I LOVE CLUSTERING!!!

D

Datoyminaytah

New Member
In the past week or so I've read more about clustering. Also ready a little about Max-Stim. So I'm getting the feeling that the total number of reps you do is more important than being able to complete an exact number of sets with an exact number of reps.

Up until now I have been rigidly sticking to rep schemes. E.g. for 10x2, I did 10 reps consecutively, even if it meant I was near failure, then I rested until I was darn sure I could do the last 10 consecutively.

Now I'm in the middle of the 5's. But I'm only shooting for 15 reps total. So I end up doing something like 6, then 5, then 4, or whatever I need to do.

The great thing about it is, I can complete my workout so much faster! When I rest, I only have to rest until I think I can do several more reps, instead of waiting another minute or two so I can try to do them all. My workout last night only took half an hour, as compared to the last workout of the 10's when it was taking me nearly an hour!

So I think I'm going to use the rep ranges only as general guidelines, and not worry about how many reps I can complete consecutively on any given day, as long as I complete the target reps.

Come to think of it, this is really similar to the way people do "real work". If you have to move 100 concrete blocks from one place to another, you don't have to do them all consecutively, you can take a break if you need to. And people have built muscle with "real work" for eons.
smile.gif
 
There are pluses and minuses to all methods. Clustering can be good but can also keep you working too much at your failure point which can lead to injury or overtraining. Use it wisely.
cool.gif
 
<div>
(Old and Grey @ Oct. 07 2006,11:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Clustering can be good but can also keep you working too much at your failure point</div>
How so? I meant using clustering to avoid the failure point. In other words, stopping early when you feel it's necessary instead of rigidly trying to pump out a prescribed number of reps.
 
<div>
(Datoyminaytah @ Oct. 07 2006,12:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Old and Grey @ Oct. 07 2006,11:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Clustering can be good but can also keep you working too much at your failure point</div>
How so? I meant using clustering to avoid the failure point. In other words, stopping early when you feel it's necessary instead of rigidly trying to pump out a prescribed number of reps.</div>
I fully agree with your sentiment. What you are doing is a good thing, and you are clearly thinking outside the box of traditional reps/sets, which was a message Bryan has long tried to instill (i.e. that reps and sets are just means to an end to loading muscle tissue, that's IT).

The ability to auto-regulate reps 'on the fly' from a fatigue management point of view is, imho, the 'missing ingredient' from a lot of hypertrophy-based routines.
 
The problem with the way most, but not all,  people cluster is that every set that they do is close to their max or failure point. HST recommends working progressively up to that, usually over a two week period and doing one workout at your max weight. If you are taking a weight and working to your max reps on each set, you are not progessively working up to your max, you are always at it. Sure you can 'progress' by using heavier weights and lower reps the next workout but you are still going to work out at your max for that weight at those number of reps. If you want to continually work out at your max weight, that is fine. Many people have gotten good gains that way. However, it is not HST.

Some people say they &quot;cluster&quot; and pick a weight and then decide to do 6, 5 and the 4 reps. They are not working at their maxes but at something less. This is closer to what HST intended. This is good. But why do that when you can more easily do 3 sets of 5 reps which get progressively harder based on the amount of rest you take?

Simply put, clustering can be good. Clustering can be combined with some HST principles but you will now have a bastardized version of HST that should be called something else.


smile.gif
 
<div>
(Old and Grey @ Oct. 08 2006,10:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The problem with the way most, but not all, people cluster is that every set that they do is close to their max or failure point. HST recommends working progressively up to that, usually over a two week period and doing one workout at your max weight. If you are taking a weight and working to your max reps on each set, you are not progessively working up to your max, you are always at it. Sure you can 'progress' by using heavier weights and lower reps the next workout but you are still going to work out at your max for that weight at those number of reps. If you want to continually work out at your max weight, that is fine. Many people have gotten good gains that way. However, it is not HST.

Some people say they &quot;cluster&quot; and pick a weight and then decide to do 6, 5 and the 4 reps. They are not working at their maxes but at something less. This is closer to what HST intended. This is good. But why do that when you can more easily do 3 sets of 5 reps which get progressively harder based on the amount of rest you take?

Simply put, clustering can be good. Clustering can be combined with some HST principles but you will now have a bastardized version of HST that should be called something else.


smile.gif
</div>
I'm not sure what you're interpreting clustering to be, but it is the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Clustering variants were invented for the express purpose of always staying well away from fatigue. Some of the earliest iterations that I'm aware of were basically 'doing the first set to the prescribed # of reps, subsequent sets when speed of movement BEGINS to slow down, well shy of failure.'

The idea eventually took off overseas and the 'german' style clustering took it a step further, doing many sets of low reps to accomplish a given rep goal. All sets were intended to be way below failure - that's the entire point.

So yah, not sure what you think clustering means but I've never heard it used in the way you are indicating. Clustering = 'clusters of reps,' i.e. breaking a given rep target into a bunch of mini-sets to avoid fatigue or anything close to failure while still making that rep target.

Also, there is absolutely nothing about clustering or any other fatigue management method (e.g. max-stim) that really precludes it from falling under the general heading of 'hypertrophy-specific training.' I could argue that it makes it MORE hypertrophy-specific than traditional set/rep schemes by enhancing strain, as strain per unit time (or rep) actually DECREASES as fatigue mounts in a set.
 
So if I interpret what you are saying correctly, A clustering example would be someone taking a 100 pound weight that he knows he can do 12 reps with and then performs one set of 8 reps and then one set of 7 reps to hit his target 15 reps. The point of clustering being that the person has done more 'work' with clustering than doing, for example, 15 straight reps with 85 pounds and has actually become less fatigued because it has taken him longer to do the work because of the mandatory rest period?
 
<div>
(Old and Grey @ Oct. 08 2006,10:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So if I interpret what you are saying correctly, A clustering example would be someone taking a 100 pound weight that he knows he can do 12 reps with and then performs one set of 8 reps and then one set of 7 reps to hit his target 15 reps. The point of clustering being that the person has done more 'work' with clustering than doing, for example, 15 straight reps with 85 pounds and has actually become less fatigued because it has taken him longer to do the work because of the mandatory rest period?</div>
The mandatory rest period thing kind of goes away with clustering too, so it can be confusing.

It's easier to rest less if you push nowhere close to failure, basically. Training closer to failure creates kind of a disproportionate fatigue effect that will take you longer to recover from.

So, in reality, clustering may just take LESS time than a traditional style of training if you're shooting for the same rep target. Some people (e.g. the german clustering people), because of the diminished fatigue, use clustering to actually bump up the total volume. So in that case, it may take longer. But not because of the clustering, but because they're using clustering to stuff in more total reps.

There is no hard and fast rule for clustering. Max-stim is another fatigue-management approach, and Dan basically has people take anything from ~5-30 seconds between reps, resting in between every rep, for a rep target of ~20 reps. If you do the math, this often winds up taking less time than a conventional approach to get 20 total reps.

But a simple rule in clustering COULD be (this is JUST an example) to do ~half the number of prescribed reps for a target range in default HST, plus also monitoring for rep speed, always stopping when you notice things start to slow down.

Example: in the 10 rep section of HST, you might do 5 reps a pop. If you're aiming for 20 total reps, that would require 4 'clustered' sets. But you can probably do those sets with ~30-60 seconds max break between them. Which winds up being as fast or even a little faster than waiting a couple/few minutes between a couple of sets of 10. And you did this in the context of fairly low fatigue, never pushing anywhere close to failure.

Would clustering work BETTER than a conventional approach? At approximately the same rep target, I doubt it. It'd probably be a little less of a headache not having to worry about failure, but that's it. But I would guess any real advantages would mostly come about due to the increased volume potential of the approach. I.e. since you're basically 'less fatigued' from a given amount of work compared to a conventional approach, you can theoretically squeeze in more total volume without as much risk of overtraining.

Hope this made sense.
 
Great post Mikeynov!
So basically you are saying clustering and other fatigue-management approaches to HST are superior only if you use the lessened fatigue as a tool to get more total work output. I was wondering about this recently in my max-stim workout. If I can do 4 sets of 5 reps with a given load, what is the benefit in doing 20 reps max-stim style? Slightly lowered fatigue and possibly higher density, which may lead to higher recovery times allowing more frequent training? I am not sure about this. If I am interpreting you correctly, it would be beneficial in max-stim or clustering, etc., to do MORE work, like 5 sets of 5 reps instead of 4 sets, or 25 max-stim reps instead of 20. I asked Dan Moore about this and he basically said-&quot;No, at the higher loads in which you are working, 20 reps is plenty, and anymore will likely overtrain you.&quot; (I am working in the 90% to 115% range of my 6rm.) I took his qualified advice, but lingering in the back of my mind is the idea to do more reps, since I am only doing 6 total compound exercises for my whole body. What is you opinion mikeynov?
 
''So I'm getting the feeling that the total number of reps you do is more important than being able to complete an exact number of sets with an exact number of reps.''

YES!!!!!
 
Great post Mikeynov.

Case in point: Hoping to spin out the 5s as long as possible I went and got a cold off a mate. Missed Friday in the hope that I would feel more up for it on Saturday. Didn't really feel like training then either but decided to go and just do something.

For squats, did some warm-ups and then decided to see how I felt if I just did 2 reps or singles instead of 5 with my current load. They felt so much easier to deal with in my rather delicate state. After about 10 reps with my previous work load I ended up my session getting 5 reps with a new PB load of 330lbs doing just singles with only a bit of rest between each rep. Almost Max-Stim style squats. The strain on my CNS was definitely reduced as no way would I have ordinarily wanted to try for a PB with a cold!

After I finished I felt less fatigued than I have done during the whole of my post-5s where I have been doing 5 rep sets and only clustering for the second and third sets if necessary.
 
<div>
(style @ Oct. 08 2006,12:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">SM,

Has Dans advice been working so far  
biggrin.gif
?</div>
Yeah, I am growing like a weed!
smile.gif


I think in my case since I am using higher loads than normal, that 20 reps is plenty. But if I were using typical HST loads it MAY be beneficial to do more total reps, in an abbreviated compound routine anyway (6 exercises, instead of 10-12).
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Oct. 08 2006,12:06)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Great post Mikeynov!
So basically you are saying clustering and other fatigue-management approaches to HST are superior only if you use the lessened fatigue as a tool to get more total work output. I was wondering about this recently in my max-stim workout. If I can do 4 sets of 5 reps with a given load, what is the benefit in doing 20 reps max-stim style? Slightly lowered fatigue and possibly higher density, which may lead to higher recovery times allowing more frequent training? I am not sure about this. If I am interpreting you correctly, it would be beneficial in max-stim or clustering, etc., to do MORE work, like 5 sets of 5 reps instead of 4 sets, or 25 max-stim reps instead of 20. I asked Dan Moore about this and he basically said-&quot;No, at the higher loads in which you are working, 20 reps is plenty, and anymore will likely overtrain you.&quot; (I am working in the 90% to 115% range of my 6rm.) I took his qualified advice, but lingering in the back of my mind is the idea to do more reps, since I am only doing 6 total compound exercises for my whole body. What is you opinion mikeynov?</div>
Technically, doing more 'first reps' might also enhance strain, as I think I mentioned.

So it's possible that, say, 20 reps of max-stim is actually superior to 20 reps of a conventional approach, although we have no direct evidence (obviously) that this is the case.

As to 20 reps being 'plenty,' I would say that depends on load and training age. At the heavier weights, that's probably true for a lot of people. At something closer to your 10 RM, I would imagine it would be advantageous to squeeze more total volume in for SOME people.

Also, as you advance in your training career, more total volume may begin to be more useful. There's no way we can project that &quot;20 is enough irregardless of circumstance&quot; - this is going to vary between people and training age, probably wildly. Some advanced people might need more volume to optimize the stimulus, we really don't know for sure.
 
I have a power rack for bench press, I bench one rep, rack the bar, rest, bench another rep and so on. The power rack comes in handy for squats, military press, etc.

My routine as of lately is...
Frequency- 2 to 3 times/week, depending on recovery.
Volume- 1 set of 20 reps per exercise, m-time between 5 to 30 seconds depending on load.
Load Progression- 2 week blocks of the same loads, starting at 90% of my 6rm and every two weeks progressing 5%, until at weeks 11 &amp; 12 I am using 115% of my 6 rm. Then SD and start over.
Exercise Selection- 1)Parallel Squats 2)Deadlifts 3)Weighted Chin-ups 4)DB Rows 5)Bench Press 6)Seated DB Press.

DB seated press I do clustering the reps since I have to clean the dumbells. I clean them, press out a few reps, then rest, and continue like this until I hit 20 reps.

More info at Max-Stimulation Forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top