Dan ... "In the Right Now"

  • Thread starter Thread starter imported_etothepii
  • Start date Start date
Fausto, if we think in terms of TUT rather than reps/sets then the time taken to perform 30 reps at the start of a cycle would be very different to the time taken at the end of the 5s. I reckon that for me each rep takes at least 50% longer to perform with good form. So a rep during 15s might take 3 seconds to perform whereas it might take 4.5 seconds during 5s. So, in this case, to keep TUT constant over a cycle (with an ever increasing load) you could actually drop the total reps by 1/3 and only need to do 20 reps by the end of the cycle.

I'm not saying that this will definitely lead to a PS response but it is something to consider if you are pushing for more volume.

Another thing I find is that 20 reps at my 5RM is eminently more doable for dips, say, than deads. Not only that, but recovery from the dips will be a lot swifter than if I tried 20 reps with my 5RM deadlift. So  the CNS strain and overall fatigue caused has to be taken into account when deciding on numbers of reps to perform as the intensity (ie. %age of 1RM) increases. That's the reason why I only do deads once a week when I am lifting around 2 x bodyweight or above and why I tend not to do sets across once the intensity level is at or above 90% of my 1RM. IMO, once you have been training for a few years, managing fatigue over a cycle is very important if trying to push for new PRs.
 
Completelly agree Lol, I feel the same although I'm nowehere close to deadlifting 2x body weight.
sad.gif
 
<div>
(Lol @ Aug. 23 2007,04:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">if we think in terms of TUT rather than reps/sets then the time taken to perform 30 reps at the start of a cycle would be very different to the time taken at the end of the 5s. I reckon that for me each rep takes at least 50% longer to perform with good form. So, in this case, to keep TUT constant over a cycle (with an ever increasing load) you could actually drop the total reps by 1/3 and only need to do 20 reps by the end of the cycle.


IMO, once you have been training for a few years, managing fatigue over a cycle is very important if trying to push for new PRs.</div>
I agree 100% .
smile.gif
 
Once again, Lol hits the nail on the head.

I'm not with this insane volume camp, and I really don't think that is what Mikeynov is saying when he talks about &quot;in the right now.&quot; But some of you guys really, really want to do high volume. Well go ahead. You don't need permission from some guy online.

All I know is that I've done 30 reps per exercise before and it was absolutely crazy, unless you use loads less than your 5 RM. Like 8 RM, that's doable, but 5 RM? Not unless you are only doing 3 exercises. Or if you are doing mostly isolations, then I guess you might be able to handle it too, but Deads? Squats? Rows? Yeah right. That is definitely overkill.
 
<div>
(mikeynov @ Aug. 22 2007,21:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Aug. 22 2007,21:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So that leads us back at square 1 with standard hst then???

I was thinking twice a week was better for the right now effect.

Sorry to make something so easy hard!
laugh.gif
 
biggrin.gif
</div>
Why is this leading us back to standard HST?

The most common form of HST I've seen is 1 set of 15s, 2 sets of 10s, 3 sets of 5s.  That's an average of ~15-20 reps per muscle group per session, and ~45-60 reps weekly.

What I'd be suggesting as a safe guideline to experiment with higher volume would be 30 total reps per major muscle group twice a week for a total of ~60 reps weekly.  Yes, the total reps weekly isn't that much more than normal, but the acute volume is significantly higher.

That's kind of the whole point of this, not rewriting the book in terms of how HST is handling load progression or SD, just figuring out ways of getting more of an acute effect for people with a good amount of training age.</div>
its clear to me now that each individual has a different take on what they consider to be high volume, and im not being facetious here.

when i started hst i was running at around 45&gt; reps per  major muscle group per session, the workouts were grueling but it did the job, but after while i got deminishing returns and had nowhere else to turn but to go with higher volume and lower frequency to save time and to increase &quot;the now&quot; workload.

also,  you maybe forgiven for not warming up on every exercise but when the poundages increase to a premium it would be foolish not to, taking this into consideration the amount of time needed to accomplish  this becomes prohibitive.plus setting up all of the different exercises.

deads
bench(flat or whatever)
shoulder press
squats
calves

some people consider that these 5 basic but very effective exercises to be enough within the context of hst and thats fine, but i have found that i need at least 3 different exercises per muscle group to be effective, this is the reason i would struggle to incorperate all of them into a high frequency high volume workout.

if anyone would like to make any suggestions as to how one would manage a high volume high frequency workout, i would appreciate their input.

i think i might design a twice per week training program soon and see how that goes. ive used something similar before that worked ok but i struggle to get into the gym more than 3x per week although recently i have been able to get 4x per week.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Aug. 23 2007,11:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Once again, Lol hits the nail on the head.

I'm not with this insane volume camp, and I really don't think that is what Mikeynov is saying when he talks about &quot;in the right now.&quot; But some of you guys really, really want to do high volume. Well go ahead. You don't need permission from some guy online.

All I know is that I've done 30 reps per exercise before and it was absolutely crazy, unless you use loads less than your 5 RM. Like 8 RM, that's doable, but 5 RM? Not unless you are only doing 3 exercises. Or if you are doing mostly isolations, then I guess you might be able to handle it too, but Deads? Squats? Rows? Yeah right. That is definitely overkill.</div>
Indeed, nobody needs permission from anybody except from themselves. But perhaps it's not so much permission that we seek here. Instead, I think we seek confirmation, validation that what we do is the right thing. Even when we're going against the flow, so to speak. Especially when we're going against the flow.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Aug. 23 2007,12:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Totentanz @ Aug. 23 2007,11:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Once again, Lol hits the nail on the head.

I'm not with this insane volume camp, and I really don't think that is what Mikeynov is saying when he talks about &quot;in the right now.&quot;  But some of you guys really, really want to do high volume.  Well go ahead.  You don't need permission from some guy online.

All I know is that I've done 30 reps per exercise before and it was absolutely crazy, unless you use loads less than your 5 RM.  Like 8 RM, that's doable, but 5 RM?  Not unless you are only doing 3 exercises.  Or if you are doing mostly isolations, then I guess you might be able to handle it too, but Deads?  Squats?  Rows?  Yeah right.  That is definitely overkill.</div>
Indeed, nobody needs permission from anybody except from themselves.
But perhaps it's not so much permission that we seek here. Instead, I think we seek confirmation, validation that what we do is the right thing. Even when we're going against the flow, so to speak. Especially when we're going against the flow.</div>
yep no permission needed here,only my bodies permission LOL. the highlighted text makes the most sense.
 
<div>
(lcars @ Aug. 23 2007,11:06)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">when i started hst i was running at around 45&gt; reps per  major muscle group per session, the workouts were grueling but it did the job, but after while i got deminishing returns and had nowhere else to turn but to go with higher volume and lower frequency to save time and to increase &quot;the now&quot; workload.

also,  you maybe forgiven for not warming up on every exercise but when the poundages increase to a premium it would be foolish not to, taking this into consideration the amount of time needed to accomplish  this becomes prohibitive.plus setting up all of the different exercises.

deads
bench(flat or whatever)
shoulder press
squats
calves

some people consider that these 5 basic but very effective exercises to be enough within the context of hst and thats fine, but i have found that i need at least 3 different exercises per muscle group to be effective, this is the reason i would struggle to incorperate all of them into a high frequency high volume workout.

if anyone would like to make any suggestions as to how one would manage a high volume high frequency workout, i would appreciate their input.

i think i might design a twice per week training program soon and see how that goes. ive used something similar before that worked ok but i struggle to get into the gym more than 3x per week although recently i have been able to get 4x per week.</div>
I made the switch to multiple exersizes per major muscle group myself ( in my case 2 compounds) , my reasons were primarily to try to get some of the fatigue management benefits experienced by those doing A/B alternating w/o's (without of course alternating - and in mho I succeeded) example: 1x90% Flat + 1x90% Incline leaves me physically and mentally &quot;fresher&quot; than 2x90% flat would . My secondary consideration was the &quot;multiple angles&quot; theory - example: doing 1 set military + 1 set upright rows will result in noticeably different (looking) growth than 2x military (done over time of course).

Re warmups for higher poundages: experience forced me to adopt a Dorian Yates mentality in this respect - I've come to think of the second week of a rep range as my &quot;blood and guts&quot; week where after 2-3 warm up sets the one &quot;working&quot; set using the load and rep range I'm at in the progression is &quot;the set&quot; for that movement , because I'm using 2 compounds per major group It works perfectly for where I'm at , if I was using just 1 compound per group I would do 2 &quot;working&quot; sets. Not sure how this would apply to higher rep ranges (15's) as I don't use them. I would probably treat them the same if I did.


To address your next point (exersize selection) , you've said that &quot;deads
bench(flat or whatever)
shoulder press
squats
calves

some people consider that these 5 basic but very effective exercises to be enough within the context of hst &quot;

- this may be true , but doesn't at all reflect my personal belief , to me-

Bench
military
Row
Dead

would be the optimal &quot;abbreviated&quot; exersize list. Others would say squats over deads , dips over bench, chinups over rows ect.ect. And you could substitute any of the above and still have a well designed &quot;simplify routine&quot;. the 5 you've exampled would not be close to a choice I'd make as I'd never leave out a rowing exersize and find that my calves respond to deads as do my quads ( hence the lower personal emphasis on squats) this is of course accentuated by the fact that I use a modified sumo style .


Lastly in reference to : &quot;if anyone would like to make any suggestions as to how one would manage a high volume high frequency workout, i would appreciate their input.&quot;

My log ( Diary of a madman) , might warrant a quick skimmimg through to see my method as it played out in reality. Also I've listed a synopsis of my cycle in post #19 (last post page 1 of this thread) , I've realized now that what I thought might need &quot;finetuning&quot; ( 10,8,5,3 being too close together) was actually a result of me being in the &quot;getting sick with the flu- but not aware of it yet&quot; factor and will repeat this method , mostly because it worked perfectly for me where I'm at in my training age . I'm not recommending you copy me necessarily but I feel you may feel validated somewhat with some of the things you are pointing out and perhaps get some ideas for your own &quot;customizing&quot; from the way I adressed some similar issues with my own tweaking.


Hopes it helps - good luck
smile.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">also,  you maybe forgiven for not warming up on every exercise but when the poundages increase to a premium it would be foolish not to, taking this into consideration the amount of time needed to accomplish  this becomes prohibitive.plus setting up all of the different exercises.</div>

I'm with you all the way, as you say foollish not to, example today's deads took 3 warm ups + 3 sets enough to leave me reeling for the week.

Russ's post is also excellent.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Aug. 23 2007,11:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Once again, Lol hits the nail on the head.

I'm not with this insane volume camp, and I really don't think that is what Mikeynov is saying when he talks about &quot;in the right now.&quot; But some of you guys really, really want to do high volume. Well go ahead. You don't need permission from some guy online.

All I know is that I've done 30 reps per exercise before and it was absolutely crazy, unless you use loads less than your 5 RM. Like 8 RM, that's doable, but 5 RM? Not unless you are only doing 3 exercises. Or if you are doing mostly isolations, then I guess you might be able to handle it too, but Deads? Squats? Rows? Yeah right. That is definitely overkill.</div>
Imho, part of the problem in terms of potential overtraining at higher volume with lifts like squats and deads is how people treat RM's in these lifts.

Meaning, if I ask you or anybody else what your '5 rep max' in a squat, for example, is, you mean the most weight you can use to muster out 5 total reps, probably sucking in a whole lot of wind between reps, just as long as the bar remains on your back.

In effect, people's RM's for squats/deadlifts are the functional equivalent to rest/pause RM's. I made this note a long time ago about the 15's and how continuous tension style reps in those lifts was more the aim, and how some people were burning themselves out by treating that 15 reps like a death march, doing a handful of reps, sucking in a bunch of air, and continuing until they reached their physical limit at 15.

Thus, I think part of the &quot;solution&quot; for attempts at higher volume in those lifts is to use more conservative loads, something that represents your ability when done in a more continuous style, which will be SIGNIFICANTLY below what most people are calling their various RM's.

All of that said, yes, at the higher end maintaining high volume obviously becomes an issue anyways, but I do think the above would greatly reduce the impact of attempts at greater total volume per exercise.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thus, I think part of the &quot;solution&quot; for attempts at higher volume in those lifts is to use more conservative loads, something that represents your ability when done in a more continuous style, which will be SIGNIFICANTLY below what most people are calling their various RM's.</div>

A great point and someting to ponder on for sure,I just had a dose of those myself and my legs are still hurting,my partner corrected me saying that I was rather consating by lifting more with my back and that i was bending forward when going back up,he must have been right for when I did the &quot;right thing&quot;,my legs where sore almost immediatelly after the workout and two days later they still hurt like hell.

At least I managed my set of deads,but I have pondered that maybe progression just went too fast, ego sucks
biggrin.gif


That is what you get when you cut out zigzag and try the linear approach.

Very good point, so basically &quot;hang you ego at the door and do some continuous reps with lesser weight but excellent form.
 
<div>
(Fausto @ Aug. 23 2007,15:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thus, I think part of the &quot;solution&quot; for attempts at higher volume in those lifts is to use more conservative loads, something that represents your ability when done in a more continuous style, which will be SIGNIFICANTLY below what most people are calling their various RM's.</div>

A great point and someting to ponder on for sure,I just had a dose of those myself and my legs are still hurting,my partner corrected me saying that I was rather consating by lifting more with my back and that i was bending forward when going back up,he must have been right for when I did the &quot;right thing&quot;,my legs where sore almost immediatelly after the workout and two days later they still hurt like hell.

At least I managed my set of deads,but I have pondered that maybe progression just went too fast, ego sucks
biggrin.gif


That is what you get when you cut out zigzag and try the linear approach.

Very good point, so basically &quot;hang you ego at the door and do some continuous reps with lesser weight but excellent form.</div>
In theory, yah, I'd see performance in exercise for the purpose of hypertrophy NOT the way most people are approaching the lifts, i.e. optimizing performance.

If you're trying to grow, you don't want to optimize your ability to lift a weight, i.e. make it easier - you should be trying to do the opposite, get the most stimulus from a given load possible. Ways to do that include a deliberate speed of movement, attempting to &quot;feel&quot; the muscles of the lift actually working, smooth turnarounds (if not pauses, then at least not bouncing), more continuous style of performance (this obviously doesn't work as well for stuff like max stim), etc.
 
I agree and I still dont see why everyone thinks 30 reps is that hard of a workout.

I am no superman... and its not that hard to do a 30 or 40 rep workout.

Is it tiring yeah...but is a workout..and my CNS is not fried...either.

But 30 reps for me means doing three sets of 10 reps...normal training style.

I could see were if you did MAX STIM reps it would be impossible.

I can see were DEADS and SQUATS are harder...but they are still doable.

Im not trying to toot my horn and say Im in that great of shape...b/c Im not superman.

But I would bet the majority of lifter on this forum could in fact to 30 reps or even 40 as long as they were using a 75% or 80% load of there max.

Now when I get into the 5's I can still do 30 reps....but not for long.

By middle way and the end its 20 reps total.

I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is about 30 reps or so...UNLESS its Heavy 5's.

However that being said...even though I can do 40 rep Hst cycles and I did one for a year back in 2004...I haven't seen any major difference between 30 and 40 reps.

Now 50 reps heavy style was hurting my joints on 3 times a week.

My 3 cents! worth!
biggrin.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">But I would bet the majority of lifter on this forum could in fact to 30 reps or even 40 as long as they were using a 75% or 80% load of there max.</div>

Exactly! Point is when we start hitting heavy 5's we are on 95 - 100% territory and then the proverbial &quot;pawpaw hits the fan&quot;.

But with the above &quot;compromise&quot; I can defintelly agree, except the way we are doing things 75% of RM is barelly the beggining of a mesocycle
wink.gif
 
<div>
(mikeynov @ Aug. 23 2007,22:39)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If you're trying to grow, you don't want to optimize your ability to lift a weight, i.e. make it easier - you should be trying to do the opposite, get the most stimulus from a given load possible. Ways to do that include a deliberate speed of movement, attempting to &quot;feel&quot; the muscles of the lift actually working, smooth turnarounds (if not pauses, then at least not bouncing), more continuous style of performance (this obviously doesn't work as well for stuff like max stim), etc.</div>
jreps ?
tounge.gif
 
<div>
(ZMT @ Aug. 24 2007,04:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(mikeynov @ Aug. 23 2007,22:39)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If you're trying to grow, you don't want to optimize your ability to lift a weight, i.e. make it easier - you should be trying to do the opposite, get the most stimulus from a given load possible. Ways to do that include a deliberate speed of movement, attempting to &quot;feel&quot; the muscles of the lift actually working, smooth turnarounds (if not pauses, then at least not bouncing), more continuous style of performance (this obviously doesn't work as well for stuff like max stim), etc.</div>
jreps ?
tounge.gif
</div>
Haha.

I would like to amend my comment on &quot;deliberate speed of movement.&quot;

Imho, with moderate loads, I think AJ's advice is perfect: move at a deliberate (though not artificially slow or specific cadence) speed in your initial reps, and at some point, attempt to move the weight as quickly as possible (concentrically only!) when fatigue starts mounting. The actual speed of movement will still be very controlled looking in that context, and I'd still recommend against any bouncing at either end of the ROM (i.e. a bounced turnaround from concentric-->eccentric or, for that matter, a hard lockout).

A note on eccentrics - the eccentrics should always be kept &quot;deliberate&quot; (though not too retardedly slow, something in the ~2-3 seconds range is probably fine), and shouldn't really be the limiting factor for the termination of any set anyways. I.e. keeping a controlled eccentric won't particularly handicap the loads you are capable of using.

For heavier loads (i.e. as you approach ~5 RM), the above advice will start to become less meaningful. When loads are sufficiently heavy, you really do need to push as hard/fast as you can from rep 1, concentrically speaking, in order to not artificially handicap how much weight you're lifting. The weight will still move slow-ish, much like the fatigued reps in the above scenario. Same deal for the eccentrics described above as well.

Of course, this is all just my opinion, but I think the above represents reasonable guidelines on rep speed for the purpose of hypertrophy and to maximize safety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top