Volume Training

[Guinness5.0]

.

There is a way to apply 100% for your strength to 50% of you 1RM. This is rep speed. By lifting say 50% as fast as possible while keeping your form. You can apply 100% of your contraction strength to a lower weight.

\Ponder this

Type something intelligible first. The above is so littered with sentence fragments ir's rendered useless.

I think what you're trying to grunt out is that one can substitute acceleration for intensity. While in some cases this is useful, to say that one can avoid heavy weights yet still achieve the same result misses the mark.

For one, 'speed reps' affect the nervous system to a much greater extent than the muscles. Speed/acceleration is more a function of nervous control than one of muscular strength (there are elements of both, of course).

Second, the fatigue one sustains from neural stimulation requires a longer rest interval then 'volume training' progressively performed short of failure. One can ht the gym more when one doesn't hammer the nervous system.

That's why you don't see WSB'ers hammering away at speed work for anything that would be considered taxing weights; speed work makes one stronger by coordinating the nervous system to fire the muscles in the most effocient manner possible. The weights are light to allow for rapid acceleration. However, to say that speed work eliminates the need for heavy weights is off base. I guaran-damn-promise that one will be able to put much more weight on the bar over a longer period of time by consistently getting stronger at a 'normal' rep cadence (up and down, nothing fancy) than by strictly focusing on exploding the weight from negative to eccentric.

Speed work has its place. It's not a substitute for heavy weight, and IMO it's not something that anyone but athletes or advanced lifters need to concern themselves with.

 

[HaZaRDouZ]

back to the original question. i think high rep lower weight. training is a good 3-6week rest from a high weight low rep workout. by the 6-7th week of 5x5 when im at 108% like this last session, benching 330 1x5 and 315 5x5, my joints were sore as hell and i felt like i needed a change. pay attention to what your body responds to, everyone is different. if zzgazz likes his way so be it. i like mine. now im doing a 4 day split for 3-6weeks until i plateau satisfactorily, and ill switch back to my 5x5. i get better overall mass size gains from both, the 5x5 i feel i get more mass, and the higher rep, 8-12 reps i feel my muscles get harder but still bigger. all in all, my joints arent that of supermans. i cant go up to 120% consistently on a 5x5 and still focus on form, and as far as the 3x3, i feel like its garbage. i dont get anything from 3 reps. remember the basics, good lifting, good form.

hope this helps

 

[gjohnson5]

ir renedered useless??? What in the world is that?
Why not learn how to spell first instead of attacked me. I was trying to get a point across

I was not trying to give a best practices manual on how to make strength gains. You need to reread the post. I was giving an example of how to make strength and size gains with minimal risk to injury. So please reread the post. I apologize for the end of the post having sentence fragments


1. If you look at the west side bench press manuals , you will see alot speed work in it. You might wanna read up on their bench program first before speaking about what is in it and what is not
http://www.westside-barbell.com/Articles Top Ten/PDF.Files/06PDF/BenchPressWorkout_03_06.pdf

2. I will agree that if ones goal is strength increase and strength increase alone, then one should focus on lower repetition work. But if you reread my posts , that was not my goal

3. I totally disagree that "volume work" is more CNS taxing then lower rep work. I have posted science on this. You're completely backwards on what is CNS intensive and what is not.
http://www.ironlife.com/mag/issue8/training.shtml

Over time training to failure is a sure way to stop your progress. You tax the central nervous system hard when training to failure. If you encounter CNS burnout your progress will come to a halt. 99% of all top bodybuilders, volume train one of the most productive training programs ever for increasing muscle size is German volume training. With this training you pick an exercise and do 10 sets of 10 reps. You pick a weight you can do for say 20-25 reps with and just do 10 rest 1min then another set of 10 and so on till you have done 10 sets. This works a high amount of muscle fibers without taxing as much of the central nervous system.

4. The trait of any program should be variety. This is another reason I think speed has it's place. I think if one follows convention advice and simply does the same 1-5 rep workout over and over again as you suggest , you will plateau.

Anyway enough with this

Type something intelligible first. The above is so littered with sentence fragments ir's renedered useless.

I think what you're trying to grunt out is that one can substitute acceleration for intensity. While in some cases this is useful, to say that one can avoid heavy weights yet still achieve the same result misses the mark.

For one, 'speed reps' affect the nervous system to a much greater extent than the muscles. Speed/acceleration is more a function of nervous control than one of muscular strength (there are elements of both, but if one is to be given signifigance over the other, it goes weight ---> speed).

Second, the fatigue one sustains from neural stimulation requires a longer rest interval then 'volume training' progressively performed short of failure. One can ht the gym more when one doesn't hammer the nervous system.

That's why you don't see WSB'ers hammering away at speed work for anything that would be considered taxing weights; speed work makes one stronger by coordinating the nervous system to fire the muscles in the most effocient manner possible. The weights are light to allow for rapid acceleration. However, to say that speed work eliminates the need for heavy weights is off base. I guaran-damn-promise that one will be able to put more much more weight on the bar by consistently getting stronger at a 'normal' rep cadence (up and down, nothing fancy) than by strictly focusing on exploding the weight from negative to eccentric.

Speed work has its place. It's not a substitute for heavy weight, and IMO it's not something that anyone but athletes or advanced lifters need to concern themselves with.

 

[Guinness5.0]

Good 'ol gjohnson5 -- always makes me feel smarter than I really am. Did you even crack double digits on the reading comprehension portion of the ACT?

1. If you look at the west side bench press manuals , you will see alot speed work in it.

Right. I broke it down nice and easy for you above. Re-read it a few hundred times and it may sink in. Here's additional info: as squat/deadlift assistance work, dynamic effort (speed) box squats are done for eight triples (often with bands) at 50-70% intensity (% of 1rm). This is not particularly taxing from a muscular standpoint, but rather from a nervous system standpoint. It's for coordination more than anything else. It is not ideal for size, other than possibly potentiating strength gains in the other lifts.

I totally disagree that "volume work" is more CNS taxing then lower rep work. I have posted science on this. You're completely backwards on what is CNS intensive and what is not.

I'm not sure who you are disagreeing with here; I never expressed or implied that volume work is the culprit in CNS fatigue (though it certainly plays a role...).

The trait of any program should be variety. This is another reason I think speed has it's place. I think if one follows convention advice and simply does the same 1-5 rep workout over and over again as you suggest , you will plateau.

'Variety' as it is implemented in most people's training is a hinderance to progress; most people jump around from scheme to scheme without having progressed adequately at any element of their training. Also, I didn't advise any rep range in my post above.

In regard to the safety srgument, I have a tough time believing that lifting explosively could be safer than lifting heavy. I for one have had nothing but the most minor of injuries in my time at the gym. Granted, if one lifts with bad form one could expect problems. Lifts should be performed properly.

Anyway enough with this

Please, PLEASE hold true to this.

 

[gjohnson5]

Comments below

Good 'ol gjohnson5 -- always makes me feel smarter than I really am. Did you even crack double digits on the reading comprehension portion of the ACT?


Right. I broke it down nice and easy for you above. Re-read it a few hundred times and it may sink in. Here's additional info: as squat/deadlift assistance work, dynamic effort (speed) box squats are done for eight triples (often with bands) at 50-70% intensity (% of 1rm). This is not particularly taxing from a muscular standpoint, but rather from a nervous system standpoint. It's for coordination more than anything else. It is not ideal for size, other than possibly potentiating strength gains in the other lifts.

We're not really reading what each other is saying. I will be more careful.
Anyway I do volume training and speed is generally my goal. The average user won't be using chains or bands so this is not an issue. Generally the average user uses more machines then free weights anyway what you are calling speed reps and what I'm calling speed reps are not exactly the same thing. The WSB manual that I posted talks about doing speed bench which was even lower then gvt weight. GVT weight is generally 55-65% of 1rm as the goal is to do 10 reps. The reps here are 45% of 1rm so this weight is lower then I suggested

I'm not sure who you are disagreeing with here; I never expressed or implied that volume work is the culprit in CNS fatigue (though it certainly plays a role...).

good

'Variety' as it is implemented in most people's training is a hinderance to progress; most people jump around from scheme to scheme without having progressed adequately at any element of their training. Also, I didn't advise any rep range in my post above.

In regard to the safety srgument, I have a tough time believing that lifting explosively could be safer than lifting heavy. I for one have had nothing but the most minor of injuries in my time at the gym. Granted, if one lifts with bad form one could expect problems. Lifts should be performed properly.

Rep ranges are in my posts as rep ranges are based on the goals at hand. My goal was a combination of size and strength. Strength gains can happen without hypertrophy and one can gain size while plateau... Neither of which I would say is not optimal. As far as form I'll never suggest one lift with bad form, but when one is lifting 100% 1rm, shit happens.

Please, PLEASE hold true to this.

Sorry

 

[Guinness5.0]

First, I respect the civility of your reply.

Second, this topic is too big to discuss without adequate context. What is best for an athlete is not best for a BB, and vice versa. Besides, what's best for bb 'a' with two years experience is not what's best for bb 'b' who has done 8 cycles and has been in the gym for 20 years.

I still hold to the idea that one's progression on their lifts is the most reliable, most relevant gauge as to where they are in their journey. I would hope that someone who has been around forever and a day (I am speaking in general terms here) is interested enough in this stuff to have at least a degree of appreciation for what works in the peripheral sports. By that I mean that bb's should take a look at what works for PLs and vice vers because though there are differences, there are also similarities.

I will stop now b/c otherwise I will never stop. I just want to state that when people say things like 'volume training' and the like, it drives me crazy. Volume is ONE measurable compoment of training. ALL training involves volume. What matters is combining the relevant variables (workload, intensity, frequency, volume) into a progressive program that is APPROPRIATE for where they are and for what their goals are.

 

[Tweakle]

He benched 535 before his pec tore

yeah, see that's the whole thing. The Good Bros who are talking about volume training on this here site would be lucky to max out with 3 plates, on a mega cycle.

Doing nothing but Volume without an appreciable amount of weight on the bar (or freak genetics that mean you're always going to be able to walk into a gym and put up 5 plates without bothering to train for it) is a fool errand.

 

[Tweakle]

Let's say you took a natural bodybuilder and built him up to the following lifts:

Incline Bench Press: 400 x 10

all natty guys who can incline more than Chris cormier and dorian yates please raise your hands. If you post at bb.com and are 16, I'm sorry but your e-lift doesnt count

 

[Neo22]

First, I respect the civility of your reply.

Second, this topic is too big to discuss without adequate context. What is best for an athlete is not best for a BB, and vice versa. Besides, what's best for bb 'a' with two years experience is not what's best for bb 'b' who has done 8 cycles and has been in the gym for 20 years.

I still hold to the idea that one's progression on their lifts is the most reliable, most relevant gauge as to where they are in their journey. I would hope that someone who has been around forever and a day (I am speaking in general terms here) is interested enough in this stuff to have at least a degree of appreciation for what works in the peripheral sports. By that I mean that bb's should take a look at what works for PLs and vice vers because though there are differences, there are also similarities.

I will stop now b/c otherwise I will never stop. I just want to state that when people say things like 'volume training' and the like, it drives me crazy. Volume is ONE measurable compoment of training. ALL training involves volume. What matters is combining the relevant variables (workload, intensity, frequency, volume) into a progressive program that is APPROPRIATE for where they are and for what their goals are.

Its good to implement low reps occasionally for compound movements for bodybuilders but not necessary. If you train intensively enough using drop sets, super sets, giant sets, and hitting each muscle from a different angle everytime you will progress regardless if everything else is equal.

 

[Neo22]

ANY training builds muscle, as long as there is a means for progression over a period of time for any given rep scheme, and a calorie surplus present. It does not need to be narrowed down to "Volume training builds muscle."

not true, low reps 1-3 usually only enhance neuromuscular efficiency and will not build muscle.