Rihad's log

Some random thoughts: the higher the reps you're using, the closer you need to get to fatigue/failure. And, likewise, the higher the load/the lower the reps, the farther you'd better stay from it. This means that while it's ok to reach hard/soft failure with your 10RM (soft failure being the last slowest rep that you know is definitely the last) and not experience drops in strength for next w/o, with 5-6RM we'd better stay 2 reps short of failure. Meaning, the rep that speed starts slowing down a bit in, but you're pretty sure you can do another one. All of this hassle will be more conductive towards sparing CNS and allowing loads to progress with the higher frequency of HST. Which is exactly the thing I like in HST run-up weeks, where you aren't anywhere near failure in any of your lifts. They spare CNS, they allow good load progression. Couldn't the same logic be extended to 5-6RM weeks also? I.e. if you know you can push this load for 5 reps, 5-th being the slowest you can do yourself (soft failure), don't go there. Stop at 4, when speed starts to slow down a tiny bit. Next time, if all goes well, you'll feel you can do 5 and still have another in the tank. All this time, try to do at least one more rep each w/o (cluster speak). Staying 1 rep short of soft failure. When you've collected enough total reps, move on, add some load. Stop when speed starts to slow a little bit, don't go till soft failure again. Even if it's only 3 reps in the first rep with the new load. The load is heavy enough that you're pretty much recruiting all your fibers from the get go.
 
Last edited:
Pretty much that whole paragraph can be replaced by "cluster your reps until you hit your desired rep total".
 
Not that simple, I'd also make sure to pretty much "feel through" the first set to see what kind of % I'm dealing with right now, rep-wise, without going very close to failure (soft failure). Otherwise how would I know if it's time to add load? Simply enhancing your work endurance and being able to collect, say, 12-15 reps as a signal for moving on isn't very smart, as the load may well be upwards to 90% or even more. So the first set will be the main detector: if I do six reps (a rep short of soft failure) and know I can most likely do another one with greatest effort and be exhausted (soft failure), then and only then would I know that I should increase load next time. Collecting a decent number of total reps would be secondary to that, but I would most likely already have reached that 12-15 range before I'd know it's time to move on (through the first set).
 
Again; still part of clustering. Your 'first set rep count' is merely the subjectively chosen determination for load progression; i.e. 5RM, 6RM, whatever you like.
 
Then yes, it is clustering. I feel I need to stay closer to original HST recommendations of SD+lower loads (sub-10RM) to render muscles a bit more subject to stress by the forthcoming 5-6's than SD alone, if I want to look for the best method of muscle growth. Because gaining in strength gives you just that, strength. I know that because in my previous cycle I did my best to gradually reach two sets x 5 of 300 kg in partial leg presses in 2 months or so (about right angle in knees), and another hard higher rep set of 240 kg x 10 with more depth (acute angle in knees). I gained lots of strength back then, and I've lost all of it by now, since my current working load is 202x6 and another 167x10 of greater depth. That's more than 70 kg strength gained/lost. And my legs didn't change a bit, neither then, nor now. So gaining strength is just for that, gaining strength. Something much smarter is needed to gain in muscle (naturally). And HST's ideas of SD + progressive 15/sub-10 loads to decondition the muscle seem to be the closest to truth.
 
While climbing up to 180x1 rack pulls, I did some classic from-the-floor DL today, which I only did in years 2002-2004 with loads at about 70-90 kg (155-200 lb). This experiment came out from a bet with a powerlifter on another board, who tried to assure me that I would never be able to increase my full ROM strength by doing only partial ROMs, while I was arguing that I could (think partial/full leg press, or rack pulls / full DL). So after doing the usual stuff I do on my full body routine, I did partial shrugs 140kg x10 (308lb), then rack pulls 172kg x5 (379lb), then full ROM shrugs 92kg x 20 (202lb), I went ahead and started doing classical DL:

100x1 (220lb), 110x1 (242lb), 120x1 (264lb), 125x1 (275lb), 130x1 (286lb) with some left in the tank. I didn't want to give it my all today not to totally screw up next weeks work by real singles. I was using pronated grip and using wrist wraps. The desire to go for DL came spontaneously, so I didn't bring my belt with me, and all gym belts had for some time been torn doing weighted dips & chins, so I asked some guy to lend me his belt. Unfortunately, the belt was kind of too big for me, and it didn't feel to be squeezing or anything, but I still wore it for the final attempt. Hopefully next week I'm gonna see 180 kg rack pulls and 145 kg DL (150 kg would be perfect if I can do that).

And here's a pic of mine fresh from the gym :)

20131115-65.6kg.jpg
 
Last edited:
A shot of my legs today.

legs.jpg

In case you think they aren't too bad, here's some food for thought for us all that form can only be bestowed to a person genetically, and BB has zero relation to it. Some people can work like $hit in the gym, and their legs won't grow naturally. Same goes for upper body, I guess. Some folks gain muscularity there easily, while others (myself included) have upper bodies that don't look very good :)
 
FWIW, the rack bars look set a bit too high, your ROM is very low. Not to say there's zero benefit or anything like that, but I suspect you will get more out of the exercise if you set them a bit lower.
 
I would, but I can't easily, 3'rd hole is the lowest I can go without having to mess with plates hanging on the sides of the rack. The barbell lies approx. half an inch above the kneecaps. And who needs lower rack pulls when I also do proper deads :)
 
How do you find sumo deads (what you're doing) compared to conventional?

With the 14kg or so that you've lost, I imagine your squats, deads, rack pulls, chins and dips should not have dropped at all re: what's on the bar. i.e. the person doing a 140kg dead at 87 kg is moving more weight than the one doing 140kg dead at 66 kg.
 
HST_Rihad said:
They are classical deads, this is sumo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Numz4tX8E


Tell that to AWPC etc chart makers. They'd be surprised. Hint: load per fiber is different for different category lifters. Lighter/smaller lifter is doing more work per fiber.
Click to expand...

Your fibers are doing less work at your BW of 66kg, compared to 87kg (from memory), if the only difference is 21kg in fat. That fat didn't contract or contribute to the lift, beyond some changes in flexibility/reach and orientation etc. that come with being a different size.

Imagine if I take your bf loss and add it back to the bar; or even let's say, 2/3's of it - which lift is heavier?


Re: form - arms inside the legs and a fairly wide stance, no? Or is that an issue of camera angle?
 
AlexAustralia said:
Your fibers are doing less work at your BW of 66kg, compared to 87kg (from memory), if the only difference is 21kg in fat. That fat didn't contract or contribute to the lift, beyond some changes in flexibility/reach and orientation etc. that come with being a different size.
Click to expand...
I was 80kg. BW dieted away doesn't appear to be contributing linearly to the weight being moved. I've "lost" strength in squats & pull-ups because it's the same load on the bar & same BW+25kg now it was before, although I haven't lost full shrugging strength, bicep curling strength where BW is inapplicable.


Re: form - arms inside the legs and a fairly wide stance, no? Or is that an issue of camera angle?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. That's the width I'm comfortable with. See that guy again for the first 2 seconds, just before he spreads his legs more, that's the width I more or less had, mine was still an inch narrower. Also, a narrower grip. I didn't think about the stance, frankly, simply stood the most natural way for me. Likely similar to my squatting stance.
 
Finished my cycle today, as was planned. Trying the DL single too early on Monday ruined further progress, as I had expected :) Overall not bad, considering I've still been trying to lose weight. From the last cycle's end at the end of August + SD, I've increased rack pulls 152kg x 7 -> 177x5, full shrugs 135х5 -> 140х10, incline bench 70х3 -> 70x5, inclined DB row with the lat spread 40x7 (first cycle). Biceps grown from 34,7cm -> 35,1 (wow, so long for the fairy tales about not being able to add size while cutting/maintaining), chest 97cm -> 99,5, thigh is unchanged. Now I'm gonna take 2 week long deload to 70% of working loads, and build back up 5% at a time. I think I'm gonna continue progressing in rack pulls because it kinda tows everything else behind it :)
 
You're ending your cycle too early ;).


re: "growth"; definitely seeing the equivalent of newbie gains as far rack pulls go. My upper back was substantial 4 months ago but now I need new shirts.

re: "growth"; not sure if I'd be counting 4mm as verifiable, but I'd certainly take the lack of reduction as a positive.
 
OMG, I *love* this year 2003 article!! It f*cking repeats what I've been experiencing regarding the role of rack pulls and other partials, most notably leg press! I think I'll save higher rep partials (30+ rep) for later, but if it's as yummy as the strength progression, then?... Is this it?! I haven't been so emotional since my teens, it's a eureka kind of thing to me ))))
 
You do realise there is absolutely nothing scientific or empirical about this article? It's on bb.com FFS.
 
It's totally empirical. What is science? Data collected through empirical evidence. We haven't been blessed with a 10 volume human physiology instruction manual fallen from the skies above. So *everything* we know is evidence-based conjecture. And I like the data presented because it kind of backs up what I've come up with through my own personal experience. In any case, I'm gonna try that partial 30-rep TUT thing for my biceps with a heavy load (but will still leave a set of proper full ROM movement after). My experience has been that partial leg presses increased full ROM strength; partial shrugs increased full shrugging strength, partial deads (i.e. rack pulls) increased DL strength. Additionally, I think I owe the 0.4cm increase in my arm not to the usual dynamic pushing/pulling movements, but to shrugging partials and simply holding the heavy weight in rack pulls, because 0.4mm is a fairly noticeable jump.
 
Nothing about that article is scientific or empirical, it's entirely anecdotal.

That isn't a statement about its accuracy, or lack of accuracy, but you're agreeing with something entirely unproven and subjective. And yes, rack pulls and deads will grow your bi's and forearms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top