Volume Training

[ricanx99]

Pros/Cons?? Criticism/appraisal?? Just wondering what some opinions and thoughts you all have on this style of training... I have done 5x5 and was great for strength.... did a modified 5x5 and was another solid routine... Now I'm doing some volume training and was just wondering what you all thought... Not sure how long I'll run it, but just wanted to get a different feel. I tend to get bored on the same routine for so long. Thanks fellas.

 

[ZGzaZ]

Pros - Nothing.

Cons - Gay, easy to destroy your CNS, tiring, a good way to not progress in any lifts, burns too many calories, not focused around progression, etc etc.

Bout sums it up.

 

[ricanx99]

Pros - Nothing.

Cons - Gay, easy to destroy your CNS, tiring, a good way to not progress in any lifts, burns too many calories, not focused around progression, etc etc.

Bout sums it up.

I knew what you were gonna say already... LoL... I expected this post from ya.

 

[ZGzaZ]

I knew what you were gonna say already... LoL... I expected this post from ya.

prove me wrong.

 

[SpyWizard]

pro's

strengthen your ligaments,
improve endurance
makes the muscle groups more stripped and ripped
burns fat in area's worked, or that is the end result
prevents injury

cons.. it will wear you out..

what i have found works... is every 3 weeks i do a low rep/high weight routine

then back to the high reps..

love it to death..

depends on the type of body you are going for, and the results you are seeking..

 

[Tweakle]

if you eat enough and take cell volumisers for the 4 weeks or so you run it, and if it's done right you should get some 'swole' off it.

which will vanish rather fast when you go back to regular training I suspect.. ask jkurz how effective it is as a long term training strategy

 

[ricanx99]

pro's

strengthen your ligaments,
improve endurance
makes the muscle groups more stripped and ripped
burns fat in area's worked, or that is the end result
prevents injury

cons.. it will wear you out..

what i have found works... is every 3 weeks i do a low rep/high weight routine

then back to the high reps..

love it to death..

depends on the type of body you are going for, and the results you are seeking..

Thanks for the reply Wiz... I was only planning on doing this for 2-4 weeks.. depending on how the 1st two weeks go. I used to lift like this all the time and then went to the 5x5. I like how they both work you differently and I "felt" like switching back for a few weeks. I plan on doing a 4day split each week... Chest/tri... Back/bi... day off... Delts/abs... Legs... 2 days off. I still incorporate high intensity with each training session so I'm still not taking it light. Of course my warmup sets are higher reps, but I'll still go heavy as I can on top sets for 3-5 reps. I.e.... Did deads today for 355x5 after doing a few warmup sets. Yesterday got 275x3 for flats after doing 4 sets prior. I'll just see how it goes for a week or two... if I like it, then 4 weeks total. Then restart 5x5 to pass what I was at before.

 

[ricanx99]

if you eat enough and take cell volumisers for the 4 weeks or so you run it, and if it's done right you should get some 'swole' off it.

which will vanish rather fast when you go back to regular training I suspect.. ask jkurz how effective it is as a long term training strategy

All I'll be using is an NO product and Deramcrine Sustain because I'm coming off of Halodrol within the next week or so. It won't be long term, about 2-4 weeks like you said. But thanks for your input Tweakle... Your videos are sick..... Definitely an inspiration to be strong as fuck.

 

[SpyWizard]

That's a good point too.. i did run dermacrine for 4 weeks, and am not on dermacrine sustain..

i was running 20's for 3 months,... that is 3-5 sets with 20 reps each..

didn't seem to be making a lot of progress, so i switched up to low reps/high reps for 2 weeks 3 sets 4-6 reps.. with the last set being a drop set..

my pre max on incline was 55lbs for 20..

i'm doing 85 lbs for 20, then i drop to 35lbs and do 20 more..

if i were not on the dermicrine, i don't know if i could do this much and still recover enough to workout the next day, or day after..

 

[ZGzaZ]

pro's

strengthen your ligaments,
improve endurance
makes the muscle groups more stripped and ripped
burns fat in area's worked, or that is the end result
prevents injury

cons.. it will wear you out..

what i have found works... is every 3 weeks i do a low rep/high weight routine

then back to the high reps..

love it to death..

depends on the type of body you are going for, and the results you are seeking..

Strengthen ligaments, improve endurance, okay...
-make the muscle groups more "stripped and ripped" ... WRONG!
- Burn Fat in area's worked.... WRONG!
- Prevents injury - WRONG!

First off, making muscle "stripped and ripped" is the same as burning fat...and losing fat is done almost solely through diet, not vise versa.
Injurys can happen at any rep level, it has to do with form, not your rep scheme or exercise selection. You can just as easily get injured lifting a lighter weight for 10 reps as lifting heavy for 3 reps.

 

[ceo]

Thanks for the reply Wiz... I was only planning on doing this for 2-4 weeks.. depending on how the 1st two weeks go. I used to lift like this all the time and then went to the 5x5. I like how they both work you differently and I "felt" like switching back for a few weeks. I plan on doing a 4day split each week... Chest/tri... Back/bi... day off... Delts/abs... Legs... 2 days off. I still incorporate high intensity with each training session so I'm still not taking it light. Of course my warmup sets are higher reps, but I'll still go heavy as I can on top sets for 3-5 reps. I.e.... Did deads today for 355x5 after doing a few warmup sets. Yesterday got 275x3 for flats after doing 4 sets prior. I'll just see how it goes for a week or two... if I like it, then 4 weeks total. Then restart 5x5 to pass what I was at before.

A lot of guys have gotten big from volume training...of course their common thread was maintaining a training intensity. There are more guys who do volume training who don't get big. 5x5 works great for my legs. Upper body didn't seem to respond to 5x5...it prefers a different range...something like 6-10 reps for back, 8-10 for chest, 12-15 for arms, all at about 4 sets.

 

[SpyWizard]

Strengthen ligaments, improve endurance, okay...
-make the muscle groups more "stripped and ripped" ... WRONG!
- Burn Fat in area's worked.... WRONG!
- Prevents injury - WRONG!

First off, making muscle "stripped and ripped" is the same as burning fat...and losing fat is done almost solely through diet, not vise versa.

Injurys can happen at any rep level, it has to do with form, not your rep scheme or exercise selection. never injured in the past 6 months with this workout, but did tear a rotor cuff doing power training..

You can just as easily get injured lifting a lighter weight for 10 reps as lifting heavy for 3 reps. never have, and i power lifted for years

in bold..

 

[ZGzaZ]

in bold..

Great reply....you show your lack of knowledge with every post.

 

[Protobuilder]

my pre max on incline was 55lbs for 20..

i'm doing 85 lbs for 20, then i drop to 35lbs and do 20 more..

Wow. I'd say that's a pretty big CON right there. No offense but throwing around weights like this probably won't do much, period.

 

[ZGzaZ]

Wow. I'd say that's a pretty big CON right there. No offense but throwing around weights like this probably won't do much, period.

LoL....

 

[Neo22]

Pros - Nothing.

Cons - Gay, easy to destroy your CNS, tiring, a good way to not progress in any lifts, burns too many calories, not focused around progression, etc etc.

Bout sums it up.

dude seriously STFU. Don't bag on things you know nothing about.

 

[Kabeetz]

Don't tell him to STFU he can give his opinion to his training partner all he wants. Especially when he's right.

Regardless... Rican - this board is pretty biased against volume training, with good reason, but at the very least there is nothing wrong with trying different stuff in order to find what works and doesn't work for you and your body and what you enjoy.

 

[ZGzaZ]

Don't tell him to STFU he can give his opinion to his training partner all he wants. Especially when he's right.
Regardless... Rican - this board is pretty biased against volume training, with good reason, but at the very least there is nothing wrong with trying different stuff in order to find what works and doesn't work for you and your body and what you enjoy.

Thank you.

 

[ricanx99]

Don't tell him to STFU he can give his opinion to his training partner all he wants. Especially when he's right.

Regardless... Rican - this board is pretty biased against volume training, with good reason, but at the very least there is nothing wrong with trying different stuff in order to find what works and doesn't work for you and your body and what you enjoy.

Yea, I figured so. We'll see what happens.

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

You ever run a HST cycle?

 

[ZGzaZ]

Don't tell him to STFU he can give his opinion to his training partner all he wants. Especially when he's right.

Regardless... Rican - this board is pretty biased against volume training, with good reason, but at the very least there is nothing wrong with trying different stuff in order to find what works and doesn't work for you and your body and what you enjoy.

You forgot to bold this part...

 

[ricanx99]

You forgot to bold this part...

Naw brother, I know about the good reasoning. That's why I didn't highlight it.

 

[ricanx99]

You ever run a HST cycle?

Sorry bro, I don't know this acronym.... HST stands for?

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

Hypertrophy Specific Training. Almost halfway down the page. http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?t=484815

Seems similar to what you are wanting to do.

 

[silver_shadow]

lookup german volume training. this is the kind of thing you can do once in a very long time though.

 

[BiggT]

Rican, 5x5 IS volume training, man. Today, people get confused about the true definition of volume, much like they fuck up what intensity actually means or is supposed to mean. Intensity is % of 1 rep max, end of story. Not some abstract way to tire yourself out.

Volume, is total workload. You take weight and multiply by reps and then multiply by sets for workload, that's volume. It's very black and white and very easy to guage progress by your constants and variables. If you run 5x5 sets of straight weight at 85% on the squat, that is a lot of freaking volume, 6x5 or 7x5 makes it even more. Think German volume training, the Smolov/Russian squat program, and 5x5. Volume isn't cramming 10lbs of shit in a 5lb bag. Doing 10x10 on the squat is more volume in 1 day than somebody does in an entire month by working up to 1 set of 8 in the squat and doing 57 sets of leg presses, leg curls, leg extensions, machine hack squats, and who knows what else other machine in the gym.

Volume is just workload.....reasonable workload, don't check common sense at the door. 5x5 at 85% on the bench is more volume than 100 sets of 100 with 2.5lb dumbells, lol....but you know what I mean, bro.

Total work is what is meant by volume, not the amount of useless exercises you can conjure up.

 

[Neo22]

Don't tell him to STFU he can give his opinion to his training partner all he wants. Especially when he's right.

Regardless... Rican - this board is pretty biased against volume training, with good reason, but at the very least there is nothing wrong with trying different stuff in order to find what works and doesn't work for you and your body and what you enjoy.

oh he's right is he? What are you accreditations? Nasm would disagree with you as well as science. Where are your pics at again??

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

On the same token, where are your accreditations and pics? What "science" are you referring to?

 

[ZGzaZ]

oh he's right is he? What are you accreditations? Nasm would disagree with you as well as science. Where are your pics at again??

I'm interested to hear this "science" also...

 

[Kabeetz]

NASM???? NASM is one of the best personal trainer certifications out there.... but to take what nasm preaches as bible, you're crazy. How many great powerlifters are NASM? More importantly, how many of the great Olympic coaches are NASM certified? Many of these people have doctorates, NASM doesn't hold up too well against a Ph.D.

These principles have been proven by athletes outperforming competition year after year, not by passing a certification test.

Bill Starr.
Mark Rippletoe.
Glenn Pendlay.
Louie Simmons.
Gayle Hatch.
etc.
etc.
etc.

Do these names ring any bells to you at all? I promise you they would each piss on a NASM certification, and they certainly wouldn't hang it in the biggest frame in their office. Buy Starting Strength, buy Practical Programming, thoroughly read the site and associated links at http://www.geocities.com/elitemadcow1/5x5_Program/Linear_5x5.htm
Visit http://www.msbn.tv/usavision/

Watch Mike Miller squat 1200+ pounds or Mariusz win a World's Strongest Man competition, or my man Pyros Dymas grab the gold.

These men are accomplishing these amazing tactics through varieties of strength training, not through the great Joe Weider and his "principles".

 

[ZGzaZ]

NASM???? NASM is one of the best personal trainer certifications out there.... but to take what nasm preaches as bible, you're crazy. How many great powerlifters are NASM? More importantly, how many of the great Olympic coaches are NASM certified? Many of these people have doctorates, NASM doesn't hold up too well against a Ph.D.

These principles have been proven by athletes outperforming competition year after year, not by passing a certification test.

Bill Starr.
Mark Rippletoe.
Glenn Pendlay.
Louie Simmons.
Gayle Hatch.
etc.
etc.
etc.

Do these names ring any bells to you at all? I promise you they would each piss on a NASM certification, and they certainly wouldn't hang it in the biggest frame in their office. Buy Starting Strength, buy Practical Programming, thoroughly read the site and associated links at http://www.geocities.com/elitemadcow1/5x5_Program/Linear_5x5.htm
Visit http://www.msbn.tv/usavision/

Watch Mike Miller squat 1200+ pounds or Mariusz win a World's Strongest Man competition, or my man Pyros Dymas grab the gold.

These men are accomplishing these amazing tactics through varieties of strength training, not through the great Joe Weider and his "principles".

Kabeetz laying it down...

 

[Andalite]

Kabeetz laying it down...

i agree with him......kabeetz has some very valid points.

 

[ricanx99]

I love all the posts and controversy I started... LoL.... Keep it going! I appreciate everyone's input and explanations so far...

 

[ZGzaZ]

I love all the posts and controversy I started... LoL.... Keep it going! I appreciate everyone's input and explanations so far...

 

[ricanx99]

HaHaHa

 

[ricanx99]

- Kabeetz, BiggT, ZgZaz - You guys are awesome.. You know you're shit and your posts are much appreciated.

- JohnRobbHolmes - Thanks for that link on the HST. I wasn't familiar with that method of training. I still have to finish reading all of it, but so far so good.

- Neo22 - Can you show that science? I'm interested in what you have to prove/show since you are negating these other guys.

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

HST seems like a good means to increase your swole if you are OK with strength going down for a while. I have never ran it, but it has been tested by good orb's around here. I have a long road to travel before I will need to deviate much from the 5x5. Shoot, I still gotta learn how to eat enough before I can get past newbie stage :lol:

 

[ricanx99]

HST seems like a good means to increase your swole if you are OK with strength going down for a while. I have never ran it, but it has been tested by good orb's around here. I have a long road to travel before I will need to deviate much from the 5x5. Shoot, I still gotta learn how to eat enough before I can get past newbie stage :lol:

Sounds good man... 5x5 was very solid for me. Like I said before, I just wanted to run something different for a couple weeks and more likely than not, I'll return to it. I'm gonna finish reading the HST tho to see the type of training it does. Thanks again bro!

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

Glad I could help out.

 

[coolcolj]

you can work in whatever rep range, doesn't matter too much

but as long as the load your using in that range and volume goes up over time and you eating enough, your getting bigger

do you think someone who goes from a 135x8 to 405x8 squat is gonna be the same size?!

from KellyB's article

http://www.higher-faster-sports.com/theultimatesplit.html

5. Although some now argue that the hardgainer philosophy went a little extreme with extremely low volume and excessive recovery recommendations (and I agree), most natural bodybuilders to this day will make better gains focusing on strength gains with a more moderate volume setup than any routine that they pull out of a standard bodybuilding magazine.

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

Incline Bench Press: 400 x 10
Squat: 405 x 20
Stiff Leg dead: 375 x 20
Pullup: BW + 75 x 10 reps
Dips: BW + 100 x 10 reps
Curl: 135 x 20 reps



Do you think the bodybuilder that could achieve those lifts would have built a significant amount of size? Heck yeah! Now what if those were the ONLY lifts that he did and he simply focused on each of them in a progressive fashion? Well, that is what powerlifters do and there are no shortage of muscular powerlifters out there. But the average bodybuilder will get lost in the details (the pump and volume), and shortchange himself in the long run.

The point is, in the bodybuilding world there are those with the genetics to be pro bodybuilders and then there is everybody else. (Hardgainers). Those with less than optimal genetics will not get great gains training on routines that work well for the elite people and do better focusing on basics.

 

[gjohnson5]

I disagree with this. Bench presses are an area which Craig Titus said that if you are not progressing , use less weight. He benched 535 before his pec tore. I am in agreement that this may be a good adjustment for some to get better chest development. Muscles respond to resistance. And how volume training destroys your CNS I will never get. if anything progressive overload can only be done for a few weeks before you are unable to overload further due to CNS issues.

Pros - Nothing.

Cons - Gay, easy to destroy your CNS, tiring, a good way to not progress in any lifts, burns too many calories, not focused around progression, etc etc.

Bout sums it up.

 

[silver_shadow]

I disagree with this. Bench presses are an area which Craig Titus said that if you are not progressing , use less weight. He benched 535 before his pec tore. I am in agreement that this may be a good adjustment for some to get better chest development. Muscles respond to resistance. And how volume training destroys your CNS I will never get. if anything progressive overload can only be done for a few weeks before you are unable to overload further due to CNS issues.

that would explain how elite olympic lifters can lift for many hours everyday 6-7 days a week?
ever try german volume training? 10x10... that is some killer stuff and can only be done once a year for max of around 6 weeks - per poliquin's recommendations that is!

of course i wouldn't agree that high volume training is useless, it does have it's place when alternated with periods of low volume training.

but what zgzaz was refering to was the kind of training where you must hit the muscle with everything possible and 2 kitchen sinks so that it feels like a mass of jelly. the kind of training which this guy describes very aptly at the end of the article
http://www.bearpowered.com/blog/PermaLink,guid,59be6249-d637-4e2a-9941-dc664684927d.aspx

 

[gjohnson5]

I'm trying to find the principal, but there is a rep range principal that states that you can only lift 90% of 1rm for a few weeks and then your numbers will begin to drop. So 6-7 is ok , but they don't do this every day for months on end

volume training builds muscle. It's the preferred method for building muscle in bodybuilders. It's not useless

that would explain how elite olympic lifters can lift for many hours everyday 6-7 days a week?
ever try german volume training? 10x10... that is some killer stuff and can only be done once a year for max of around 6 weeks - per poliquin's recommendations that is!

of course i wouldn't agree that high volume training is useless, it does have it's place when alternated with periods of low volume training.

but what zgzaz was refering to was the kind of training where you must hit the muscle with everything possible and 2 kitchen sinks so that it feels like a mass of jelly. the kind of training which this guy describes very aptly at the end of the article
http://www.bearpowered.com/blog/PermaLink,guid,59be6249-d637-4e2a-9941-dc664684927d.aspx

 

[ZGzaZ]

I'm trying to find the principal, but there is a rep range principal that states that you can only lift 90% of 1rm for a few weeks and then your numbers will begin to drop. So 6-7 is ok , but they don't do this every day for months on end

volume training builds muscle. It's the preferred method for building muscle in bodybuilders. It's not useless

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."

 

[silver_shadow]

I'm trying to find the principal, but there is a rep range principal that states that you can only lift 90% of 1rm for a few weeks and then your numbers will begin to drop. So 6-7 is ok , but they don't do this every day for months on end

volume training builds muscle. It's the preferred method for building muscle in bodybuilders. It's not useless

and i didn't say it was - i said it has to be done sensibly and alternated with periods of lower reps especially in advanced lifters - because that is what maximizes strength which in turn (for the majority - on or off cycle) results in better hypertrophy.

and for what i mean by "sensibly" refer to my earlier post as an example of what not to do.

 

[ZGzaZ]

I disagree with this. Bench presses are an area which Craig Titus said that if you are not progressing , use less weight. He benched 535 before his pec tore. I am in agreement that this may be a good adjustment for some to get better chest development. Muscles respond to resistance. And how volume training destroys your CNS I will never get. if anything progressive overload can only be done for a few weeks before you are unable to overload further due to CNS issues.

Let's not use guys who were on massive amounts of gear, or guys with better genetics than 99.9% of the population as examples. Their advice/training techniques are useless to the general population.

 

[ricanx99]

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."

PREACH!

 

[ghettostudmuffin]

Lately I've been kinda winging it in the gym.

I'm not on anything and my diet as far as caloric surplus is concerned is decent, but I could eat more.

What seems to work best for me is a focus on the heavy basics compound lifts and trying to get the weight to go up on those over time. Everything else I do as much as I feel like, as fast as I feel like and as heavy or light as my mood dictates.

I've been making some nice improvement in the way I look using this method.

The compounds are building the overall strength and power and help drive weight gain while the assistance moves which I have been blitzing lately flesh everything out.

I seem to also be gravitating to "almost" a westside type of metality in my exercises. I have scheduled days where I suppsoed to to a certain bodypart, but each session I do a different exercise. All the exercises are steadily going up even thouhg I only do a particular exercise once every 5-9 days because each tiem I hit that bodypart I hit it hard with a similar movement.

Seems to work and help keep me fresh.

So my point is that my volume and intensity level has been pretty balls out lately and I'm making very nice visual progress. More so than when I was doign the DF 5x5 visually. That program is fantastic for overall size and strength, but when I think volume I think quite a few sets on assistance. I guess it's still considerably less than the volume a pro bodybuilder uses, but far more than a typical hardgainer program.

 

[fortunatesun]

Here's something taken from westside-barbell.com:

The Importance of Volume
By: Louie Simmons
How important is controlling volume? What about the range of intensity. These are issues seldom addressed by today’s lifters. I found out the hard way that the volume at a particular intensity range must be closely adhered to; not only the total number of lifts, but also the number of lifts per set should be calculated. This was brought to my attention by A. S. Prilepin’s research in 1974. His recommendations were as follow.
Percent # of Reps #Lifts Per Workout Optimal # per Workout
70% 3-5 12-24 18
80% 2-4 10-20 15
90% 1-2 4-10 7
If the number of lifts deviates significantly from optimal, a de crease in training effect occurs.

(This is showing up on my screen as sort of an oddball cut+paste. Hope it's not too difficult to read.)
They calculate lifts at sub-maximal levels this way. For instance, if someone was doing squats at 50% of say, 300, then 3 sets of 10 @ 150lbs = 4500lbs. moved that workout session. However you vary the specific number of sets and reps, total pounds moved must increase as an indication of progress.

It's true there will be a decrease in performance usually in 1-3 weeks when lifting in the 90% or higher range, depending on the individual. You can get around this effect by the conjugate method: using a core a exercises similar to the classic lift to prevent CNS fatigue. Of course the primary goal here isn't the same as a bodybuilder's but when you factor in secondary or assistance exercises (usually done to promote growth) the total amount of weight moved, or volume per training session can, at least in my case, provide good muscular growth as well.

Well, just another aspect of the volume question to consider.

 

[gjohnson5]

Several things this does not mention. There are 2 types of hypertrophy myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is a fluid which fills in the muscle due to higher repetition ranges and also the muscle being broken down due to exercise. myofibrillar hypertrophy occurs at lower rep ranges and results in stronger muscle contraction strength.

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.

I believe that doing 6-10 reps sets is safer for ones joints and you will be able to exercise at a higher daily frequency due to lack of CNS fatigue that fortunatesun pointed out (I believe is the preplin principal or something like that) Also by doing the repetitions as fast as possible applying 100% strength to lighter weight, you can you can get a good balance of muscle exercise and CNS stimulation due to heavy weight lifting. This should activate both forms of hypertrophy.

So to apply this to volume training say German (10 sets of 10) one can lift 60% of their max as fast as possible while keeping their form. I think one can get the best balance of size and strength.


Ponder this

 

[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.

 

[SpyWizard]

Wow. I'd say that's a pretty big CON right there. No offense but throwing around weights like this probably won't do much, period.

actually, i did 95 lbs for 20 this week.. but it's probably the dermacrine that is helping with that..

 

[SpyWizard]

anyone try static training??

I've done that one at length as well..

 

[Guinness5.0]

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.

I disagree with most of this. The whole 'angle' thing is nonsense. Muscle fibers either contract or they don't. As long as the movements one chooses hit the fibers, there is no need for tons of fluff stuff to cover all the angles. If you hit the chest with dips and overhead presses, all the fibers will be stimulated. You won't get anywhere with flyes and the like just because it feels like you're hitting a particular area. Google 'proprioceptive feedback' if you are interested in learning why 'feel' is a poor gauge of an exercise's effectiveness.

Also, the giant sets, drops sets, etc. stuff is useful as metabolic work (sarcoplasmic hypertrophy) but won't do a heck of a lot for myofibral hypertrophy (in my estimation it'd probably set you back -- it's tough to recover from that stuff and you'd likely have to drop frequency if such techniques are used often). For that, you need to get stronger. Clinging to one specicfic rep range is a lot less important than using a similar rep range for a period and IMPROVING your lifts at the range (I hope that made sense). EDIT: For example, pushing triples for eight sets for a few weeks, ramping up the weigths as you go, then maybe using sets of 8 for a period, ramping them as you go. But it's just not right to say that one rep range is a catch-all and another is useless.

You can grow from doing triples. You can grow from doing sets of 10. The crux of it is improving the triples or tens over time rather than thinking that a bunch of drop sets and the like constitutes progress.

 

[ricanx99]

actually, i did 95 lbs for 20 this week.. but it's probably the dermacrine that is helping with that..

Spy... are you reffering to Dumbells or Bench?????

 

[silver_shadow]

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.

firstly, intensity is measured as a % of 1RM. the word has been bastardized so that now guys spout it freely - mostly using it to describe a subjective feeling of soreness. soreness itself doesn't mean shit in building muscles.

secondly - almost everyone NEEDS to get stronger to build muscle. hence the use of lower reps. volume training is necessary too, just that most guys definition of volume is pretty fucked up - volume training should not refer to training for soreness. these 2 (high and low volume) are very much complimentary - anyone reading about WSB would understand that.

thirdly, i wish people would stop saying "X bodybuilder trains high volume"... you cannot compare the top 4 or 5 at the olympia to joe average for these reasons:
1) genetics
2) drug use
3) the olympia guys are in a much more advanced stage (mostly) and most of them have already become strong - usually not by HIT kind of principles. joe average is a noob or at best an intermediate meaning he has a long way to go. till then he HAS to build up a solid base of strength... how come no one wants to know HOW ronnie can dead 800, or craig titus can bench 535?

i hope this post has made things clearer.

 

[BiggT]

I have to say it again, as SS just did, but it can't be said enough.....volume is workload, weight x sets x reps. It isn't cramming 10lbs of shit in a 5lb bag. 5x5 IS volume training, add up the squats/pulls/presses for the week and you're doing a lot more than the guy who rows 1-2 heavy sets a week then does lat pulldowns with 37 different attachments. Lower volume is required to deload or peak or both....one isn't better than the other, regardless of your goals.

AND...intensity is tangible, you can measure it. It's simply % of 1RM...it isn't some abstract feeling of "workin' real hard", it isn't pump/soreness/not being able to walk for 3 days, and it isn't your training partner slapping you and cursing at you, lol.

 

[Kabeetz]

You guys can keep saying this stuff over and over but it will not stop 90% of the good bros at the gym for thinking I'm out of my mind for squatting 3x a week and frowning at the response I give them when they ask me "what bodypart are you hitting tonight?". Educate yourselves, damn it.

 

[blut wump]

Tell them you're working core. After they've done a cavity search for the Swiss ball, they might learn to leave you alone.

 

[coolcolj]

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

it's all you!