5x5 hypertrophy variation

[GlynnDiesel]

Hi all

I'm new to post here but have been readin most posts on here for several months now and have been training with the 5x5 SF for 10 weeks now.

I've prevouisly trained with mainly 3 and 4 day splits in the past, training each body part 1x wk both HIT and volume style over the past 6 years and have always stuck to mainly basics. I've had pretty good results with this type training.

Only due to a bad wrist injury which stopped me training for several months and time away from the gym and muscle and fiction mags, gave me chance to do some internet research, led to info from Glen Pendlay, Madcow + others based round the 5x5.

Anway I've loved the 5x5 (never worked lower than 8 reps previously) so far and I'm only really slowing down strength wise on the bench but that aint no suprise as it's my shittiest lift and body part.

The only thing that worries me about the 5x5 is that there aint much varation on the rep ranges meaning over 5 reps and as I mainly interested in size not strength I wonder is it best suited for hypertrophy?

I'm sure I'm gonna get hammered here now but even Glen has posted that 5x5 aint necessarily best for hypertrophy and 10x10 is more suited for that purpose alone. I 'm aware that 5x5 should give a mix of both strength and size but I cant help but thing surely it's missing out on some extra hypertrophy by not including reps higher than 5.

Therefore anyone any ideas on a hyprid of 5s and 10s in a cycle or would you pretty much run a cycle of 5x5 then a cycle of GVT type 10x10 or 4x10 along the lines of what Charles Poliquin recommends?

Just after some ideas/oppions, goe easy on me, it is my first post after all.

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

10x10 is way too much volume for hypertrophy, unless you're assisted.

There's a very simple formula for hypertrophy. You simply have to add weight to the bar over time, while consuming a caloric excess. The weight added has to be beyond neural ranges (i.e., higher than triples). Beyond this, there's not much you can do.

The only thing that can help eek some more growth is to switch to higher rep ranges for sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, as opposed to myofibrillar. This is that "pumped" look where your muscles are filled with glycogen. Higher reps tend to accentuate this. A combination of reps between 4-6 and 8-12 would work just fine.

To keep it simple, though, just train with the 5x5 routine. Get your strength up to appreciable levels. When you start feeling vain, or get bored with 5x5, switch over to HST. It has you train across a wide rep-range. The two routines complement one another quite nicely.

 

[Madcow2]

What he said.

10x10 = 100 reps, how about something a little more similar like 3x8 or 3x10 or 2x15 (24, 30, 30 reps respectively). Adding weight to the bar over time is the big one. As long as you aren't restricting your diet or working in ultra low pure neural ranges you will grow as fast as any other way. The good part of working in different rep ranges is that some of the neural gains you post in lower reps transfer nicely and help you then get strong in higher rep ranges, why then can support more progress moving back down (assuming you are putting on weight and adding muscle as this doesn't work too well otherwise).

Just have faith that as long as you are eating and your big lifts are moving up, you are covered at the 98% level. That's really all you can do, there's no extra magic that's going to make you 50% bigger at the exact same strength level providing you are eating. No magic, just progression and eat. I know that sucks with all the fancy crap that constantly gets spewed but this is what it really comes down to.

 

[Andrew Smith]

Glynndiesel-

Anthrax makes some excellent points. However their are numerous variables for musclular hypertrophy, density (doing more work in less time), volume (reps x sets), intensity (percentage of 1 rep max), etc.

Pavel Tsatsouline is fond of saying that to make muscular progress you need to get a muscluar pump from heavy weights.

Chad Waterbury has written that volume with high intensity(75-85% of 1 RM), stimulates muscular growth in the type II-B muscle fibers, the ones with the most growth and strength potential.

Numerous authors have written to stimulate the most hypertrophy gains that one MUST work in the 1-5 range AND 8-12 range.

Try something like this...

Day 1- Upper Body
10 x 3 (Each week add a rep, up to 6, add 5%, drop to 3s and work back up)
Load-75-80% 1 RM

2 Exercises Each, Alternate w/ 60 Seconds Rest

Day 2- Lower Body
10 x 3 (as per day 1)
Load (as per day 1)

Day 3- Upper Body
2 exercises per movement (90 Seconds Rest)
3-4 Sets of 8-12 (Adding reps each week, up to 12, add 5% load)

Day 4- Lower Body
(As per day 3)

Best of both worlds!

Hope that helps,

-Andrew

Checkout my site and sign up for my free newsletter!
http://www.Modern-Athlete.com

 

[cwc73]

I like supplementing 5X5 with HST. 5X5 usually taxes me heavily, but HST seems to be just right once i play with it.

There just isnt a magical number of repsXsets that makes the world go around. Experiment and mix thing up. Have fun with it and enjoy the progress...that's the only way you'll stick with it. For me, 5x5 bores me after a while. That's when I switch to HST or if I plan on cutting down i might do a split. Then, I get the itch for some heavy deads and powercleans. Back to 5x5 i go.

Bottom Line. Play around and see what works (sorry for being cliche)

 

[GlynnDiesel]

Thanks to you all for your views. I'm with you all on adding more weight to the bar that has been the number one reason for getting to the point I'm at now, I realise that much but I did sort of miss that point in my post though!

I'm pretty much gonna go along the lines of what I was thinking of doing before posting and that’s switching between 5s and 10s every so often, maybe cycle to cycle and have a dabble with HST at some point. I've made really good size gains in the 8-10 rep ranges (I’m sure mainly down to the progression in weight but maybe the higher rep range also helped?) and I'm currently loving the 5s so it's seems the logical thing to do. I still wanted to hear your thoughts though!

Andrew you mentioned both Pavel and Chad Waterbury. I really like allot of the stuff written by those two especially CW, his work revolves heavily around changing training parameters, not entirely sold on the frequency he talks of though, like every workout. He never really acknowledges the motor learning response when talking about the need for change. It often seems as though the guy has to get X amount of routines out for T Nation. I still like his writing though. Any personal experience with his routines?

Also cwc 73 what’s been your own experience of using HST? I really like the sound of it. I nearly went with HST when I moved away form my split routine but went with 5x5 as I couldn’t get my head round, working with the sub maximal weights. I fully understand the reasoning behind it, I've read virtually every bit of info on it but coming form a split routine training working to all out failure to using HST with full body work outs and sub maximal weights, seemed too much of a change. At least with the 5x5 I felt as though I'd been pushing my self even though not training to failure. Now that I'm pretty much sold on this type of training though HST is something I want to have a go at, at some point. I take it you like it and have had made progress on it?

Anyway thanks again to everyone, much appreciated.

 

[GlynnDiesel]

Anthrax I forgot to say a 10x10 setup along the same lines as the 5x5, I also believe would be way too much volume but I was talking along the lines of GVT, only 1 compound exercise used per main body part, 3 day split.

I don’t believe you need to be assisted for this type of routine. I'm not entirely sure about the routine as I don’t like the idea of using a load 60% my 1 rep max but there’s lots of good feed back from this routine, lots of naturall trainers.

Charles Poliquin says it's the best hypertrophy method he's used for his athletes and he aint no mug. Charles likes to switch from 10x10 GVT to 5x5 Bill Starr type training.

Just thought it was worth mentioning, maybe, maybe not!

 

[Anthrax Invasion]

I don't like Poliquin much. I still see load as the ultimate indicator, and it will be much easier to add weight across 5x5 rather than 10x10. Using something like 3x10 for awhile, just to delve into higher reps, wouldn't be a bad idea. I'm just not crazy about ten sets, even if it's for one exercise. I'd get bored, and if I can't stay with it, I wouldn't be consistent anyway. Case in point - even if it worked that well (doubtful), then I wouldn't bother 'cause it would drive me mad.

 

[Andrew Smith]

GlynnDiesel-

Andrew you mentioned both Pavel and Chad Waterbury. I really like allot of the stuff written by those two especially CW, his work revolves heavily around changing training parameters, not entirely sold on the frequency he talks of though, like every workout. He never really acknowledges the motor learning response when talking about the need for change. It often seems as though the guy has to get X amount of routines out for T Nation. I still like his writing though. Any personal experience with his routines?

Yes, I do have experience with CW's stuff, especially his first few routines he wrote for T-Nation, the Anti-Establishment Hypertrophy Program (aka Anti-Bodybuilding Hypertrophy Program). Made some good gains on his program and I would recommend his stuff to just about anyone. Then again, when I design programs, I take anything that is useful from anyone and apply it within my own personal philosophy/framework for the client.
I believe that he alternates parameters based on the fact that the body would surely suffer from cns fatigue if there wasn't a higher rep day to drive nutrients to the muscles via capillary density. Hence, he can get away with using heavier parameters as long as there is a hypertrophy/endurance day. Checkout his diversity for hypertrophy article and 100 reps for bigger muscles can give you clues to his new stuff. Yeah, it gets old, but he is a bright guy and I def learned alot from his stuff.
Where he and Pavel differ is the fact that I feel that Pavel recommends a higher intensity in his programs (i.e. 5-6 RM, compared to CW's 6/7 RM for 3 Reps in ABBH) but Pavel recommends such high frequency to take advantage of synaptic facilitation, to grease a certain lift repeatedly.
You are moving more towards Poliquin's take on the German periodization model of Accumulation and Intensification. But you already pointed out that GVT would necessitate a lower total number of exercises in a session. So already have your answer!

Hope my babbled helped!

-Andrew

Checkout my site and sign up for the free newsletter! http://www.Modern-Athlete.com