Hi guys,
currently i am a big fan of cycling-which means to cut back and slowly build yourself up again to a new PR.
Bill Starr,Pavel and Stuart adresses this type of progression in there programms.
i did a 5x5 circuit style for strength and started with 80% of my top weight for these 5x5.
I made good strength gains-but for hypertrophy the density was too low.i had 7 minutes break till i returnded to the first exercise-good for strength bad for mass.
Some time ago i used the paramters of Chad’s bible-they worked extremly well for 3 months in a row-but then (like everything) it stopped.
i switched exercises,paramters,deloaded,lowered the volume but somehow i never got any progression out of them anymore.
I stalled all the time.
I thought (also regarding the DF theory) that perhaps LONGER phases of active recovery-or cycling are needed to progress again-even within these paramters-which i never did.
I switched form 4x10 then to 5x5 to 2x15 but never came further anymore.
So perhaps you should also cycle your loads within this scheme and not beat your ass up for 3 weeks with 4x10 and then think to progress further if you beat yourself up again with 2x15 right after it wtihout some recovery build in.
The 5x5 cycling worked well-so why shouldn it work for hypertrophy?
The main idea is to pick hypertrophy paramters-lets say 4x10 1 min rest and also cycle them like 5x5.
Lets say I bench 100kg with 1min rest for 4x10-thats the maximum load.
To give it a running start I take apporx 80% of it and slowly build the weights up:
1 week: bench 85kg 4x10 1 min rest
2 week 90kg 4x10
3 week 95 kg 4x10
4 week 100kg 4x10
now trying for new prs as long as possible.
Some might saya the weight is too low in the first 3 weeks-but If you regard the 5x5 stuff you could also argue that way-and its a common programm.
Even bill starr adresses to switch up his 5x5 for 4x10 in the next cycle for the varity.
I am curious if somebody had an similar idea of this.
The idea of cycling is to cut back prepare for new gains and slowly build up to your personal new PR.
If it worked and is suggested for 5x5 why should it be good and be not needed for 4x10,2x15 or 10x3?
science