A few queries I have...
- Thread starter SameOldSameOld
- Start date
HST_Rihad
Active Member
So, Bryan is proposing to add weight until you do hit failure, or until the fifth pull-up can't be done, isn't he? 
Ok, assuming failure isn't there, he is proposing to limit workout volume to 5-10 reps per MG as weight is or gets very close to 5RM. That seems to be an older concept well suited for folks with low training age.
Ok, assuming failure isn't there, he is proposing to limit workout volume to 5-10 reps per MG as weight is or gets very close to 5RM. That seems to be an older concept well suited for folks with low training age.
Speaking from the future, Bryan
Stop necro'ing threads ... for the love of God ...
And read this.
This too.
So, Bryan is proposing to add weight until you do hit failure, or until the fifth pull-up can't be done, isn't he?
Ok, assuming failure isn't there, he is proposing to limit workout volume to 5-10 reps per MG as weight is or gets very close to 5RM. That seems to be an older concept well suited for folks with low training age.
Don't go to failure ... stop before failure. But if you're hitting the volume without going to failure, then increase.
No, you need more load. You're experiencing RBE.
What he said.
Sarcasm, muscles, food. That's what Totentanz does.
And stop necro'ing ... ffs, bloody amateur hour in here.
I have always raised load before volume. I'm not saying 10 reps is all I ever needed, I'm saying that load comes before volume.
Furthermore, the issue that Totentanz (apparently) & I have is the misquoting (intentional or not) to suit your own contention. Bryan is clearly saying to increasing the load whenever you can, so long as you aren't going to failure.
a) Have you ever met someone near their genetic limits who arrived there by lifting light loads?
b) Have you ever met someone near their genetic limits who arrived there without excessive volume?
For me,
a) No
b) Yes
You place too much trust in the Wernbom meta study. Where did the magical number of 30 come from? I can't imagine how painful doing 6 sets of my 5RM would be (well, it's not my 5RM of course, it's my 6x5RM).
Furthermore, the issue that Totentanz (apparently) & I have is the misquoting (intentional or not) to suit your own contention. Bryan is clearly saying to increasing the load whenever you can, so long as you aren't going to failure.
a) Have you ever met someone near their genetic limits who arrived there by lifting light loads?
b) Have you ever met someone near their genetic limits who arrived there without excessive volume?
For me,
a) No
b) Yes
You place too much trust in the Wernbom meta study. Where did the magical number of 30 come from? I can't imagine how painful doing 6 sets of my 5RM would be (well, it's not my 5RM of course, it's my 6x5RM).
HST_Rihad
Active Member
He isn't saying we should go to failure, that's not the point. Indeed, hitting failure at all is going to be hard on frequency. He IS saying to drop volume as weight gets heavier and heavier. That was the reason I brought this topic up.
Won't working at 6x5RM bring both mass and strength up? Do we really need to bump the load all the way to 5RM?
True, that's the idea, 6x5RM load, lower than true 5RM. The rep range 30-60 @load 65-85% came from tens of different researches. I just knew it existed for some time, and then I found Bryan mentioning it in an article.
I can't imagine doing 6x5 3-4 times a week and having anything resembling strength gains. Size gains? Possibly, though I'd wager that there's an awful lot of glycogen storage going on - not that this matters from an aesthetics point of view.
If you're only getting into the gym twice a week then for a fairly experienced trainee, 6x5 is probably useful (lets you meet the work-done threshold).
I'll definitely add the caveat that 6x5 will be well suited to anyone who's doing an assisted cycle.
Also - and this is anecdotal, I think I'd rather do two exercises @ 3x5 than one exercise at 6x5. For deads that isn't an option obviously, but Bench/Dips + Incline, Rows + Chins, Squats + Leg Press etc sounds a lot friendlier to me than 6x flat bench etc.
If you're only getting into the gym twice a week then for a fairly experienced trainee, 6x5 is probably useful (lets you meet the work-done threshold).
I'll definitely add the caveat that 6x5 will be well suited to anyone who's doing an assisted cycle.
Also - and this is anecdotal, I think I'd rather do two exercises @ 3x5 than one exercise at 6x5. For deads that isn't an option obviously, but Bench/Dips + Incline, Rows + Chins, Squats + Leg Press etc sounds a lot friendlier to me than 6x flat bench etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sci
Well-Known Member
Well the key is not to go too heavy. Obviously if you try to do 6x5 with your 5 rep max, that is just way too much and you'll overtrain or fail, or get injured, or possibly even die. So you just grab about 85% of your 6 rep max
, and you grind out 6 sets of 5 reps. The strength and size gains are great, but other cluster approaches such as 3x10, 4x8, or 5x6 work just as well.Well the key is not to go too heavy. Obviously if you try to do 6x5 with your 5 rep max, that is just way too much and you'll overtrain or fail, or get injured, or possibly even die. So you just grab about 85% of your 6 rep max
It seems to me that the reasoning here is that volume will overcome RBE, which anyone who has trained using any HIT variant or one bodypart per workout will attest simply doesn't build muscle beyond 'beginner' gains.
85% of 5RM is ballpark ~8RM, ~ 75-78% of 1RM. Now that's great for preventing over-training, but your recruitment levels aren't going to be fantastic (although with 6 sets you're definitely running a good chance of being covered). Lets say you are, and you're getting near-max/max recruitment, personally there's still a great deal of skepticism regarding the load.
Overcoming RBE has almost always been a question of load (as the explanatory pages on the HST site could spell out, if HST_Rihad wants a Bryan-discussion to refer to). It seems to be that 6x5 or 30 reps or 60 reps etc (however we choose to categorise it) is simply a way of contending that an increase in volume will overcome RBE rather than an increase of load. It's pretty much the opposite of everything that is discussed here, of a training program like 5x5 (which is about load first, volume to consolidate strength gains and facilitate a corresponding increase in muscle mass).
I'm not contending that volume is irrelevant. If it was, we'd all walk into the gym, do 3 or 4 singles after a warm-up and leave. This isn't the case ofc, and it matters, but it's certainly not as important as load. If anything, I'd say volume is a function of load; something that should be determined after identifying & planning load progression, analogous to a calculus equation etc. But load is the stimulus that builds muscle.