who actually talks so much sense.


----------



## Omada (Dec 18, 2011)

Recently I've been (foolhardy or not) following ct Fletcher's training advice. He says go big and go to failure. I've never felt so strong or in such good shape. I really try to emphasise which ever muscle I'm trying to work. If say I'm training chest and at the end of the set it's not my chest that's goosed then I've done it wrong. Drop the weight and focus on form.


----------



## musio (Jan 25, 2008)

I think time under tension shouldn't be sided in this discussion. Powering through higher reps quickly to get them over with is different to slow, controlled reps that burn you out halfway through the set. Growing is all an accumulation of reps, TUT and rest between sets....which is all variable!

Really love this thread btw!


----------

