10x3

RUSS

RUSS

Member
Although 10x3 is sustainable by itself , I've personally found that variety (if undertaken in an intelligent , logical manner- and within reason) can be just as effective if not more , as plugging away at the same program cycle after cycle as mental staleness can become a real obstacle to motivation after the "rush" of noob gains during the initial couple years or so of a lifters life wears off.


                 I would be remiss not to thank Bryan for the "free speech" platform he has provided us to engage in open , uncensored discussions like this. Thank you Bryan , IMHO you are one of the brighter beacons of light in the lifting world- and in no way have I ever intended to detract from HST , just bring some balance in relation to "outside" concepts that may "compliment" different stages of developement and/or varing lifter "temperaments". IMHO HST provides the perfect platform for a lifter to launch from giving perhaps the best "overall" firm foundation of knowledge on which a lifter can build as he/she progresses.

               What I share here is the result of 20 years trial and error on myself , friends and family and is wholly open to personal tweaks although if tweaked beyond recognition (as any program) it can become ineffective.I am more than happy to assist any interested -in tailoring this system to thier own personal dynamics (lifting age, recovery ability, joint issues, handicaps ect.ect.).


                 And I should say , that I didn't invent 10x3 , dont "claim ownership" or feel an emotional possessiveness of it - this is MY take on it , "the science of 10x3" , "10x3 for fat loss" , and "the Waterbury method" ( all easily googled) are three DIFFERENT takes on the concept , and IMHO Chad Waterbury's main contribution to the lifting world - although (again IMHO) in the effort to (understandably) put food on his table , he has "shined up" the concept with some "clutter" in order to perhaps make the system "his".


                 My 10x3 is a 4x/week (2x/each muscle group) template requiring either an upper/lower or push/pull split (your choice) , I use push/pull strictly for ease of setting up the w/o's so one movement flows quickly and timely into the next movement in terms of setting up for the next exersize. By approaching 10x3 in this way "right now" volume and weekly volume (as well as the obvious- intensity) can be increased substantially over a 3x/wk full body template without increasing CNS drain due to slightly longer recovery time- you manage to "sneak" more "right now" volume , more intensity , and more weekly volume into your week while managing to sidestep paying the CNS piper for doing so , so to speak.


                 First set up your movements - I believe in "simplify and win" principles in this regard , surplus "trash volume" will short circuit the whole experience rather quickly. If you feel curls/skull crushers ect.nesseary to your developement I woul advise treating them as "second class citizens" to your main compounds aware that if used as anything more than a "spice" they can cost more than they pay. Here's what I do (just to provide example - you may prefer dips to flat , chins to rows or combining both - whatever,make it your own I say!)


PUSH
flat bench
inclines
military press
squat

PULL
chest supported rows
upright rows
pull downs
deadlift (I alternate with BB rows , past a certain stage of strength deads are best done once per week- )


                      Each work out 2 movements are done 10x3 @80%1rm , the remainder are done either 2x12 , 3x8 , or 4x6 @ 80% rm IN THAT REP RANGE , the next w/o of that set of movements 2 DIFFERENT movements are hit 10x3 while the previous 10x3's are now performed using the higher rep sets. The decision to use 2x12, 3x8, or 4x6 is entirely one of personal preference , obviously the opportunity to cycle these three "non-10x3" rep ranges (like HST) exists , or one can just pick a preference - it's not a cycle breaker.

                       All loads are advanced WEEKLY , by AROUND 2.5% , however your plates allow you to most closely approximate this (within reason) is fine.


                       I work this in 6-8 week cycles , as so:

week one: ramp up
mon/pull
weds/push
fri/pull

weeks 2,3,4,5,
mon/push
tues/pull
thurs/push
fri/pull

weeks 6 -
mon/push
weds/pull
fri/push
mon/pull
weds/push
fri/pull (ect.)

SD(deload)



so to further illustrate:

MONDAY
flat 10x3
squat 10x3
military 2x12
incline 2x12

TUESDAY
chest supported rows 10x3
deadlift 10x3
upright rows 2x12
pull downs 2x12

THURSDAY
flat 2x12
squat 2x12
military 10x3
incline 10x3


FRIDAY
chest supported rows 2x12
BB rows 2x12 ( remember I alternate this with deads to prevent overtraining on deads)
upright rows 10x3
pull downs 10x3

so on and so forth.....



                           I've tried to be as basic/concise as possible , If I'm less than clear on any points , just ask and I'll happily expound on any confusing parts.

                           As always calorie surplus = growth, deficit = cut.
smile.gif
 
Russ, thanks for posting your routine.
It seems like a lot of volume ( i.e. 14 sets presses , 2 days later 22 sets). Apparently this works for you.
Also, the leg work is much less. Any reason?
Calve work ?
How long do you rest between sets?
Would also like your comments on why the higher rep sets with the 10x3.
Thanks again.
 
<div>
(dgm @ Sep. 25 2007,12:13)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Russ, thanks for posting your routine.
It seems like a lot of volume ( i.e. 14 sets presses , 2 days later 22 sets). Apparently this works for you.
Also, the leg work is much less. Any reason?
Calve work ?
How long do you rest between sets?
Would also like your comments on why the higher rep sets with the 10x3.
Thanks again.</div>
It IS more volume , but is enabled by lower frequency/longer recovery - thats kind of the point. The higher  intensity that is enabled (at such volume) by utilizing triples , it would be more informative to volume by total reps as opposed to sets as 10 sets of triples are a lot less draining than one would think (until one tries them) and equal 30 total reps. performing 2x12 @ 80% 12rm of say incline after a 10x3 flat bench feels suprisingly like metabolic work and equals 54 total reps so far , military at 2x12 finishes it off nicely considering it will be 2 full recovery days for this group till it's hit again . This brings front delt and tri's to a total of 78 BUT the key is that 48 of those reps were an entirely different beast than the other 30 , coincidently I've found this to be extremely easy to condition/acclimate to even though if viewed/udged by sets it does initially seem intimidating.
                    From a different perspective , it is common for &quot;non- HST&quot; lifters to hit a muscle with 8-12 sets at a time , however thier REPS often  exceed what I've outlined. The minute you forget that a triple is extremely different than 5's and up both on CNS and &quot;immediate&quot; recovery , that counting sets can be misleading when getting a birds eye view of total volume , and that this is a 2x/week per group frequency , you will loose sight of the forest for the trees so to speak.

What I've listed is a basic (open to personalization) template , choose your own movements as you see fit , using the basic template and you will quickly &quot;get&quot; the system - then tweak to your hearts content.


               If you desired more focus on leg work use an upper/lower and common sense to prioritize that more than my example has.


               I've been lifting 20 years so I'm pretty in touch as to when to commence my next set based on immediate recovery , for a timer type lifter 1-3 minutes between sets (dependant on condition) or when heart rate , breathing is ALMOST normal again would be ideal. Which should never be more than 3 minutes at th most.

                 The higher rep sets enable high volume , yet sit nicely with the CNS when the other half of the volume is coming from a completely different and almost opposite rep /set scheme works akin to A/Bing over alternating w/o's only WITHIN the same w/o in terms of overall fatigue management in the immediate present of the w/o.
smile.gif


Also it may be helpfull to stress that this is not fullbody , 3x/wk , so viewing it &quot;through that lense&quot; so to speak will not give a clear view.
biggrin.gif
 
Thanks Russ! Question: Do you keep your exercises in the same order, or do you prefer the 10x3 sets to always be completed before the higher rep ranges? What might you substitute for upright rows if they aggravate one's shoulders?
 
soflson,

I always do the 10x3's first , then the higher rep sets , you could substitute any side delt movement for upright rows if desired .


In general ,
                  OK , I think there may be some confusion because my intent wasn't to offer a &quot;just do what I've written type routine&quot; but convey a basic , QUICK example/overview so lifters could design thier own program using less exersizes perhaps more , different movements ect. It was my intent to teach how to fish instead of just handing out tunas and saying here - it's the best you'll ever eat!
smile.gif
If you want to be handed a pre-cooked fish Waterbury is happy to oblige!!!
biggrin.gif



Don't get me wrong I'm happy to expound , and pleased at the interest - thanks for the replies/questions.
smile.gif
 
Just to revisit leg work a second- at a total weekly volume of 108 reps between deads (I do mine sumo) and squats , 60 of those @ or in excess of 80%1rm I personally do quite well leg wise , of course you could do seperate calf work , leg press whatever , just make sure your volume balances your intensity and frequency as opposed to just adding things that might not nessessarily optimize anything.
 
<div>
(RUSS @ Sep. 25 2007,14:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">It was my intent to teach how to fish instead of just handing out tunas and saying here - it's the best you'll ever eat!</div>
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life...
 
Cheers Russ. Good explanation. I will be having a go at this in the months ahead.

Just so I'm totally clear, for the 10 x 3 exercises in each w/o, what % of 1RM do you end up using by the end of the cycle? At around 90% of 1RM (=&lt;5RM) I'm reckoning that 10 x 3 is going to be brutal (but I won't know until I've tried). So, have you ever had to drop sets to save your CNS once you are at the end of the cycle?
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Each work out 2 movements are done 10x3 @80%1rm , the remainder are done either 2x12 , 3x8 , or 4x6 @ 80% rm IN THAT REP RANGE , the next w/o of that set of movements 2 DIFFERENT movements are hit 10x3 while the previous 10x3's are now performed using the higher rep sets. The decision to use 2x12, 3x8, or 4x6 is entirely one of personal preference , obviously the opportunity to cycle these three &quot;non-10x3&quot; rep ranges (like HST) exists , or one can just pick a preference - it's not a cycle breaker.

All loads are advanced WEEKLY , by AROUND 2.5% , however your plates allow you to most closely approximate this (within reason) is fine.
</div>

That's the schematics of it. Basically, you keep on switching between 10 reps and some other rep range where the volume equals 24 reps. Why there can be such freedom to go to higher reps like 12 or lower reps like 8 or 6 is &quot;Greek&quot; to me. I don't see the science behind that as I try to compare this ramping scheme to HST's linear progression where reps in a set decrease OR 5x5's low-mid-high load approach through a week. It seems like it's closer to 5x5 in that regard.
 
<div>
(Lol @ Sep. 25 2007,17:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"></div>
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Just so I'm totally clear, for the 10 x 3 exercises in each w/o, what % of 1RM do you end up using by the end of the cycle?</div>


In my experience this has depended completely on diet , I have &quot;eaten&quot; my way past what was my 1rm at the beginning of the cycle enough times when combined with 2-3 exersizes a w/o (compared to the 4 offered in the example) that I consider it &quot;something I do once or twice a year&quot; , and at this point pretty much take it for granted that I can accomplish this when it is my focus as long as I dont try to force this more than (for me) once or twice a year as I said and dont expect this to occur with more than one exersize a cycle. More typically for me I will max out in week 5 or 6 @ (roughly) somewhere between 90-95%1RM and just continue at that load adding if possible and when possible (even if it's 2 lbs.) for a week , sometimes 2 , sometimes even 3 before SDing exactly like people do at the end of 5's in HST sometimes. RBE really hasn't ever been a noticeable factor as at loads like this it takes longer to set in . Also notice that there are three distinct stages to the progression a ramp up , the main routine , and then (right around 90-92% 1rm) the frequency (and subsequent weekly volume) drops from 2x/wk each group to once every 5 days again for however long you choose to continue (realistically 1-3 weeks ). And yes , I geuss it's brutal in a way , but not nessessarily like you might imagine , not as similar to the &quot;feel&quot; of 5's as you might be thinking , they really are a beast all their own with thier own &quot;feel&quot; that you either love or hate - personally my own &quot;hell&quot; is anything over 8 reps , I still do them but they dont click with my body the way triples do YMMV.


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So, have you ever had to drop sets to save your CNS once you are at the end of the cycle?</div>

If I run into trouble I shave the sets down to 8x3 , drop redundant exersizes (for instance incline if I'm doing flat also) , just basic common sense stuff that anyone with a grounding in HST would think of also . Let me point out again that the progression tapers to 1x/5 days (per group) at the end which goes a long way to preventing this happening in the first place. It really depends where in the cycle I'm at in the latter stage and is based on self assessment - something I know you will be competent at as a result of your HST experience.


In fact , you are exactly the kind of lifter (knowledgeable , simplify and win oriented/aware, intermediate/advanced) that can understand what about this would be the &quot;part that makes it work&quot; and plot your own routine , personalized towards your own goals/preferences ect. and I look forwards to reading your thoughts and possible suggestions when and if you do try it.

I tried to be clear that it's not the movements I use , the parts I personally prioritize ect.ect. but really the frequency , intensity , and volume enabled by &quot;Marrying&quot; the concept of 10x3 to a 2x/wk each group frequency that is the &quot;meat&quot; of it so to speak. obviously volume should be tailored to the lifter , I'm confident that the average HSTer is capable of assesing and adjusting that (I would not be as confident of other boards populaces)
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(colby2152 @ Sep. 25 2007,18:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Each work out 2 movements are done 10x3 @80%1rm , the remainder are done either 2x12 , 3x8 , or 4x6 @ 80% rm IN THAT REP RANGE , the next w/o of that set of movements 2 DIFFERENT movements are hit 10x3 while the previous 10x3's are now performed using the higher rep sets. The decision to use 2x12, 3x8, or 4x6 is entirely one of personal preference , obviously the opportunity to cycle these three &quot;non-10x3&quot; rep ranges (like HST) exists , or one can just pick a preference - it's not a cycle breaker.

                      All loads are advanced WEEKLY , by AROUND 2.5% , however your plates allow you to most closely approximate this (within reason) is fine.
</div>

That's the schematics of it.  Basically, you keep on switching between 10 reps and some other rep range where the volume equals 24 reps.  Why there can be such freedom to go to higher reps like 12 or lower reps like 8 or 6 is &quot;Greek&quot; to me.  I don't see the science behind that as I try to compare this ramping scheme to HST's linear progression where reps in a set decrease OR 5x5's low-mid-high load approach through a week.  It seems like it's closer to 5x5 in that regard.</div>
The &quot;work&quot; is the 10 triples , the complimentary &quot;easier&quot; sets are most effective (for CNS management) the further from the &quot;work&quot; scheme you get , you could use 3x10 to alternate with 10x3 , it isn't the &quot;crux&quot; of the program , Waterbury prefers 4x6 , I prefer 2x12 , you could do 3x8 just as well. And let me restate <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">obviously the opportunity to cycle these three &quot;non-10x3&quot; rep ranges (like HST) exists </div> if it makes you feel better , but really it's not nessessary , just go with one - my experience has shown me that 2x12 works best for me.
smile.gif
Perhaps the offering of choices confuses some , let me clarify , either pick one alternate rep range and stick with it or cycle down JUST like HST.
smile.gif
 
Thanks again Russ. I think I'm going to like giving this a try. I'm already having thoughts about incorporating MaxStim reps in place of 10 x 3 at the end of a cycle for some exercises if the sets of 3 get to be too much. Fun this lifting lark, innit?
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(colby2152 @ Sep. 25 2007,19:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That's the schematics of it.  Basically, you keep on switching between 10 reps and some other rep range where the volume equals 24 reps.  Why there can be such freedom to go to higher reps like 12 or lower reps like 8 or 6 is &quot;Greek&quot; to me.  I don't see the science behind that as I try to compare this ramping scheme to HST's linear progression where reps in a set decrease OR 5x5's low-mid-high load approach through a week.  It seems like it's closer to 5x5 in that regard.</div>
Colby, that's actually not the schematics of it at all. You are not switching between 10 reps and some other rep range where the volume equals 24, but 10 sets of 3 reps. The reason rep ranges aren't set in stone is because total volume is what is kept constant. He cycles between very low rep ranges and higher rep ranges, in addition to changing exercises frequently, to focus on strength, hypertrophy, and endurance within a single program. Also, this keeps the body from adapting to certain exercises and rep schemes leading to a quick plateau.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The &quot;work&quot; is the 10 triples , the complimentary &quot;easier&quot; sets are most effective (for CNS management) the further from the &quot;work&quot; scheme you get , you could use 3x10 to alternate with 10x3 , it isn't the &quot;crux&quot; of the program , Waterbury prefers 4x6 , I prefer 2x12 , you could do 3x8 just as well. And let me restate</div>

Oh, I read it as 3 sets of 10's...
 
<div>
(colby2152 @ Sep. 26 2007,09:10)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The &quot;work&quot; is the 10 triples</div>

Oh, I read it as 3 sets of 10's...</div>
I though I was the only one who got dyslexic when reading the sets and reps 3x12x5x7...
sad.gif
 
I tend to always think in terms of sets x reps x load - but then I am from Ol' Blighty! We do things rather differently don't you know. Eh, what?
biggrin.gif
 
When we are talking about 1x15, 2x10, and so forth on this forum, the first number stands for the number of sets...so 10x3 would not be straying from what we are accustomed to?
 
Been digging around looking for something different to do for my next cycle. Has anybody besides Russ given this a legitimate shot and if so - how did it go?

Thanks
Firm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top