I like the details approach to your conversant tone, Bill. It may not be “technically” superior, but its both practical and insightful.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well that was a useless sidetrack :)[/quote]
A men.
[quote]DH wrote:
Hey CC,
I’m assuming you are a German native or at least fluent in the language, no? [/quote] German native.
(sounds amusing to me… “Native” makes me picture myself with a sword in hand, charging through the forest towards the Roman legions lol)[quote] Do you have any well known experts or sources of information there that you could talk about or reference a bit? Perhpas compare/contrast with what we “know” here in the US?
DH
[/quote]
Sorry, brother. The bodybuilding-scene is almost non-existent in my area and definitely looked-down upon.
I don’t really keep up with the German forums either. No time, and most are still stuck somewhere in the stone-age (or magazine age, I guess) when it comes to training info. Remind me too much of bb.com.
There is some guy who “invented” PITT force training or whatever they call it, which is pretty popular in Germany I guess… Kind of like Cluster training. You could ask tribunaldude about that, I think he’s used it before if I remember correctly.
Otherwise… I got all my early info from bigger guys at the gym. None of them around anymore, and all the hardcore gyms had to close down. I’ve made a few trips to RÃ??Ã?¼hl’s gym among others and watched RÃ??Ã?¼hl, Rockel and Wolf train a few times… That’s about it.
There should still be a few Oly lifting experts around, but that’s not my cup of tea…
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
I never saw him work out and can only go by reports. Reportedly he favored pyramiding: adding weight each set but dropping reps.
I don’t see a single comma in that post of yours Bill, are you feeling well? 
That is one of my flaws. [/quote] You’d feel right at home with the German language… At least when it comes to commas. [quote]
It’s rather as in one of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoons: Calvin is asked by his mother to dry and put some dishes back. He decides to carry them back as one giant stack, and of course falls and breaks all the plates. His mother says, not unkindly, “Calvin, your problem is you just have no common sense.”
He indignantly replies to her, “I have plenty of common sense!”
And then turns to the reader and says “I just choose not to use it.”
I do know how to write better, thanks both to a really excellent professor in a technical writing class, and also – perhaps this will surprise some – thanks to Dan Duchaine, who corrected me on remaining personal flaws such as extreme excess use of parenthetical statements.
[/quote] You know you’re a great guy if your personal flaws consist largely of excessive use of parenthetical statements and commas, compared to, say, random bouts of violent behavior towards women 
[quote]
But I just choose not to use this good advice when writing posts
On the other hand, Tim recently said that he thought it a plus that I write – he must have been referring to posts – the same way that I speak.
Well that was a useless sidetrack :)[/quote]
I’ll have to remember to cite those if I’m ever asked, as in an interview for example, what my flaws are!
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I’ll have to remember to cite those if I’m ever asked, as in an interview for example, what my flaws are! :)[/quote]
Or, perhaps,(if you were inclined to do so) you could list your faults in a comparative way to, say, others in related fields, namely, Michael Zumpano, Brock Strasser (can’t remember his real name), Oliver Starr, or even (gasp) T-Nation staff, such as Tim Patterson, TC Luoma, or even Chris Shugart, but only, of course, if such a comparison could be done in a light-hearted (read: respectful) manner.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
slick123456 wrote:
Did Arnold use Ramping???
His training was far less strength-gain-based than ours is today.
One of his preferred methods was
12 reps
10 reps
8 reps
6 reps
4 reps
The last 3 (or so) are basically work sets. He went to (positive) failure on the last set or maybe the last 2… And probably had a few reps in the tank on his third set… Hard to say.
Anyway, that method has been more or less replaced by what you see the pro’s like Ronnie, Levrone, McGrath (at least in the off-season, he uses drop-sets and such in his prep phases, or so I hear) doing today.
[/quote]
Yeh thanks CC when you say that the method has been replaced by what they do today would u say that Ramping and Phyramiding are very similar or Ramping is a twist on the original Phyramiding? Cheers
[quote]slick123456 wrote:
Yeh thanks CC when you say that the method has been replaced by what they do today would u say that Ramping and Phyramiding are very similar or Ramping is a twist on the original Phyramiding? Cheers[/quote]
Phyramiding? Is that how the pharaohs trained?
[quote]slick123456 wrote:
…when you say that the method has been replaced by what they do today would u say that Ramping and Phyramiding are very similar or Ramping is a twist on the original Phyramiding? Cheers[/quote]
I am not sure if there is consistent word usage here or not. In other words, does pretty much everyone use these words the same way, or not?
Myself, I only call it ramping when as the weight increases with each set, reps are kept the same, or at least there is intent for same reps (last set might fall short). And I only call it pyramiding when as the weight increases with each set, the number of reps falls.
However, it’s possible that others or maybe even most might consider both situations to be forms of ramping.
Although you use the term “flat pyramiding,” myself I don’t see it as pyramiding to keep reps the same. It’s sort of like saying “non-blue blue,” to me anyway.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
slick123456 wrote:
…when you say that the method has been replaced by what they do today would u say that Ramping and Phyramiding are very similar or Ramping is a twist on the original Phyramiding? Cheers
I am not sure if there is consistent word usage here or not. In other words, does pretty much everyone use these words the same way, or not?
Myself, I only call it ramping when as the weight increases with each set, reps are kept the same, or at least there is intent for same reps (last set might fall short). And I only call it pyramiding when as the weight increases with each set, the number of reps falls.
However, it’s possible that others or maybe even most might consider both situations to be forms of ramping.
Although you use the term “flat pyramiding,” myself I don’t see it as pyramiding to keep reps the same. It’s sort of like saying “non-blue blue,” to me anyway.[/quote]
Yeh i thought that the other day about “flat pyramiding” how can something flat be pyramiding up lol well i only got the flat pyramiding word from a site lol anyway i had never herd of the termanology ramping until i came to this site, but i had always heard of Phyramiding (upping the weight each set lowering the reps) I also wonder if anyone considers both to be similar forms of Ramping.
The original definition of “pyramiding” that I learned was that one increased weight and subsequently decreased reps until you were basically doing a max single, then went back down in the opposite direction (kind of like a drop set) until you were doing a burn out with what felt like a ton of weight, but was actually relatively light.
So, something like (numbers all completely arbitrary):
12x60
10x70
8x80
6x90
4x100
2x110
1x120
2x100
3-4x90
4-5x80
6-7x70
amapx60
Basically you went up one side of the pyramid, then back down the other side (cause, you know pyramids have an up and down side). It was a pretty unsuccessful method for me and thus I didn’t use it for very long.
A “ramp” on the other hand just goes up and is used to allow you to reach a greater height (or weight in the case) safely, which is why I use the term “ramping” to describe increasing the weights on each subsequent set until you reach your “working weight” and then doing as many reps as possible with it. The number of reps done on each “ramping” set is pretty arbitrary IMO and should be more determined by how the lifter feels that particular day and level of fatigue than trying to adhere to some specific number of reps that one “has” to reach.
If I do 5 reps during a warm-up set (because for whatever reason I started to feel fatigue coming on and didn’t want to waste extra energy which I could have used for my “working set”) when I originally intended to do 6, should that change what I call what I’m doing or really make any shred of difference in the long term? No, personally I don’t think so.
hey i just wanted to ask, I;m pretty skinny and weak, novice just been training a few months seriosuly and only started paying attention to nutrition in the last month.
If my top set for bench is say 60kg x5, should i be ramping sets or using straight sets (at my novice,weak stage) so should i ramp upto 60 or use straight sets like 55kg for 4x5 or something straight sets, increase weight wehn i can get all sets for 5…
Thanks@!!
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
The original definition of “pyramiding” that I learned was that one increased weight and subsequently decreased reps until you were basically doing a max single, then went back down in the opposite direction (kind of like a drop set) until you were doing a burn out with what felt like a ton of weight, but was actually relatively light.
So, something like (numbers all completely arbitrary):
12x60
10x70
8x80
6x90
4x100
2x110
1x120
2x100
3-4x90
4-5x80
6-7x70
amapx60
Basically you went up one side of the pyramid, then back down the other side (cause, you know pyramids have an up and down side). It was a pretty unsuccessful method for me and thus I didn’t use it for very long.
A “ramp” on the other hand just goes up and is used to allow you to reach a greater height (or weight in the case) safely, which is why I use the term “ramping” to describe increasing the weights on each subsequent set until you reach your “working weight” and then doing as many reps as possible with it.
The number of reps done on each “ramping” set is pretty arbitrary IMO and should be more determined by how the lifter feels that particular day and level of fatigue than trying to adhere to some specific number of reps that one “has” to reach.
If I do 5 reps during a warm-up set (because for whatever reason I started to feel fatigue coming on and didn’t want to waste extra energy which I could have used for my “working set”) when I originally intended to do 6, should that change what I call what I’m doing or really make any shred of difference in the long term? No, personally I don’t think so. [/quote]
Not to argue or say that ramping does not work but I have always been under the impression that I needed more than one working set to get proper stimulation. You mentioned the ramping sets are arbitrary, then does that mean little intensity is being used?
I do a low intensity warm up of 2 sets on the first movement of that bodypart and that is it, then I do straight sets of the same weight. The first sets are easier so I use a slower tempo with a pause at contraction with as much feel as possible and then on the last 2-3 sets as the weight feels heavier I will pick up the tempo and loose the pause as I began to fail.
As I grow stronger than I will be able to do all the sets without changing the tempo or fail and then I add weight on the next workout. I think that there is more than one way to stimulate growth but I get the feeling I am the only one here that trains this way.Maybe I should change up.
This is just a discussion, not an attack or trying to argue. Thanks.
When the situation is that weights substantially lighter than your planned working weight for the day really don’t feel like you’re doing much when doing them for the same number of reps as you are expecting to do for that top weight, then ramping isn’t called for. It would be best just to use the planned weight.
I don’t think it makes sense to use “intensification” techniques on preparatory sets.
I view it as it being between either of two things:
- You expect or plan that in your case with this exercise, the real benefit is going to come almost entirely or principally from working with the top weight. In this case, as little energy should be burned with warming up as possible while still doing a good job.
For example, I use about 1/7th of the 1RM weight for initial warmup with substantial reps (10 or more, but not so many as to be actually fatiguing) for one or more sets.
Then about 1/3rd 1RM for 5 reps, and 50% 1RM for three reps. Depending on the case, perhaps also singles at 60%, if need be 70%, and if need be 80% 1RM.
This has enabled being physically ready while burning as little energy as possible.
- You expect or plan that the ramp sets are important training elements.
Then you warm up again using as little energy as is suitable to be ready for the first ramp set. At this point, doing the planned number of reps for the ramp sets does indeed consume some work capacity, but that’s fine because they are planned to be part of the gains.
Again, not using special intensification techniques on the ramp sets.
[quote]bwhitwell wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
The original definition of “pyramiding” that I learned was that one increased weight and subsequently decreased reps until you were basically doing a max single, then went back down in the opposite direction (kind of like a drop set) until you were doing a burn out with what felt like a ton of weight, but was actually relatively light.
So, something like (numbers all completely arbitrary):
12x60
10x70
8x80
6x90
4x100
2x110
1x120
2x100
3-4x90
4-5x80
6-7x70
amapx60
Basically you went up one side of the pyramid, then back down the other side (cause, you know pyramids have an up and down side). It was a pretty unsuccessful method for me and thus I didn’t use it for very long.
A “ramp” on the other hand just goes up and is used to allow you to reach a greater height (or weight in the case) safely, which is why I use the term “ramping” to describe increasing the weights on each subsequent set until you reach your “working weight” and then doing as many reps as possible with it.
The number of reps done on each “ramping” set is pretty arbitrary IMO and should be more determined by how the lifter feels that particular day and level of fatigue than trying to adhere to some specific number of reps that one “has” to reach.
If I do 5 reps during a warm-up set (because for whatever reason I started to feel fatigue coming on and didn’t want to waste extra energy which I could have used for my “working set”) when I originally intended to do 6, should that change what I call what I’m doing or really make any shred of difference in the long term? No, personally I don’t think so.
Not to argue or say that ramping does not work but I have always been under the impression that I needed more than one working set to get proper stimulation. You mentioned the ramping sets are arbitrary, then does that mean little intensity is being used?
[/quote]
I can’t speak for you, but according to Zatsiorsky the only requirements for growth (at least trainingwise) are:
-
Overload (more weight or more reps with the same weight, within reason of course, than the muscles have previously been exposed to)
-
that the muscle fibers be innervated/activated
-
that the muscle fibers be fatigued
In other words, there is no requirement that one has to do X number of sets. As long as the above requirements are reached, it will result in a stimulation for a growth response.
Straight sets are an emphasis on #3 (regardless of whether failure is reached on all sets, or just the last one), while ramping is an emphasis on #1 (however, one must go to at least the point where the lifter knows that another rep could not be performed to ensure that fatigue is reached). Both work, just by somewhat different avenues and with different emphasis.
The reason I prefer ramp sets is, because I have never seen someone who could incline bench, say 405 for 8 reps, who had a small chest, but I have seen plenty of small guys who can bench 135 for multiple sets of 10 reps.
So, I believe that reaching my maximum potential for strength (for moderate reps) is the most important aspect in reaching my maximum muscular potential for that body part. Hence, I choose to do a method of lifting which will allow for the fastest possible strength progression. And, for me anyways, ramp sets have been far superior to straight sets in that regard.
As far as intensity on the ramping sets, you’ll find as many variations on this as the day is long. The individual simply has to figure out what works best for them. Some guys feel like they need to push harder on the ramps to be ready for the final set, others don’t.
Some guys don’t like to go below a certain number of reps (Justin Harris for example doesn’t like to go below 5 reps from what I’ve read), while others are not bound to any specific number of reps.
Personally I like to start with higher reps and as the weight increases perform less and less reps (my final ramp set before the “working weight” is usually 2-3 reps though as I don’t really feel like singles let me “feel”/get used to the weight enough) so as to prepare my neuromuscular system for the top set, but conserving energy so as not to be overly fatigued (which would affect performance).
Of course, your posts are always intelligent and informative.
I’ll agree, there is more than one way to stimulate growth, and from your pictures it looks like what you’ve been doing has been working. The only thing that would prevent me from doing an approach like the one you’re using is that it seems like strength progression (adding weight to the bar) would be very slow (at least for me).
I’m not gonna try to convert you to my way of training though, and honestly multiple work sets have never really worked well for me (well, at least not since my beginner gains stopped), so it’s possible that we may be built differently.
If you want an opinion from someone who seems to respond more like yourself, ask Waylander or 300 about whether “ramping” training works. Both of those guys were high volume guys (and successful ones at that) who eventually decided to try a ramping approach (DC training to be exact) and found that they had great success with it.
Again, just some food for thought.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
bwhitwell wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
The original definition of “pyramiding” that I learned was that one increased weight and subsequently decreased reps until you were basically doing a max single, then went back down in the opposite direction (kind of like a drop set) until you were doing a burn out with what felt like a ton of weight, but was actually relatively light.
So, something like (numbers all completely arbitrary):
12x60
10x70
8x80
6x90
4x100
2x110
1x120
2x100
3-4x90
4-5x80
6-7x70
amapx60
Basically you went up one side of the pyramid, then back down the other side (cause, you know pyramids have an up and down side). It was a pretty unsuccessful method for me and thus I didn’t use it for very long.
A “ramp” on the other hand just goes up and is used to allow you to reach a greater height (or weight in the case) safely, which is why I use the term “ramping” to describe increasing the weights on each subsequent set until you reach your “working weight” and then doing as many reps as possible with it.
The number of reps done on each “ramping” set is pretty arbitrary IMO and should be more determined by how the lifter feels that particular day and level of fatigue than trying to adhere to some specific number of reps that one “has” to reach.
If I do 5 reps during a warm-up set (because for whatever reason I started to feel fatigue coming on and didn’t want to waste extra energy which I could have used for my “working set”) when I originally intended to do 6, should that change what I call what I’m doing or really make any shred of difference in the long term? No, personally I don’t think so.
Not to argue or say that ramping does not work but I have always been under the impression that I needed more than one working set to get proper stimulation. You mentioned the ramping sets are arbitrary, then does that mean little intensity is being used?
I can’t speak for you, but according to Zatsiorsky the only requirements for growth (at least trainingwise) are:
-
Overload (more weight or more reps with the same weight, within reason of course, than the muscles have previously been exposed to)
-
that the muscle fibers be innervated/activated
-
that the muscle fibers be fatigued
In other words, there is no requirement that one has to do X number of sets. As long as the above requirements are reached, it will result in a stimulation for a growth response.
Straight sets are an emphasis on #3 (regardless of whether failure is reached on all sets, or just the last one), while ramping is an emphasis on #1 (however, one must go to at least the point where the lifter knows that another rep could not be performed to ensure that fatigue is reached). Both work, just by somewhat different avenues and with different emphasis.
The reason I prefer ramp sets is, because I have never seen someone who could incline bench, say 405 for 8 reps, who had a small chest, but I have seen plenty of small guys who can bench 135 for multiple sets of 10 reps.
So, I believe that reaching my maximum potential for strength (for moderate reps) is the most important aspect in reaching my maximum muscular potential for that body part. Hence, I choose to do a method of lifting which will allow for the fastest possible strength progression. And, for me anyways, ramp sets have been far superior to straight sets in that regard.
As far as intensity on the ramping sets, you’ll find as many variations on this as the day is long. The individual simply has to figure out what works best for them. Some guys feel like they need to push harder on the ramps to be ready for the final set, others don’t.
Some guys don’t like to go below a certain number of reps (Justin Harris for example doesn’t like to go below 5 reps from what I’ve read), while others are not bound to any specific number of reps.
Personally I like to start with higher reps and as the weight increases perform less and less reps (my final ramp set before the “working weight” is usually 2-3 reps though as I don’t really feel like singles let me “feel”/get used to the weight enough) so as to prepare my neuromuscular system for the top set, but conserving energy so as not to be overly fatigued (which would affect performance).
I do a low intensity warm up of 2 sets on the first movement of that bodypart and that is it, then I do straight sets of the same weight. The first sets are easier so I use a slower tempo with a pause at contraction with as much feel as possible and then on the last 2-3 sets as the weight feels heavier I will pick up the tempo and loose the pause as I began to fail.
As I grow stronger than I will be able to do all the sets without changing the tempo or fail and then I add weight on the next workout. I think that there is more than one way to stimulate growth but I get the feeling I am the only one here that trains this way.Maybe I should change up.
This is just a discussion, not an attack or trying to argue. Thanks.
Of course, your posts are always intelligent and informative.
I’ll agree, there is more than one way to stimulate growth, and from your pictures it looks like what you’ve been doing has been working. The only thing that would prevent me from doing an approach like the one you’re using is that it seems like strength progression (adding weight to the bar) would be very slow (at least for me).
I’m not gonna try to convert you to my way of training though, and honestly multiple work sets have never really worked well for me (well, at least not since my beginner gains stopped), so it’s possible that we may be built differently.
If you want an opinion from someone who seems to respond more like yourself, ask Waylander or 300 about whether “ramping” training works. Both of those guys were high volume guys (and successful ones at that) who eventually decided to try a ramping approach (DC training to be exact) and found that they had great success with it.
Again, just some food for thought.
[/quote]
Thanks, I appreciate the good answer.
i dont know if i already posted this
but, is ramping really that complex?
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
i dont know if i already posted this
but, is ramping really that complex?[/quote]
Nope lol
[quote]slick123456 wrote:
Ok, all these years ive simply trained in a straight set format, after reading here how most pro’s simply Ramp to a heavy set on each exercise has made me think. Ive kind of got confused because when watching videos of these guys train they do RAMP up each set to a max set.
But how come they never mention that they “RAMP” up to a max set, for example when looking at articles on their routines they make out they are doing 20 all out sets. What i find stange is the pros obviously do this coz it works well but its strange because i have not found another site talking about ramping except here. Yet the pros train like this in their videos?? its strange lol[/quote]
Jason Ferruggia talked about this in an article he posted on here not long ago:
"For almost everyone but the novice trainee, straight sets are a complete waste of time. Sure, almost all of the training programs you see will say something like 5x5 or 4x8-10 or 3x12-15. But I rarely do that with my guys and never do it in my own training.
As I said, for beginners straight sets are fine. And when you’re writing programs, I understand the need to do that because it’s difficult to explain exactly what you’re talking about. But the reality is that very few big, strong guys use straight sets. They almost all “work up” or do “working warm ups” and then sometimes, a back-off set or two. Lets use an example. If most people were doing flat dumbbell presses for 8-10 reps, they would usually be inclined to do 3-4 sets. Now let’s say you’re pretty strong and can do the 150’s for ten. Most of the advanced guys I’ve trained with or observed will do warm-ups with something like 50’s, 75’s, 100’s, 125’s, 135’s, and maybe even 140’s or 145’s. Then they kill one set with the 150’s. When you’re that strong, each of your warm up sets takes a toll on your body and can also count as a kind of “working warm up set,” where it’s kind of a work set but still kind of a warm up for your main set. There is no need for four sets with the 150’s. One big, top end set is more than enough and that would be what you would try to beat next week.
(answer to question asked)
BORRRRRRING! Plus, the extra volume just adds to more stress on your shoulders. Unless you’re doing speed work or jump training or working with beginners, I see very little point in doing more than one or two sets of the same exercise, at the same weight, in the same rep range.
After the money set you have a few options. You could either decide that you feel great and want try to hit the 155’s for 5-8, you could just go back down to the 140’s for another set of 8-10, you could rep out a set of 12-20 with a lighter weight, or you could just move on to the next exercise.
Everyone has their own preference, and truth be told; sometimes it just depends on the day. Some days you might feel great and want to go heavier, other days you might just want to get a pump with a lighter weight, and on shitty days you might just want to go home.
There have been times where I did hit the number I wanted for the day, but it was far easier than I expected it to be. These are great days and they should be taken advantage of. So I go up on the second set and then since I’m feeling great, I throw in a higher rep back off set at the end. Other days, I might just hit my intended goal weight for the day and then shut it down.
This isn’t to say I don’t follow a program, because I do. But I allow for some day-to-day tweaks based on how I’m feeling. As an advanced lifter, you are actually hurting yourself if you don’t do this and will end up with more injuries.
Of course, this is a somewhat advanced concept and you have to be fairly well experienced to know how to auto-regulate your training. The majority of guys would do best sticking to a program for their first few years of training.
But even in the advanced programs I write I usually leave a lot of room for auto-regulation. For example, if I have someone do a heavy set and a back off set, instead of a narrow rep range like 5-7 and 8-10, I like to widen it to 5-8 and 10-15 or something like that. It gives you more leeway based on how you’re feeling that day. If you feel like shit, we may skip one of the two sets.
At the end of the day, the most important thing is that at the end of the cycle your overall numbers are up significantly. But on a day to day basis, you have to be prepared for the fact that you won’t always be able to make linear strength gains, and thus you adapt as necessary."
It all depends on where you get your knowledge of training. When I joined a gym, I was so weak that I was lifting the smallest weights they had, using the smallest plates and was shoved onto machines by my personal trainer for most of the exercises. Ramping up wasn’t mentioned because it wasn’t necessary. I got up to a certain level (maybe making five or six jumps in weight) before I got fed up and stopped going to the gym.
You see, my trainer hadn’t bothered mentioning that I should ramp up in weight once I had progressed a bit (he had been sacked about 2 months into my programme and I was left rudderless for a while). He had started me on 3x12 and then 2x15 and I became exhausted and bored very quickly.
I read T-Nation articles, stickies and CT’s forum and decided to go back to the gym after a 4 month layoff to try 5x5 and ramping and haven’t looked back since. The joy of seeing your weights increase every session, as they tend to do when you’re a newb, was something that I didn’t really experience until I read about ramping on T-Nation.