Newest scientific support for Strategic Deconditioning
- Thread starter Bryan Haycock
- Start date
that's something i haven't tried yet during the 5s. if this is done, do we reduce the amount of sets of 5? and how close should the metabolic set come to failure?
ie let's say on your 5s you're doing incline DB bench with 120s. if i were to do 1 set of 5 with that and then a 15 rep set say with 85s or something, i'd probably be toast trying to do the 120s again. so i could either reduce the amount of sets of the 5s, or i could add an additional high rep set (or 2) after the 2 sets of 5, or i could do very low weight metabolic sets in between the 5s that would not be anywhere near failure. or i could do the traditional 5 workout, then start over with an all metabolic circuit- this would be more logistically difficult at a commercial gym though
You don't do a set of 5 with 120, a set of 15 with 85 then do a set of 5 with 120 again. You do all your working sets first, then do the metabolic work afterward. Example - you are benching and do 3 sets of 5 with 120, strip the weight and then 1-2 sets of 15 with 85, then move on to your next exercise. Or you can use a completely different lift for metabolic work, which is what I prefer. Example, you do close grip bench for triceps then for metabolic work you can do pushdowns or something.
HST_Rihad
Active Member
How about doing the heavy main lifts first, then at the end of w/o do whatever high rep lifts are necessary? This is what I've been doing since I read here higher reps should not necessarily be done in drop sets.
Obviously. I can't think of how it could be done any other way.
how many reps are usually targeted in these metabolic sets? how close to failure?
15-20 reps. You aren't looking for 'failure' per se, but the load should be substantial enough that the last is a struggle. Ballpark 15RM. At that weight, 'failure' is going to be by virtue of metabolic processes within the muscle rather than what we typically associate with 'failure'. Personally I would advise doing them explosively but within the realm of being strict in form. You aren't trying to be jerky but you're still looking for a fast concentric.
Additionally, these are for compounds first, isolations second. If they're tiring you out, then stop doing them for bi's and tri's first. Furthermore, I never really found them useful for my lower body because I'm fairly active in general. If you do any kind of sport or athletic pursuit that involves running, or if you do regular swimming, you won't get a lot out of them as you're already covering 'metabolic' work. I wouldn't count 'walking' when you go shopping w/your Mrs or whatever under that category, but if you stand&move on your feet all day at work I wouldn't do them for squats (for example). If you load and unload stuff at work (logistics, shelves or whatever etc) then you mightn't get a lot of value for them for the upper body and so on.
Additionally, these are for compounds first, isolations second. If they're tiring you out, then stop doing them for bi's and tri's first. Furthermore, I never really found them useful for my lower body because I'm fairly active in general. If you do any kind of sport or athletic pursuit that involves running, or if you do regular swimming, you won't get a lot out of them as you're already covering 'metabolic' work. I wouldn't count 'walking' when you go shopping w/your Mrs or whatever under that category, but if you stand&move on your feet all day at work I wouldn't do them for squats (for example). If you load and unload stuff at work (logistics, shelves or whatever etc) then you mightn't get a lot of value for them for the upper body and so on.
HST_Rihad
Active Member
A simple extra metabolic set after heavy work sets, evenly spaced? I don't do that because high rep sets are kind of lower priority and use up extra energy & work capacity left over for the main lifts.
The only way you can do it is to metabolic set after the corresponding work set.
Either it's:
All work sets, then do all metabolic sets.
OR
Work sets for bench, corresponding metabolic, work sets for rows, corresponding metabolic, work sets for squats, corresponding metabolic etc.
Either of those is fine. The latter is arguably less time consuming given pragmatic considerations.
Either it's:
All work sets, then do all metabolic sets.
OR
Work sets for bench, corresponding metabolic, work sets for rows, corresponding metabolic, work sets for squats, corresponding metabolic etc.
Either of those is fine. The latter is arguably less time consuming given pragmatic considerations.
HST_Rihad
Active Member
I would guess the latter extends the workout more as extra sets albeit metabolic ones, wear you off more before the forthcoming heavy lifts. But I haven't tried.
I picked the former: do my usual 5's workout, then do the metabolic sets for bench, leg press, and one of seated rows or shrugs. I wonder if the load needs to be heavy or even close to 15-20RM.. I've found that even 85 kg x20 in leg press done non-stop at high speed (working weight 260 x 5) gives me measurable lasting burns.
The former extends the workout more, as you need to reserve//occupy & re-load the machine/bench twice. The latter can also incorporate the metabolic sets as drop sets//near to being drop sets (if for some reason you wanted that).
The load is ballpark 15-20RM. Do them fast, explosively, not jerky and something to play with is cutting the ROM (avoid lockout, say 90% of the movement). Ties in w/the occlusion studies, IIRC.
Also, remember the 'burn' is only an indicator.
I would also offer that for quads, doing knee-to-chest jumping squats is the best exercise you could do. And don't forget to do hamstrings, not just leg press.
The load is ballpark 15-20RM. Do them fast, explosively, not jerky and something to play with is cutting the ROM (avoid lockout, say 90% of the movement). Ties in w/the occlusion studies, IIRC.
Also, remember the 'burn' is only an indicator.
I would also offer that for quads, doing knee-to-chest jumping squats is the best exercise you could do. And don't forget to do hamstrings, not just leg press.
HST_Rihad
Active Member
Yup, I'm doing heavy leg presses & leg curls as per vanilla HST, and then throw in high rep leg presses only, because they cover pretty much everything thigh-related. Good point on avoiding lockups in higher rep sets. Nowadays some experienced trainers have their clients do higher rep + limited ROM sets, coupled with lower rep heavy work for the purposes of muscle growth, only they do it backwards: first do higher rep sets intended to pre-fatigue and pump the muscle, then go heavy. And it works. I wonder how it fits into HST principles. The text is originally in Russian, processed by Google translate: Maxy training: http://translate.google.com/transla...ndex.php?showtopic=39608&p=1056591830&act=url
Last edited:
'Pre-fatigue' has so many flaws in it, from principle to practice. Limiting ROM is generally how I do high-rep work, especially for 'push' exercises; just avoiding lockout. For pulling-chain exercises it's a bit harder and I find limited ROM harder to manage (it's the same concept but harder to do physically, ala still don't let your arms straighten etc)
HST_Rihad
Active Member
Bryan, should higher rep sets be done after the main heavy sets, or before to pre-fatigue the muscle? There's an opinion, I don't know if it makes sense from the physiological standpoint or not:
"Dominating markers for bodily adaptation are those that there are more of, and those are naturally the ones that are formed last. Meaning, if you're after strength & muscle gains, you should finish your workouts with maximal loads for an exercise."
In the author's theory higher rep set (36 reps limited ROM done quickly) is intended to deplete the energetic balance of a muscle in a short time, and subsequent lower rep set (12 reps) is used to form the type of proteins that will be built. Full text (c) google translate.
Last edited:
Why would depleting the muscle of energy before lifting a heavy load help growth?
Seems retarded to compromise strength before a heavy set. Increases the risk of injury, also reduces maximal strength. If I had to choose between doing y amount of reps with something close to my 5 RM and x amount of reps with a light load, or the same x amount of reps with a light load and then the same number (y) of reps with something close to my 12 RM, which do you think I'm going to choose? Obviously we know that, all things considered, a heavier load will provide a better growth stimulus, so why would you limit the load you can use by doing your metabolic sets first?
His entire premise is flawed. He postulates that people increase the load by cheating the weight and that muscles don't care what load you are using. This is incorrect. Muscles do care what load you are using, if it is not heavy enough then it will not overcome RBE. We all know this. What kind of an idiot uses cheating to increase the load? That's a recipe for injury.
So... the foundation of his entire argument is flawed, which means that every single conclusion he makes is unusable because his premise is moronic.
Seems retarded to compromise strength before a heavy set. Increases the risk of injury, also reduces maximal strength. If I had to choose between doing y amount of reps with something close to my 5 RM and x amount of reps with a light load, or the same x amount of reps with a light load and then the same number (y) of reps with something close to my 12 RM, which do you think I'm going to choose? Obviously we know that, all things considered, a heavier load will provide a better growth stimulus, so why would you limit the load you can use by doing your metabolic sets first?
His entire premise is flawed. He postulates that people increase the load by cheating the weight and that muscles don't care what load you are using. This is incorrect. Muscles do care what load you are using, if it is not heavy enough then it will not overcome RBE. We all know this. What kind of an idiot uses cheating to increase the load? That's a recipe for injury.
So... the foundation of his entire argument is flawed, which means that every single conclusion he makes is unusable because his premise is moronic.
HST_Rihad
Active Member
Totentanz, he does not say we should use cheating to lift the weight, this is the price we pay for using retarded Google translation 
He gives cheating as an example of what extremes people go to when lifting weights, to lie to themselves about how strong they've become, while such load doesn't mean target muscle has grown stronger or bigger. BTW, the word "reduction" in the translation should mostly read "contraction" as one word can mean both concepts in Russian, unlike in English.
He gives cheating as an example of what extremes people go to when lifting weights, to lie to themselves about how strong they've become, while such load doesn't mean target muscle has grown stronger or bigger. BTW, the word "reduction" in the translation should mostly read "contraction" as one word can mean both concepts in Russian, unlike in English.That would mean that we can't ever grow our legs because the last thing we do every single day is high-rep work (commonly known as walking).