How Many of You....
- Thread starter The Long Run
- Start date
<div>
(quadancer @ Feb. 21 2008,09:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Another thing to consider (we've discussed before) is that glycogen can fill immediately...but real muscle growth is a slow process. How do you KNOW that you're growing in the 5's, when it just may be the TENS that did it? We glycogen and fluid fill right away and say "Awww Lookit, I'ma bigga boy now".
I think it's misleading.</div>
Quad has a great point here...and sorry for missing this topic if covered before. What does the research say in regard to the time response of work to muscle hypertrophy?
Since it's been stated here that optimal protein synthesis occurs somewhere within 48 hours after a workout, I always thought that muscle growth, however small, should be pretty immediate. If not, then I'm probably wasting my time correlating growth to specific meso-cycles.
(quadancer @ Feb. 21 2008,09:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Another thing to consider (we've discussed before) is that glycogen can fill immediately...but real muscle growth is a slow process. How do you KNOW that you're growing in the 5's, when it just may be the TENS that did it? We glycogen and fluid fill right away and say "Awww Lookit, I'ma bigga boy now".
I think it's misleading.</div>
Quad has a great point here...and sorry for missing this topic if covered before. What does the research say in regard to the time response of work to muscle hypertrophy?
Since it's been stated here that optimal protein synthesis occurs somewhere within 48 hours after a workout, I always thought that muscle growth, however small, should be pretty immediate. If not, then I'm probably wasting my time correlating growth to specific meso-cycles.
scientific muscle
New Member
<div>
(Lol @ Feb. 22 2008,13:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You have to watch young Sci like a hawk; if you look away for a moment he'll have moved on to a new training program!
Currently, I think his flavour of the day is a 5 x 5 variant but I might have that wrong because I haven't been taking my own advice.
</div>
My philosophy is to do whatever training gets you stronger over time. For example, If you go from benching 200 to 300, you can bet your pecs, tris and delts will be bigger.
Thats about it. Different intensities, frequencies and volumes work for different people. Progressive Load is the most important Principle.
There is no 'one-size-fits-all' program. And I finally realized that after years looking for it.
Right now I am getting bigger and stronger for sure, but Lol is right I constantly am tweaking my lifting routine and trying different things to see what works. Mainly I do singles, or sets of 5, train heavy, near failure and lower frequency. I guess what you might call SST. I looked through all my training journals and I noticed the trend of lifting low reps heavy with lower frequnecy is what works for me.
I don't buy the whole SD principle at all. Too much time off brings too much atrophy. Too little time off and submax weights don't do squat.
Always keep your training journals and look them over periodically to see what worked for you and what didn't, doing that is better than any 'cookie-cutter' program that exists.
(Lol @ Feb. 22 2008,13:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You have to watch young Sci like a hawk; if you look away for a moment he'll have moved on to a new training program!
Currently, I think his flavour of the day is a 5 x 5 variant but I might have that wrong because I haven't been taking my own advice.
My philosophy is to do whatever training gets you stronger over time. For example, If you go from benching 200 to 300, you can bet your pecs, tris and delts will be bigger.
Thats about it. Different intensities, frequencies and volumes work for different people. Progressive Load is the most important Principle.
There is no 'one-size-fits-all' program. And I finally realized that after years looking for it.
Right now I am getting bigger and stronger for sure, but Lol is right I constantly am tweaking my lifting routine and trying different things to see what works. Mainly I do singles, or sets of 5, train heavy, near failure and lower frequency. I guess what you might call SST. I looked through all my training journals and I noticed the trend of lifting low reps heavy with lower frequnecy is what works for me.
I don't buy the whole SD principle at all. Too much time off brings too much atrophy. Too little time off and submax weights don't do squat.
Always keep your training journals and look them over periodically to see what worked for you and what didn't, doing that is better than any 'cookie-cutter' program that exists.
Something I've always considered possible, at least in principle, was to somehow do the "15's," or, rather, get the effect, even during heavy loading.
It seems to me that doing slow-ish bodyweight stuff or something along those lines throughout an entire HST cycle would kind of do that, as you're just trying to get the burn-y stuff and the theoretical magic that provides to your connective tissue. Periodic time off on top of that too, of course.
It seems to me that doing slow-ish bodyweight stuff or something along those lines throughout an entire HST cycle would kind of do that, as you're just trying to get the burn-y stuff and the theoretical magic that provides to your connective tissue. Periodic time off on top of that too, of course.
For what it's worth, I remember thinking that 15's indefinitely were a good idea, and maybe they are, but I don't think it's necessarily "heavy weights" that really lead to problems over time, but rather subtle deviations in form as a result of lifting those loads.
I think it's entirely possible to condition yourself to lift heavy stuff more often, and I remember when I first tried to do low-ish reps with any frequency, I'd very much "feel" sore/beat up. After a couple/few years of more PL-y style lifting, starting with a few sets of 5 for a lifting cycle or whatever is just not really an issue anymore, and the biggest difference to my health is mostly a product of paying very close attention to my form on everything.
Pavel actually makes a fairly well reasoned argument that (submaximal) sets of lower reps are actually safer than higher rep sets, and this is a point I think I might have made a while back in a discussion of the "spirit of 15's" that a lot of people miss. I.e. people turn 15's into just another attempt at PR's for 15 reps, when you're really just trying to flush your muscles with lactic acid and break them into some loading after a break.
The danger of high rep set PR attempts is that you usually see MORE perturbations in form as the set progresses relative to sets of less reps. With some real focus, it's actually easier for me to keep tight form in sets of 3's or 5's than it is for 10's or 15's, PARTICULARLY on exercises like squats and deadlifts, but really for most things.
I think it's entirely possible to condition yourself to lift heavy stuff more often, and I remember when I first tried to do low-ish reps with any frequency, I'd very much "feel" sore/beat up. After a couple/few years of more PL-y style lifting, starting with a few sets of 5 for a lifting cycle or whatever is just not really an issue anymore, and the biggest difference to my health is mostly a product of paying very close attention to my form on everything.
Pavel actually makes a fairly well reasoned argument that (submaximal) sets of lower reps are actually safer than higher rep sets, and this is a point I think I might have made a while back in a discussion of the "spirit of 15's" that a lot of people miss. I.e. people turn 15's into just another attempt at PR's for 15 reps, when you're really just trying to flush your muscles with lactic acid and break them into some loading after a break.
The danger of high rep set PR attempts is that you usually see MORE perturbations in form as the set progresses relative to sets of less reps. With some real focus, it's actually easier for me to keep tight form in sets of 3's or 5's than it is for 10's or 15's, PARTICULARLY on exercises like squats and deadlifts, but really for most things.
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Feb. 22 2008,15:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I looked through all my training journals and I noticed the trend of lifting low reps heavy with lower frequnecy is what works for me.</div>
Sci, can you be more specific...have you quantitatively experienced greater hypertrophy gains doing this low rep, high load regimen?
I am trying to keep an open mind here, but my measurements indicate better gains during the higher rep ranges in HST. And I am definitely a stickler when it comes to training logs. Maybe it's time to try an all-out 5x5 or 10x3 program to make the true comparison. Which would you recommend for hypertrophy, assuming progressive load is incorporated into both?
(scientific muscle @ Feb. 22 2008,15:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I looked through all my training journals and I noticed the trend of lifting low reps heavy with lower frequnecy is what works for me.</div>
Sci, can you be more specific...have you quantitatively experienced greater hypertrophy gains doing this low rep, high load regimen?
I am trying to keep an open mind here, but my measurements indicate better gains during the higher rep ranges in HST. And I am definitely a stickler when it comes to training logs. Maybe it's time to try an all-out 5x5 or 10x3 program to make the true comparison. Which would you recommend for hypertrophy, assuming progressive load is incorporated into both?
Just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents as the original question:
Keep in mind that there is no reason why you can't go lighter on movements that involve problem joints. So, if your joints are healthy now, but there have been specific joints that usually give you troubles, just baby the problem areas and go heavy with the rest.
Keep in mind that there is no reason why you can't go lighter on movements that involve problem joints. So, if your joints are healthy now, but there have been specific joints that usually give you troubles, just baby the problem areas and go heavy with the rest.
<div>
(omega99 @ Feb. 22 2008,14:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What does the research say in regard to the time response of work to muscle hypertrophy?
Since it's been stated here that optimal protein synthesis occurs somewhere within 48 hours after a workout, I always thought that muscle growth, however small, should be pretty immediate. If not, then I'm probably wasting my time correlating growth to specific meso-cycles.</div>
Well there are early signs such as actual protein turnover changes then there less immediate signs so the actual time frame needed to knit a noticable amount of actual muscle protein is longer than most think.
In one study they actually mathematically quantified that in one training session the subject added 26 grams of muscle, of which 7 grams was protein and the rest was metabolite and water concentration changes. On that basis it would take someone about 38 workouts to add 1 Kilo of muscle mass.
(omega99 @ Feb. 22 2008,14:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What does the research say in regard to the time response of work to muscle hypertrophy?
Since it's been stated here that optimal protein synthesis occurs somewhere within 48 hours after a workout, I always thought that muscle growth, however small, should be pretty immediate. If not, then I'm probably wasting my time correlating growth to specific meso-cycles.</div>
Well there are early signs such as actual protein turnover changes then there less immediate signs so the actual time frame needed to knit a noticable amount of actual muscle protein is longer than most think.
In one study they actually mathematically quantified that in one training session the subject added 26 grams of muscle, of which 7 grams was protein and the rest was metabolite and water concentration changes. On that basis it would take someone about 38 workouts to add 1 Kilo of muscle mass.
I posted this on my forum about 2 weeks ago because it struck me as one of the first studies I've seen that actually looked at strain induced tendon hypertrophy. Which conforms well with other more recent work looking at tendon response to mechanical loading.
J Exp Biol. 2007 Aug;210(Pt 15):2743-53.
Adaptational responses of the human Achilles tendon by modulation of the applied cyclic strain magnitude.
Arampatzis A, Karamanidis K, Albracht K.
German Sport University of Cologne, Institute of Biomechanics and Orthopaedics, Carl-Diem-Weg 6, 50933 Cologne, Germany. [email protected]
Tendons are able to remodel their mechanical and morphological properties in response to mechanical loading. However, there is little information about the effects of controlled modulation in cyclic strain magnitude applied to the tendon on the adaptation of tendon's properties in vivo. The present study investigated whether the magnitude of the mechanical load induced as cyclic strain applied to the Achilles tendon may have a threshold in order to trigger adaptation effects on tendon mechanical and morphological properties. Twenty-one adults (experimental group, N=11; control group, N=10) participated in the study. The participants of the experimental group exercised one leg at low-magnitude tendon strain (2.85+/-0.99%) and the other leg at high-magnitude tendon strain (4.55+/-1.38%) of similar frequency and volume. After 14 weeks of exercise intervention we found a decrease in strain at a given tendon force, an increase in tendon-aponeurosis stiffness and tendon elastic modulus and a region-specific hypertrophy of the Achilles tendon only in the leg exercised at high strain magnitude. These findings provide evidence of the existence of a threshold or set-point at the applied strain magnitude at which the transduction of the mechanical stimulus may influence the tensional homeostasis of the tendons. The results further show that the mechanical load exerted on the Achilles tendon during the low-strain-magnitude exercise is not a sufficient stimulus for triggering further adaptation effects on the Achilles tendon than the stimulus provided by the mechanical load applied during daily activities.
J Exp Biol. 2007 Aug;210(Pt 15):2743-53.
Adaptational responses of the human Achilles tendon by modulation of the applied cyclic strain magnitude.
Arampatzis A, Karamanidis K, Albracht K.
German Sport University of Cologne, Institute of Biomechanics and Orthopaedics, Carl-Diem-Weg 6, 50933 Cologne, Germany. [email protected]
Tendons are able to remodel their mechanical and morphological properties in response to mechanical loading. However, there is little information about the effects of controlled modulation in cyclic strain magnitude applied to the tendon on the adaptation of tendon's properties in vivo. The present study investigated whether the magnitude of the mechanical load induced as cyclic strain applied to the Achilles tendon may have a threshold in order to trigger adaptation effects on tendon mechanical and morphological properties. Twenty-one adults (experimental group, N=11; control group, N=10) participated in the study. The participants of the experimental group exercised one leg at low-magnitude tendon strain (2.85+/-0.99%) and the other leg at high-magnitude tendon strain (4.55+/-1.38%) of similar frequency and volume. After 14 weeks of exercise intervention we found a decrease in strain at a given tendon force, an increase in tendon-aponeurosis stiffness and tendon elastic modulus and a region-specific hypertrophy of the Achilles tendon only in the leg exercised at high strain magnitude. These findings provide evidence of the existence of a threshold or set-point at the applied strain magnitude at which the transduction of the mechanical stimulus may influence the tensional homeostasis of the tendons. The results further show that the mechanical load exerted on the Achilles tendon during the low-strain-magnitude exercise is not a sufficient stimulus for triggering further adaptation effects on the Achilles tendon than the stimulus provided by the mechanical load applied during daily activities.
scientific muscle
New Member
<div>
(omega99 @ Feb. 22 2008,18:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(scientific muscle @ Feb. 22 2008,15:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I looked through all my training journals and I noticed the trend of lifting low reps heavy with lower frequnecy is what works for me.</div>
Sci, can you be more specific...have you quantitatively experienced greater hypertrophy gains doing this low rep, high load regimen?
I am trying to keep an open mind here, but my measurements indicate better gains during the higher rep ranges in HST. And I am definitely a stickler when it comes to training logs. Maybe it's time to try an all-out 5x5 or 10x3 program to make the true comparison. Which would you recommend for hypertrophy, assuming progressive load is incorporated into both?</div>
*Warning: big, theoretical lab-coat wankathon without any references to back it up:
Here's my basics 'beliefs' on the matter regarding your question:
(I say 'beliefs' because science does not yet have all the detailed answers we would like yet. I found this stuff out when studying and practicing max-stim training.)
Measurements can go up dramatically due to high-volume, fatigueing training. And it doesn't take long for this to occur as its mostly sarcoplasmic type hypertrophy adaptation to strength-endurance, it also doesn't take long to lose this 'puffed-up' look in detraining.
On the other hand, low rep, high-intensity strength training takes a long time to show results, but is overall the best stimulus for emphasis on myofibril hypertrophy which is increased mucle-fiber diameter resulting in stronger muscles and larger cross-section area total.
I truly believe that, max-stim, 5x5 or any high-intensity, low rep, power-lifter style training is superior for myofibril hypertrophy than the traditional 8-12 rep sets that bodybuilders do.
The closer to 1 rep max that you train, (within reason, still need volume and frequency), the better the stimulus for myofibril hypertrophy.
I believe this is why max-stim works. It allows heavy-loading of the muscles without sacrificing volume. Same for 5x5, or 10x3 or just about any power-lifter style training.
HST is unique because it has 15s, 10s, 5s and negatives, so you get the whole spectrum of load percentages from 60% to 100+%. The only downside I see is that while you're training in one range, the other ranges are being de-trained.
Theoretically, staying in the 5s and negatives allows faster long-term strength gains, and in my logic, this results in increased force/strain on the muscle-fiber resulting in better myofibril hypertrophy.
*End lab-coat wankathon.
(omega99 @ Feb. 22 2008,18:34)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(scientific muscle @ Feb. 22 2008,15:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I looked through all my training journals and I noticed the trend of lifting low reps heavy with lower frequnecy is what works for me.</div>
Sci, can you be more specific...have you quantitatively experienced greater hypertrophy gains doing this low rep, high load regimen?
I am trying to keep an open mind here, but my measurements indicate better gains during the higher rep ranges in HST. And I am definitely a stickler when it comes to training logs. Maybe it's time to try an all-out 5x5 or 10x3 program to make the true comparison. Which would you recommend for hypertrophy, assuming progressive load is incorporated into both?</div>
*Warning: big, theoretical lab-coat wankathon without any references to back it up:
Here's my basics 'beliefs' on the matter regarding your question:
(I say 'beliefs' because science does not yet have all the detailed answers we would like yet. I found this stuff out when studying and practicing max-stim training.)
Measurements can go up dramatically due to high-volume, fatigueing training. And it doesn't take long for this to occur as its mostly sarcoplasmic type hypertrophy adaptation to strength-endurance, it also doesn't take long to lose this 'puffed-up' look in detraining.
On the other hand, low rep, high-intensity strength training takes a long time to show results, but is overall the best stimulus for emphasis on myofibril hypertrophy which is increased mucle-fiber diameter resulting in stronger muscles and larger cross-section area total.
I truly believe that, max-stim, 5x5 or any high-intensity, low rep, power-lifter style training is superior for myofibril hypertrophy than the traditional 8-12 rep sets that bodybuilders do.
The closer to 1 rep max that you train, (within reason, still need volume and frequency), the better the stimulus for myofibril hypertrophy.
I believe this is why max-stim works. It allows heavy-loading of the muscles without sacrificing volume. Same for 5x5, or 10x3 or just about any power-lifter style training.
HST is unique because it has 15s, 10s, 5s and negatives, so you get the whole spectrum of load percentages from 60% to 100+%. The only downside I see is that while you're training in one range, the other ranges are being de-trained.
Theoretically, staying in the 5s and negatives allows faster long-term strength gains, and in my logic, this results in increased force/strain on the muscle-fiber resulting in better myofibril hypertrophy.
*End lab-coat wankathon.
SCI - you could be right about the sarcoplasmic/myfibrillar results, but there are other benefits to 15's besides hypertrophy and joint repair too. But some (O&G) do all rep ranges in a week and hit the muscle in every way every week, so why wouldn't that be a better answer?
DAN - made my point I guess:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">one training session the subject added 26 grams of muscle, of which 7 grams was protein and the rest was metabolite and water concentration changes. On that basis it would take someone about 38 workouts to add 1 Kilo of muscle mass. </div>
Which we would see as .0057 lbs. per workout, x 6 = .347 lbs. in two weeks, less than a half pound after dehydration. I doubt you could really tell it right away, which is why I get a kick out of people who "gained a quarter inch" in a workout.
DAN - made my point I guess:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">one training session the subject added 26 grams of muscle, of which 7 grams was protein and the rest was metabolite and water concentration changes. On that basis it would take someone about 38 workouts to add 1 Kilo of muscle mass. </div>
Which we would see as .0057 lbs. per workout, x 6 = .347 lbs. in two weeks, less than a half pound after dehydration. I doubt you could really tell it right away, which is why I get a kick out of people who "gained a quarter inch" in a workout.
scientific muscle
New Member
<div>
(quadancer @ Feb. 22 2008,23:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">SCI - you could be right about the sarcoplasmic/myfibrillar results, but there are other benefits to 15's besides hypertrophy and joint repair too. But some (O&G) do all rep ranges in a week and hit the muscle in every way every week, so why wouldn't that be a better answer?</div>
If i were to do an HST type of model at this point, that is what I would do. All rep ranges each week. Weekly HST cycles. Like Starr's basic 5x5 or Rippetoe's texas method.
(quadancer @ Feb. 22 2008,23:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">SCI - you could be right about the sarcoplasmic/myfibrillar results, but there are other benefits to 15's besides hypertrophy and joint repair too. But some (O&G) do all rep ranges in a week and hit the muscle in every way every week, so why wouldn't that be a better answer?</div>
If i were to do an HST type of model at this point, that is what I would do. All rep ranges each week. Weekly HST cycles. Like Starr's basic 5x5 or Rippetoe's texas method.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
Like a lot of the others have said Progressive load is the key!
The Long Run
New Member
I'm not arguing HST or no HST, at least for now. I'm very comfortable with Bryan's program and the results its given me. Taking another look at the article (I haven't read in a long time) gave me a review I probably needed. It stated you can skip the 15s if your joints are in good shape. I just needed to hear it from the "horse's mouth" i guess you could say, which was why I asked the question here.
If I change anything it will be just sticking to 5s and 3s (I don't do negatives).
If I change anything it will be just sticking to 5s and 3s (I don't do negatives).
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Feb. 22 2008,23:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(quadancer @ Feb. 22 2008,23:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">SCI - you could be right about the sarcoplasmic/myfibrillar results, but there are other benefits to 15's besides hypertrophy and joint repair too. But some (O&G) do all rep ranges in a week and hit the muscle in every way every week, so why wouldn't that be a better answer?</div>
If i were to do an HST type of model at this point, that is what I would do. All rep ranges each week. Weekly HST cycles. Like Starr's basic 5x5 or Rippetoe's texas method.</div>
Talking about Rippetoe, what do you think about his book "Starting Strength"?
(scientific muscle @ Feb. 22 2008,23:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(quadancer @ Feb. 22 2008,23:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">SCI - you could be right about the sarcoplasmic/myfibrillar results, but there are other benefits to 15's besides hypertrophy and joint repair too. But some (O&G) do all rep ranges in a week and hit the muscle in every way every week, so why wouldn't that be a better answer?</div>
If i were to do an HST type of model at this point, that is what I would do. All rep ranges each week. Weekly HST cycles. Like Starr's basic 5x5 or Rippetoe's texas method.</div>
Talking about Rippetoe, what do you think about his book "Starting Strength"?
<div>
(Avi1985 @ Feb. 25 2008,07:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(scientific muscle @ Feb. 22 2008,23:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(quadancer @ Feb. 22 2008,23:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">SCI - you could be right about the sarcoplasmic/myfibrillar results, but there are other benefits to 15's besides hypertrophy and joint repair too. But some (O&G) do all rep ranges in a week and hit the muscle in every way every week, so why wouldn't that be a better answer?</div>
If i were to do an HST type of model at this point, that is what I would do. All rep ranges each week. Weekly HST cycles. Like Starr's basic 5x5 or Rippetoe's texas method.</div>
Talking about Rippetoe, what do you think about his book "Starting Strength"?</div>
Avi,
Short answer: get it.
Longer answer: check the SST forum or do a search. Ripp's book has been discussed quite a bit.
(Avi1985 @ Feb. 25 2008,07:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(scientific muscle @ Feb. 22 2008,23:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(quadancer @ Feb. 22 2008,23:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">SCI - you could be right about the sarcoplasmic/myfibrillar results, but there are other benefits to 15's besides hypertrophy and joint repair too. But some (O&G) do all rep ranges in a week and hit the muscle in every way every week, so why wouldn't that be a better answer?</div>
If i were to do an HST type of model at this point, that is what I would do. All rep ranges each week. Weekly HST cycles. Like Starr's basic 5x5 or Rippetoe's texas method.</div>
Talking about Rippetoe, what do you think about his book "Starting Strength"?</div>
Avi,
Short answer: get it.
Longer answer: check the SST forum or do a search. Ripp's book has been discussed quite a bit.
TunnelRat
Active Member
<div>
(The Long Run @ Feb. 25 2008,01:21)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I just needed to hear it from the "horse's mouth"</div>
We've got the horse's mouth right here (unfortunately, we've got a lot of the other parts of the horse, too...
).
(The Long Run @ Feb. 25 2008,01:21)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I just needed to hear it from the "horse's mouth"</div>
We've got the horse's mouth right here (unfortunately, we've got a lot of the other parts of the horse, too...
I
imported_fearfactory
Guest
<div>
(mikeynov @ Feb. 22 2008,16:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...people turn 15's into just another attempt at PR's for 15 reps...
The danger of high rep set PR attempts is that you usually see MORE perturbations in form as the set progresses relative to sets of less reps.</div>
I think these are great points.
(mikeynov @ Feb. 22 2008,16:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...people turn 15's into just another attempt at PR's for 15 reps...
The danger of high rep set PR attempts is that you usually see MORE perturbations in form as the set progresses relative to sets of less reps.</div>
I think these are great points.
Some good thoughts Mikey a usual.
Whilst it is true that as fatigue builds it is more likely that form will suffer, I feel that an experienced trainee is perhaps aware enough of how their form is changing (or not) during the course of a set and because of this they are able to make a decision to curtail their efforts if need be, whatever the rep range. Oly lifts (or any lift where a high degree of skill is called for), on the other hand, are a different kettle of fish; in this case, fatigue is our worst enemy and continuing a set past 5 reps with what might be a 10RM load could lead to a pulled muscle (but more likely a missed attempt).
There can be more to it than that though. Whilst higher rep ranges are generally more endurance related than the low rep work, there is something rather special about hitting a new 15RM in the big lifts like squats and deads; it's a mental and physical challenge and a bit of fun too. Particularly for me it's an affirmation of my victory over asthma – a battle I fought for many years. I'm sure others who have suffered with any kind of breathing difficulty and who have overcome it will understand this rationale.
Thankfully, with HST we are much less likely to be pushing to momentary muscular failure anyway and are more likely to terminate a set once we are aware our form is breaking down.
Whilst it is true that as fatigue builds it is more likely that form will suffer, I feel that an experienced trainee is perhaps aware enough of how their form is changing (or not) during the course of a set and because of this they are able to make a decision to curtail their efforts if need be, whatever the rep range. Oly lifts (or any lift where a high degree of skill is called for), on the other hand, are a different kettle of fish; in this case, fatigue is our worst enemy and continuing a set past 5 reps with what might be a 10RM load could lead to a pulled muscle (but more likely a missed attempt).
There can be more to it than that though. Whilst higher rep ranges are generally more endurance related than the low rep work, there is something rather special about hitting a new 15RM in the big lifts like squats and deads; it's a mental and physical challenge and a bit of fun too. Particularly for me it's an affirmation of my victory over asthma – a battle I fought for many years. I'm sure others who have suffered with any kind of breathing difficulty and who have overcome it will understand this rationale.
Thankfully, with HST we are much less likely to be pushing to momentary muscular failure anyway and are more likely to terminate a set once we are aware our form is breaking down.