[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
To the subject at hand, I would do a higher intensity program like Starting Strength (5x5) until the neural adaptation phase is exhausted. That way a more significant load can be used with GVT. Using GVT right out of the gate is a bit of a waste.[/quote]
I agree.
[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
[quote]Jarvan wrote:
the volume of 10x10 with 95 lbs is equivalent to 3x15 with 211 lbs.
or 5x5 with 380 lbs.
[/quote]
So I can just do 500 bodyweight squats and since it’s the same total weight lifted, it’s just as good? /sarcasm
There is a reason many coaches call GVT an intermediate to advanced program - if you don’t have the work capacity to do it with, say, at least your own body weight on the bar, you’re simply not ready for it.
What others have said before about not having to get all 10x10 also applies. Seriously, have you DONE GVT or are you just repeating what someone wrote somewhere?[/quote]
I like how you left off my last line that negates everything you said.
500 bodyweight squats would kick the shit out of anyone, olympian, PLer, bb, etc.
If you’re curious, try 200.
Ja van here:
That’s the revamped version that Poliquin uses with his professional athletes.
Meaning pro weights, pro experience, pro guidance
the original GVT is simply 10x10
you do 95lbs 10 x 10 one day
then you add 5lbs next time, etc
[quote]Jarvan wrote:
the original GVT is simply 10x10
you do 95lbs 10 x 10 one day
then you add 5lbs next time, etc[/quote]
Dude, I don’t know where you’re getting your information from, but you are simply wrong, mistaken, incorrect, inaccurate, and wrong.
Question of Strength Vol. 5 by Charles Poliquin, 1998:
"The goal of the German Volume Training method is to complete 10 sets of 10 reps with the same weight for each exercise. You want to begin with a weight you could, if you really pushed it, lift for 20 reps to failure. For most people on most exercises that would represent 60% of their 1 RM load.
…
Increase the resistance when you can do 10 repetitions for all 10 sets.
You may discover while doing this workout that, although your number of reps may go down about the sixth or seventh set, they may actually go up again at the eighth or ninth set."
You can stop defending your stance now. Because, as mentioned earlier, you’re wrong.
“The goal of the German Volume Training method is to complete 10 sets of 10 reps with the same weight”
There it is
I don’t understand how that differs from… GVT is simply 10 x 10 with same weight
“Increase the resistance when you can do 10 repetitions for all 10 sets.”
And how is that different from …then you add 5lbs next time, etc
I’m pretty sure Poliquin just adapted it for his athletes.
[quote]Jarvan wrote:
“The goal of the German Volume Training method is to complete 10 sets of 10 reps with the same weight”
There it is
I don’t understand how that differs from… GVT is simply 10 x 10 with same weight[/quote]
Because Poliquin explains that the goal is to complete 10 sets of 10, but performance will always drop off before the end, so you will not start off getting 10 reps on all 10 sets.
By adapting over several workouts, the lifter will eventually handle that same weight for 10 reps on all 10 sets, at which time the load should be increased… and they’ll go back to not being able to handle it for 10 reps on all 10 sets, etc.
You’re incorrect. Again. Still.
Re-read the Question of Strength article. He discusses the origins and how German weightlifters and Gironda’s bodybuilders were using the same methods back in the '70s. Poliquin didn’t adapt anything. (He did write the "Advanced GVT program in 2005, but that doesn’t call for 10x10 and it’s not what we’re discussing here anyway.)
Hm, still can’t find where the GVT would deviate from 10 x 10 with same weight.
Perhaps where we’re mixed up is that not all 10 reps will be achieved in all 10 sets.
And correct me if I’m wrong, I think you mean if 10 x 10 is possible, the weight used to begin with was too light?
Regardless if you agree or not, that’s what I personally believe to reflect GVT.
However, a beginner who most likely has less than adequate squat technique, pushing any kind of external load for 100 potential reps isn’t favorable. And there is ab-so-fuckin-lutely nothing wrong with taking it down to 95lbs and performing 100 perfect reps.
Just because you’re capable of running a marathon, doesn’t mean you should seek to run that marathon everyday.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
[quote]Jarvan wrote:
“The goal of the German Volume Training method is to complete 10 sets of 10 reps with the same weight”
There it is
I don’t understand how that differs from… GVT is simply 10 x 10 with same weight[/quote]
Because Poliquin explains that the goal is to complete 10 sets of 10, but performance will always drop off before the end, so you will not start off getting 10 reps on all 10 sets.
By adapting over several workouts, the lifter will eventually handle that same weight for 10 reps on all 10 sets, at which time the load should be increased… and they’ll go back to not being able to handle it for 10 reps on all 10 sets, etc.
You’re incorrect. Again. Still.
Re-read the Question of Strength article. He discusses the origins and how German weightlifters and Gironda’s bodybuilders were using the same methods back in the '70s. Poliquin didn’t adapt anything. (He did write the "Advanced GVT program in 2005, but that doesn’t call for 10x10 and it’s not what we’re discussing here anyway.)[/quote]
Since introducing the mainstream strength training world to GVT over 15 years ago, Coach Poliquin has come up with much more advanced, specific forms of the system to implement with his athletes. For simplicity’s sake (and to cater to the most readers) we’ll stick with its most basic, straightforward outline.
Either I’m retarded, or that straight out says…
Coach Poliquin came up with his own version of GVT, for his athletes.
[quote]Jarvan wrote:
Hm, still can’t find where the GVT would deviate from 10 x 10 with same weight.[/quote]
Sorry, man, but then you’re just never going to see it. I really have to tap out after this.
You can personally believe it’s better to make an apple pie with blueberries instead of apples. That doesn’t mean you’re right about what apple pie is.
[quote]Since introducing the mainstream strength training world to GVT over 15 years ago, Coach Poliquin has come up with much more advanced, specific forms of the system to implement with his athletes. For simplicity’s sake (and to cater to the most readers) we’ll stick with its most basic, straightforward outline.
Either I’m retarded, or that straight out says…
Coach Poliquin came up with his own version of GVT, for his athletes.[/quote]
You said it, not me, but okay yes, you’re retarded. The quote you just provided (which is from an article by Lee Boyce, not Poliquin) clearly says that Poliquin’s advanced versions came out after he first discussed it. That’s also what I just pointed out above. There was his first article, and later on there was “Advanced GVT.”
I’m out. It’s nothing personal, but there’s no point in continuing this back and forth. It’s going around in circles, at best.
No shit Lee Boyce wrote that. What the eff does that have to do with ANYTHING?? LOL you’re so vague. And confused perhaps.
The article YOU suggested says…
“The goal of the German Volume Training method is to complete 10 sets of 10 reps with the same weight”
But Expert colucci says that’s not true…
“Since introducing the mainstream strength training world to GVT over 15 years ago, Coach Poliquin has come up with much more advanced, specific forms of the system to implement with his athletes. For simplicity’s sake (and to cater to the most readers) we’ll stick with its most basic, straightforward outline.”
This is so straight forward, there’s no way you can misinterpret this. It says… Poliquin came up with his own version of GVT. Now, I don’t know Lee Boyce personally, but I don’t think he just made that shit up for no reason.
But unfortunately Mr Colucci says it is all wrong. Wrong wrong.
It’s kind of odd you can’t help but be vague… the usually scrupulous poster can’t seem to extricate the exact quotes or coherent thought to retort my personal opinion. Strange… Maybe spend more time explaining yourself instead of attacking. Or just PM me if you’re trying to save face.
GVT is still 10 x 10. With the same weight. With 60% of your 1RM. Simple. Save the intellect and nuances for a cocktail party.
The original GVT, as Poliquin discussed it, is what we are talking about. He later adapted it and came up with an ‘advanced GVT’ - this, however, is not the routine we are discussing in this thread. The routine we are discussing in this thread is the ORIGINAL ONE.
Yes, you could drop down to 95lbs and do 10x10 perfectly. This, however, would mean that the next time, you need to do the workout with 100lbs (or 105 lbs or whatever increment you use. Probably 100 though). I think you’re arguing over semantics and the major difference is ‘should I start my first workout with a weight that I can immediately increase the next time or do I pick a weight that I’ll need to stick with for several workouts?’ The original concept calls for the latter, but it’s really no biggie. The point is: you’re not supposed to get 10x10 EVERY TIME. This is what you two are really arguing about.
GVT is NOT a beginner program and yes, we could discuss whether or not the OP is ready for it. It depends on the trainee being able to maintain proper form in a fatigued state and it also calls for him to know when his form breaks down - that is the moment when a set is over, no matter how many reps you got.
Do NOT argue with Chris. He knows a shitload about training and chances are that if you think he’s an idiot, you’re actually talking about yourself. From an outside perspective, it looks like he understood you but you didn’t get his point - now who’s the smarter one? I don’t mean this as an insult but as something to consider.
Again…
Jarvan “GVT : 10 x 10 with same weight”
Chris “Poliquin explains that the goal is to complete 10 sets of 10, but performance will always drop off before the end, so you will not start off getting 10 reps on all 10 sets.”
So it’s not 10x10 with the same weight, but more like 10x5-10. Every time you DO get 10x10, add weight so you’re back to not getting it. It’s the usual two-pronged approach of rep-set schemes like 3x5-8 - increase reps > increase weight > increase reps etc.
Jarvan, for your own sake, please stop. You don’t know what you are talking about.
nighthawkz wrote:
*Yes, I entered the convo assuming we were discussing the orginal version.
*I agree. Unless you have a spot, and you’re attacking a new weight, you definitely won’t achieve the full 10 x 10. But besides that, I don’t know why Colucci screaming ‘wrong’.
*Agreed
*I don’t think he’s an idiot, never said he was. It’s just his condescending tone that intrigued me to question what he is really trying to say. And one should ALWAYS question what they want to know more about. Question your parents, question the church, question the government. Or just live and die by the words of others.
Jarvan “GVT : 10 x 10 with same weight”
Chris “Poliquin explains that the goal is to complete 10 sets of 10, but performance will always drop off before the end, so you will not start off getting 10 reps on all 10 sets.”
So it’s not 10x10 with the same weight, but more like 10x5-10. Every time you DO get 10x10, add weight so you’re back to not getting it. It’s the usual two-pronged approach of rep-set schemes like 3x5-8 - increase reps > increase weight > increase reps etc.
*Exactly, and I’ve reiterated that on my previous post. You won’t always get 10 x 10, but it’s the aim. But again, a beginner need not to pick a weight he can’t do 10 x 10 to begin with. Unless under supervision.
*Volume does matter, just like tempo, template, intensity, and bar speed all matter. Performing 10 x 10 with body weight is beneficial, but it isn’t what GVT calls for specifically. But 95lbs is not childsplay when a beginner attempts 100 reps with it. And it isn’t the same as curling 5lbs dumbbells for 1000 reps to achieve 5000lbs of total volume. 95lbs is obviously, much, much more than 5lbs.
You gotta think. Just because you can do 20 pullups, does not mean you have to do 20 pullups every set. You can stick to 20 pullups, or even do 5 or even 1 for certain sets. I’m thinking more training and conditioning the body, compared to hitting the numbers. Again, I understand this is NOT GVT. It’s just semantics at this point as you’ve said.
It’s irresponsible to encourage a beginner to use more weight than it is necessary. Take Dan Green for example. Or even Andy Bolton. Both record holders, both highly respected, both use wayyyyyy lighter weights than they can handle (compared to how other powerlifters train). Using a weight where you can’t even complete the template is moot and extraneous.
I think that both Chris and you were overly aggressive toward each other while BASICALLY talking about the same thing.
You can push yourself pretty hard on squats without a spotter. That’s what a squat rack is for.
I think that if you need to drop the weight to 95 to complete 10x10, GVT simply isn’t for you. Period. (And we don’t need to discuss this since we could simply agree to disagree here)
Along the same lines… Comparing a beginner to Nate Green is stupid. A beginner can max every week and constantly improve - Nate green would burn out after three weeks of doing so. Again, beginners and advanced lifters are different animals. If you are a beginner and need to use 95lbs for GVT, you should do a beginner program.
OP got the right weight. Faces were saved. Threads were ended.
[quote]roybot wrote:
OP got the right weight. Faces were saved. Threads were ended.[/quote]
