I’m sure I have read that larger increments are better for hypertrophy, but I’m not sure I understand why. If my 10 rep max for bench presses is 200 lbs. for example, then using 10 lbs. increments would mean my first 10’s workout over 2 weeks would be with 150 lbs. Can that really be better than using 5 lbs. increments and starting with 175 lbs.? I realize we could be silly and use 25 lbs. increments and start the 10’s with 75 lbs., but that clearly is too light to be of much value. I also understand that 5-10% increments are suggested, but is there really any reason why bigger increments are better? Perhaps I’m just not understanding the use of progression properly … It seems to me that smaller increments would result in a larger percentage of your workouts being productive while still not coming close to failure until the last workout. Can anyone explain to me what I am missing?
Progression Confusion
- Thread starter leegee38
- Start date
If you can pull off large increments (i.e. dips, bench, lat pulldown, leg press, squats, deadlifts, etc..) then do it, but as you said - you don't want the weights to be too light - less than 50% of RM. I like to start at 70% of my RM, and then apply the largest increments I can.
If you use larger increments, it is easier to just repeat each weight once or twice, instead of starting at a much lower weight. So for instance, with 200 lbs as a max bench press, you would go 160 160 180 180 200 200 or something along those lines. With weights over 100 lbs, it is usually best to use at least 10 lb increments, in my opinion. I prefer 20 lb increments personally. I use 10 lb increments for weights between 50 - 100 lbs.
Anyway, repeating for a workout won't hurt you. Weights are effective for more than just one workout, so it's an easy way to make incrementing easier.
Anyway, repeating for a workout won't hurt you. Weights are effective for more than just one workout, so it's an easy way to make incrementing easier.
jvroig
Active Member
It's simply a way to effectively stay ahead of the RBE curve. (More on this later)[b said:
It's all about making workouts productive, as you also touched. If it weren't for the CT coming to party, we wouldn't need to go for progression (no RBE, hence no need to implement a way to stay ahead of it).[b said:
Is 5 pounds enough? Yes and No. For a beginner, 5 pounds is probably plenty. But as you get more seasoned and the weights go heavier and heavier, 5 pounds become paltry. All the CT buildup would probably make that additional 5 pounds useless (or more accurately far less effective). You would need an increment larger in order to stay ahead of the curve.
I'm sure you'll ask "but isn't SD taking care of our conditioning, and will make the CT go away? In that case, an increment of 5 pounds should remain effective for years on end, as long as I SD regularly." Again, yes and no. SD does lower your conditioning. But it really doesn't remove all the CT. CT has been found to last up to several months before going away totally. If you SD that long, you'd have wasted a lot of time and probably would lose a lot of muscle too, it's just not productive. So even after a good SD (like the suggested 9-14 days), there is definitely still some of the CT that formed due to your previous cycle - and most probably also due to the cycle before that.
Where this is going to is: the longer you train (lift weights), the more CT forms (greater/faster RBE; this is of course due to adaptation, our bodies are pretty efficient at it, except that in this case we'd really rather have hypertrophy), and the harder it becomes to "damage" the muscle fibers themselves. To continue damaging them, we have to increase weight (which is no problem since we get stronger as we get bigger; here I'm talking about the initial weight at the start of the cycle and the max weight at the end), and also the increments because RBE simply comes faster now thanks to all the adaptations that have already happened (a ton of tough CT is probably in there already).
Regards, hope that helps
-JV
Is the net effect of repeating weights once and then increasing by 10lbs not the same as increasing by 5lbs each time? i.e. the load is progressing at the same rate over time...?
Having said that I only increment 3 times for each exercise because I alternate and therefore my increments are twice as large as they would otherwise be - perhaps larger increments are a inherent advantage of alternating?
Having said that I only increment 3 times for each exercise because I alternate and therefore my increments are twice as large as they would otherwise be - perhaps larger increments are a inherent advantage of alternating?
rob, the thing about alternating is that you have less frequency with that given exercise which is a disadvantage.. and the other exercise that you have in your routine B will most likely place a similar stress on the muscle even if the load is different.
jester... it's not that you need evidence to back up jv's statement, but the fact that a 5lb increment has a lower percent increase than a 10 or 20lb increment
larger increments are better, and if you are at a weight for two workouts or even the entire week before you increment, it's too short of a time for RBE to set in
-colby
jester... it's not that you need evidence to back up jv's statement, but the fact that a 5lb increment has a lower percent increase than a 10 or 20lb increment
larger increments are better, and if you are at a weight for two workouts or even the entire week before you increment, it's too short of a time for RBE to set in
-colby
good advice, first of all personally i like to stick close to my rms so i have to use small increments otherwise id have to start my cycle with a weight i use to warm up with.another thing is using all the same excersises in every cycle has its disadvantages also such as increased rbe /adaptation,when you move in to your new cycle you still have some residual rbe from the last one,to avoid(partially) this you could do mostly dumbell excersises for a cycle and the next do barbell for the next,you are limited with dumbell excersises so you would have to be creative,its just an idea ive been toying with[b said:
but as stated i proberbly wouldnt change my excersises every day/week at the most every block
good luck...
Why is it a disadvantage? If my exercises in routine b puts a similar load on each muscle group then I'm still working out each muscle group just as frequently as if using one exercise.[b said:
I see alternating as a personal thing, I don't think it's going to make much difference either way. Personally I feel that doing rows 3 x a week and chins 3 x a week (I work out 6 x a week) is going to be at least as effective if not better than using the same exercise 6 times and I don't think neural learning will be affected too much.
If nothing else supporting muscles will be used differently plus for certain muscle groups it allows you to emphasise different muscles (e.g. incline press and dips, arnold press and upright row, incline hammer curls and incline curls with wrists pointing up).
And I don't accept the blanket statement that larger increments are better (although I'm not saying they're not either) - I'm just asking if you start at say 50kgs for bench and work up to 100kg over the course of the cycle does the level of increments make much of a difference? i.e. will you not be effectively staying ahead of rbe either way? I don't see (but I could be wrong) how repeating a weight for a week is not an issue in keeping ahead of rbe but increasing every session by a smaller increment is. Intuitively that seems wrong...but as we all know intuition is largely irrelevant so I'm more than ready to have the science explained to me!
Cheers
Rob
Cheers
Rob