# 5 X 5.... Any good???



## Adzi (Oct 27, 2008)

Having read about it on an old thread, i tried doing a 5-reps X 5-sets routine for a week or so and wondered what your opinions are of it.

I thought i'd try something different after it was pointed out to me that working to failure on each set probably wasn't doing me any favours!! If you equate the total KG lifted / pressed / curled in each sesion, i'm actually lifting slightly more with this method and thats with halfing my rest periods between sets from 2 mins to 1 min so on paper it looks good.

But doing 5X5, i obviously don't get the same pump as working to failure and wondered if 5 reps per set is enough to get me growing. I use a sensible weight and need a spotter to finish the final rep of the final set so i think i'm getting it about right in that respect. Any opinions or advice would be helpful.............


----------



## BassJunkie (Nov 10, 2008)

Simply put, 5x5 will give you strength, with some mass. Whereas something like 3x8-12 will give you mass, with some strength.

Its just your choice of whether you want more mass or more strength.


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

BassJunkie said:


> Simply put, 5x5 will give you strength, with some mass. Whereas something like 3x8-12 will give you mass, with some strength.
> 
> Its just your choice of whether you want more mass or more strength.


Dont agree one iota

If you want mass, lift heavy weights


----------



## treb92 (Jun 10, 2008)

Your muscles arnt gona get bigger without getting stronger first.


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

BassJunkie said:


> Simply put, 5x5 will give you strength, with some mass. Whereas something like 3x8-12 will give you mass, with some strength.
> 
> Its just your choice of whether you want more mass or more strength.


Nice post. Reps on the way.

5x5 (assuming you are working with your 6rm) will provide you with some strength, some hypertrophy and some GPP (in that order)

3x8-12 will provide some hypertrophy, some local muscular endurance, some gpp, and some strength (in that order)


----------



## Mr.Dann (Jul 15, 2008)

I did 5x5 on my shoulder/back day last week, and i found it hit my muscles in a different way than when i did 10x3, when i switched to 5x5 i used a heavier weight, so it was much more intense, the fifth rep was the failure rep. So are we saying this wont give me mass?


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

Mr.Dann said:


> I did 5x5 on my shoulder/back day last week, and i found it hit my muscles in a different way than when i did 10x3, when i switched to 5x5 i used a heavier weight, so it was much more intense, the fifth rep was the failure rep. So are we saying this wont give me mass?


5x5 is a strength / mass hybrid


----------



## gerg (Aug 17, 2008)

i've meant to post a thread on this for a while

when people talk about strength vs hypertrophy, what actual difference are we looking at in terms of real numbers. Would a hypertrophy based routine make you 5% bigger than doing a similar strength based routine, or would that figure be a lot larger.

I think personally that given equal nutrition and rest etc, a strength based program would given similar results to within a few percent.


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

gerg said:


> i've meant to post a thread on this for a while
> 
> when people talk about strength vs hypertrophy, what actual difference are we looking at in terms of real numbers. Would a hypertrophy based routine make you 5% bigger than doing a similar strength based routine, or would that figure be a lot larger.
> 
> I think personally that given equal nutrition and rest etc, a strength based program would given similar results to within a few percent.


I disagree


----------



## Mr.Dann (Jul 15, 2008)

dutch_scott said:


> technically any stress on ur fibres which it is unaccustomed too, and is damaged by, if followed by recovery protocals will result in growth,
> 
> Hypertrophy is i think better judged in time under tension, an 8-10 rep weight results in more time under tension hence more damage fibrally speaking but....
> 
> ...


Sweet, cheers mate thats very helpful.

Personally strength and mass are both of importance to me, so using the 5x5 will benefit me just as much as switching to 10x3 / 4.

Untill now my routines have been fairly repetitive, so the change up will be good.


----------



## MarkM (Sep 24, 2008)

Tall said:


> Nice post. Reps on the way.
> 
> 5x5 *(assuming you are working with your 6rm)* will provide you with some strength, some hypertrophy and some GPP (in that order)
> 
> 3x8-12 will provide some hypertrophy, some local muscular endurance, some gpp, and some strength (in that order)


Wouldn't using a higher rep max be better? Surely you wouldn't be able to complete 5 sets of 5 reps with a 6RM. Although I could be (probably am) wrong.


----------



## Adzi (Oct 27, 2008)

So what type of routine would you recomend for putting on a bit of size? 3 X 8-10 reps??. Should the final set be to failure?? And what would you guys suggest was the ideal rest time between sets???

Thanks guys. All helpful


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

MarkM said:


> Wouldn't using a higher rep max be better? Surely you wouldn't be able to complete 5 sets of 5 reps with a 6RM. Although I could be (probably am) wrong.


Like 5 sets of 5 reps with your 4rm? :lol: :laugh:

5x5 with your 6rm is a safe bet - you still have 1 in the tank, but the 5th rep won't be easy (so you will be straining)

This allows you to train safely on your own and progress.

Theres some evidence which says you need a rep to be a 9RPE (1 from failure) to induce strength gains.

So 5x5 with 6rm = 9RPE

5x5 with 5rm = 10RPE which would be at failure / 0.5 rep from failure - it's ok to hit those reps if they are planned into your training, but not every week IMHO.

The aim of the game is progression and over reaching without overtraining.


----------



## gerg (Aug 17, 2008)

Tall said:


> I disagree


care to elaborate and give some reasons?


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

You must keep mixing your routines up as one sure fire way to go

into stagnation is doing the same reps, sets, exercises time after

time.

The body adapts very quickly to the same routine

I've gained on every conceivable rep count, and imo neither is better

or worse than the other.


----------



## pastanchicken (Sep 29, 2008)

Thinking of giving 5 x 5 a whirl once I've finished my current cut, hopefully build some strength, sick of having the strength of an 8yr girl :laugh:


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

Adzi said:


> So what type of routine would you recomend for putting on a bit of size? 3 X 8-10 reps??. Should the final set be to failure?? And what would you guys suggest was the ideal rest time between sets???
> 
> Thanks guys. All helpful


Depends on the body part 

Assuming you just want size, then you can't go too far wrong with the classic reps

8 - 12 for most of upper body

12 - 15 for most of lower body

Traps and Calves tend to be different beasts.

Theres a school of thought which says Bi's prefer alot of volume, and tri's prefer to be trained heavy.

If you are going to do the above rep ranges, then you would need to do so in a manner which stimulates both slow and fast twitch fibres IMHO


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

gerg said:


> care to elaborate and give some reasons?


I'm short on time so I'll have to be quick and you might have to google some stuff



> i've meant to post a thread on this for a while
> 
> when people talk about strength vs hypertrophy, what actual difference are we looking at in terms of real numbers. Would a hypertrophy based routine make you 5% bigger than doing a similar strength based routine, or would that figure be a lot larger.
> 
> I think personally that given equal nutrition and rest etc, a strength based program would given similar results to within a few percent.


Strength Training is the art of getting strong by tapping into all of the available muscle fibres and motor units and becoming efficient at that movement.

The average trainee may be using 30% of their potential strength, whereas an elite class weight lifter may be using 60% of their potential strength (Siff)

You can get bigger as you get stronger by working in a rep range which will induce sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

Or you can get stronger by working on myofibrial hypertrophy and MHC content, along with motor unit efficiency which would not bring about the same size gains as SH training.

I can think of a number of PLs who look vastly smaller than BB'ers yet are very strong. I can name names offline if you wish as I don't want to insult anyone by saying they are small.

Read Siff / Zatorsky / Verhanshokansky / Drumpa if you really wish to understand why a strength training routine and a BB hypertrophy routine would produce more than 5% difference in size.


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

Halil Mutlu - weighs 56kg, trains for strength, has small arms, yet can C&J 168kg










Maosheng Le - weighs 62kg, trains for strength, C&J 182kg










Guozheng Zhang - weighs 69kg C&J 197kg


----------



## pastanchicken (Sep 29, 2008)

Damn, those guys are strong :thumbup1:


----------



## gerg (Aug 17, 2008)

what about if fed though guys more calories, or do you think they would just get fat?


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

gerg said:


> what about if fed though guys more calories, or do you think they would just get fat?


I don't know how much they eat now, but I'd suggest its alot. 

Chinese / Eastern Block lifters are usually employed by the state and just train, eat and recover.

30+ training sessions per week would not be unusual.

Abundance of food doesn't equal hypertrophy.


----------



## Adzi (Oct 27, 2008)

Tall said:


> Depends on the body part
> 
> Assuming you just want size, then you can't go too far wrong with the classic reps
> 
> ...


If i go for the classic 8-12 reps as you suggest, do i go to failure on any of the sets? If not, then how close to failure should you aim for?? And i'm assuming that its 3 sets per excercise???


----------



## gerg (Aug 17, 2008)

Tall said:


> Abundance of food doesn't equal hypertrophy.


i know, but for some, training for strength without size is important (e.g. gymnasts)


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

Adzi said:


> If i go for the classic 8-12 reps as you suggest, do i go to failure on any of the sets? If not, then how close to failure should you aim for?? And i'm assuming that its 3 sets per excercise???


If you feel training to failure would benefit your goals then train that way. 

3 sets should be fine.


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

gerg said:


> i know, but for some, training for strength without size is important (e.g. gymnasts)


I swear I covered that above


----------



## Dezmyster (Nov 28, 2008)

That guy in the middle looks good for his size.


----------



## Adzi (Oct 27, 2008)

Tall said:


> If you feel training to failure would benefit your goals then train that way.
> 
> 3 sets should be fine.


Thats the thing - i thought going to failure on each set would benefit me but i was told on a previous thread i did that i shouldn't (not on every set). Still relatively new to all this so looking for someone like yourself to tell me whats best!!!! I keep reading that training to failure risks overtraining. I train 6 times a week when i can (1.Chest, 2. Back 3. Cardio, 4. Arms, 5. Shoulders/legs, 6.Cardio), weigh 86kg and bench 80kg. Still striving to get on top of the diet


----------



## BassJunkie (Nov 10, 2008)

tel3563 said:


> Dont agree one iota
> 
> If you want mass, lift heavy weights


If you want mass then you have to lift heavy weights, but if you want strength then you have to lift heavy weights too, its just something that everyone knows, but after lifting heavy, rep range is the next thing to look at, most people (and I am generalising here) will find that they get strength from 5x5 and even though they are lifting heavy still wont get as much mass as if they were training for hypertrophy.

5x5 for strength and 3x8 for mass are just general guidelines but everyone has different rep ranges that suit them better for mass and for strength.


----------

