[quote]trextacy wrote:
mr popular wrote:
Interestingly, Dylanj is an exception to the trend in that he is a big strong guy that actually uses straight sets.
I was thinking the same things. Straight sets. A lot of them. A lot of exercises too. Oh to be young again. ;)[/quote]
thanks for the compliments, i guess i just got lucky, never really thought to do it, i just started doing straight sets.
each person responds differently to different exercises, this works for me, some may like pyramids and lower set counts. like i said, to each his own. figure out what works for you and stick with it, if its not broke dont fix it, as they say.
[quote]trextacy wrote:
Sentoguy- awesome post. I was wondering if you could break down what you think is optimal in terms of volume/frequency, etc. and how many bodyparts you hit per session and how many times per week.[/quote]
You know, I honestly can’t, because as I said before, it’s an individual thing based on things like recovery abilities, stress, age, training experience, strength levels, etc…
Personally, if I were to do it over again I would do:
Rippetoe- because beginners can train very frequently due to their lack of strength and thus have difficulty overstraing their CNS. Also lots of practice of the big lifts, and a focus on progression
5x5- Because I think a lot of BB’ers would be wise to train like powerlifters for the first couple years. I’m not saying that powerlifting is superior to BB’ing for building muscle. But, focusing on getting as strong as possible while focusing on eating to fill out your frame/maximize your leverages is a great way to build a base of strength/muscle.
DC- because again I really like Dante’s focus on strength increases and big eating. I also like the set up of the program and it’s built in methods to prevent stagnation.
[quote]silverbullet wrote:
I need some clarity re: ramping sets. I kind of do ramping but not. My goal is muscle size
My usual warm up is like this (only before 1st excersise)
Take 60% of what my desired 1st working set weight is and do 3 reps:
Then take 70-80% and do 2 reps
Then 90% and do 1 rep
Then my work set: (these numbers are just made upb)
80lbs - 10 reps
80lbs - 9reps
90lbs - 7reps
80lbs - as many reps as I can
Now set number 4 I will go up to 90lbs when set number 3 reaches 8-9 reps. I wait for that because I know I will fatigue in set 4 and the drop in reps will still be in my desired range of 6-10. If I go up to 90lbs in set 4 and the drop goes down to 5-6reps then I do a drop set back to 80lbs.
When I’m strong enough to do 90lbs for about 8-10reps on set 2-4. I then make:
1.90lbs
2.90lbs
3.100lbs
4. 90lbs
and do the same as above
This method has worked for me and I have seen results. My goal is to just always do more reps than last week until I can move the weight up by 10lbs.
Is that wrong, because after reading up on ramping this past week, I see that most start at point A and work towards there top weight
I’m giving it a try and will assess again in about 3 weeks (need time to go through it assess it and make changes until I feel it’s working or that it’s not for me.
What do you guys think of the way I’ve been doing it. Coz it works for me.
I hope that made sense. Also ALL my excersises aren’t exactly like that, My Squats I truly ramp, but if I go up to a weight I can’t move sufficient times, I do another set at a lower weight, Until I’m strong enough to move up
[/quote]
I honestly wouldn’t suggest doing it this way. Your rate or progression is going to be considerably slower with this format than if you just “ramped” up to a final all out PR set. The rep range doesn’t matter so much, just use whatever you feel you respond best to.
The name of the game is progressive resistance. How quickly are you honestly going to be able to add resistance using the above method? It might take you 2, 3, or even more workouts (for the same muscle groups) before you are adding weight to the bar. Sure that’s some progression, but it’s nowhere near as quickly as you could be progressing if you just stuck to one final work set per exercise.
If you really want to throw in a “burn out” set after your PR set, and you find that it doesn’t hinder your ability to progress, then go right ahead. But don’t use that set to gauge if you should add weight to the PR set. You should be trying to add weight to that as often as possible.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
silverbullet wrote:
I need some clarity re: ramping sets. I kind of do ramping but not. My goal is muscle size
My usual warm up is like this (only before 1st excersise)
Take 60% of what my desired 1st working set weight is and do 3 reps:
Then take 70-80% and do 2 reps
Then 90% and do 1 rep
Then my work set: (these numbers are just made upb)
80lbs - 10 reps
80lbs - 9reps
90lbs - 7reps
80lbs - as many reps as I can
Now set number 4 I will go up to 90lbs when set number 3 reaches 8-9 reps. I wait for that because I know I will fatigue in set 4 and the drop in reps will still be in my desired range of 6-10. If I go up to 90lbs in set 4 and the drop goes down to 5-6reps then I do a drop set back to 80lbs.
When I’m strong enough to do 90lbs for about 8-10reps on set 2-4. I then make:
1.90lbs
2.90lbs
3.100lbs
4. 90lbs
and do the same as above
This method has worked for me and I have seen results. My goal is to just always do more reps than last week until I can move the weight up by 10lbs.
Is that wrong, because after reading up on ramping this past week, I see that most start at point A and work towards there top weight
I’m giving it a try and will assess again in about 3 weeks (need time to go through it assess it and make changes until I feel it’s working or that it’s not for me.
What do you guys think of the way I’ve been doing it. Coz it works for me.
I hope that made sense. Also ALL my excersises aren’t exactly like that, My Squats I truly ramp, but if I go up to a weight I can’t move sufficient times, I do another set at a lower weight, Until I’m strong enough to move up
I honestly wouldn’t suggest doing it this way. Your rate or progression is going to be considerably slower with this format than if you just “ramped” up to a final all out PR set. The rep range doesn’t matter so much, just use whatever you feel you respond best to.
The name of the game is progressive resistance. How quickly are you honestly going to be able to add resistance using the above method? It might take you 2, 3, or even more workouts (for the same muscle groups) before you are adding weight to the bar. Sure that’s some progression, but it’s nowhere near as quickly as you could be progressing if you just stuck to one final work set per exercise.
If you really want to throw in a “burn out” set after your PR set, and you find that it doesn’t hinder your ability to progress, then go right ahead. But don’t use that set to gauge if you should add weight to the PR set. You should be trying to add weight to that as often as possible.[/quote]
Doing it the way I was, I was definately getting stronger from week to week. Because with each week that passed I could do more one or two more reps and I am seeing very good gains. But like you said, the weight increase was slower than desired (not on all movements though) I suppose I was doing a combination of ramping and straight sets for different movements.
However, I have started trying conventional ramping for all my excersises and will see how it goes. I’ve had two training sessions already, and my feelings towards it is positive thus far.
[quote]silverbullet wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
silverbullet wrote:
I need some clarity re: ramping sets. I kind of do ramping but not. My goal is muscle size
My usual warm up is like this (only before 1st excersise)
Take 60% of what my desired 1st working set weight is and do 3 reps:
Then take 70-80% and do 2 reps
Then 90% and do 1 rep
Then my work set: (these numbers are just made upb)
80lbs - 10 reps
80lbs - 9reps
90lbs - 7reps
80lbs - as many reps as I can
Now set number 4 I will go up to 90lbs when set number 3 reaches 8-9 reps. I wait for that because I know I will fatigue in set 4 and the drop in reps will still be in my desired range of 6-10. If I go up to 90lbs in set 4 and the drop goes down to 5-6reps then I do a drop set back to 80lbs.
When I’m strong enough to do 90lbs for about 8-10reps on set 2-4. I then make:
1.90lbs
2.90lbs
3.100lbs
4. 90lbs
and do the same as above
This method has worked for me and I have seen results. My goal is to just always do more reps than last week until I can move the weight up by 10lbs.
Is that wrong, because after reading up on ramping this past week, I see that most start at point A and work towards there top weight
I’m giving it a try and will assess again in about 3 weeks (need time to go through it assess it and make changes until I feel it’s working or that it’s not for me.
What do you guys think of the way I’ve been doing it. Coz it works for me.
I hope that made sense. Also ALL my excersises aren’t exactly like that, My Squats I truly ramp, but if I go up to a weight I can’t move sufficient times, I do another set at a lower weight, Until I’m strong enough to move up
I honestly wouldn’t suggest doing it this way. Your rate or progression is going to be considerably slower with this format than if you just “ramped” up to a final all out PR set. The rep range doesn’t matter so much, just use whatever you feel you respond best to.
The name of the game is progressive resistance. How quickly are you honestly going to be able to add resistance using the above method? It might take you 2, 3, or even more workouts (for the same muscle groups) before you are adding weight to the bar.
Sure that’s some progression, but it’s nowhere near as quickly as you could be progressing if you just stuck to one final work set per exercise.
If you really want to throw in a “burn out” set after your PR set, and you find that it doesn’t hinder your ability to progress, then go right ahead. But don’t use that set to gauge if you should add weight to the PR set. You should be trying to add weight to that as often as possible.
Doing it the way I was, I was definately getting stronger from week to week. Because with each week that passed I could do more one or two more reps and I am seeing very good gains.
But like you said, the weight increase was slower than desired (not on all movements though) I suppose I was doing a combination of ramping and straight sets for different movements.
However, I have started trying conventional ramping for all my excersises and will see how it goes. I’ve had two training sessions already, and my feelings towards it is positive thus far.
Thanks for advise, appreciate it[/quote]
If you want, you can watch Ronnie Coleman’s “Redemption” Dvd, or pretty much any other bodybuilding DVD (most are up on youtube and similar sites).
You can see the whole ramping-up thing in action there. (most vids on the net only show the last set of an exercise, so you’ll have to dig a little. Here’s one clip of Frank McGrath: - YouTube
The height/width ratio is fucked up on my pc, but maybe it’ll look normal on yours…)
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
trextacy wrote:
Sentoguy- awesome post. I was wondering if you could break down what you think is optimal in terms of volume/frequency, etc. and how many bodyparts you hit per session and how many times per week.
You know, I honestly can’t, because as I said before, it’s an individual thing based on things like recovery abilities, stress, age, training experience, strength levels, etc…
Personally, if I were to do it over again I would do:
Rippetoe- because beginners can train very frequently due to their lack of strength and thus have difficulty overstraing their CNS. Also lots of practice of the big lifts, and a focus on progression
5x5- Because I think a lot of BB’ers would be wise to train like powerlifters for the first couple years. I’m not saying that powerlifting is superior to BB’ing for building muscle.
But, focusing on getting as strong as possible while focusing on eating to fill out your frame/maximize your leverages is a great way to build a base of strength/muscle.
DC- because again I really like Dante’s focus on strength increases and big eating. I also like the set up of the program and it’s built in methods to prevent stagnation.
But hey that’s just me and my preferences.[/quote]
Thanks again- on 5x5, what do you think is better- so-called “ramping” or straight sets? Related question- do you interpret 5x5 as 5 work sets, or do you still think that the 1-2 all out work sets works (with 3-4 warm up sets) best here too?
[quote]trextacy wrote:
Thanks again- on 5x5, what do you think is better- so-called “ramping” or straight sets? Related question- do you interpret 5x5 as 5 work sets, or do you still think that the 1-2 all out work sets works (with 3-4 warm up sets) best here too?[/quote]
I’m not Sentoguy, but I would recommend the ramping up method instead of the straight sets method, why?
The straight sets (at same weight) favors more endurance, while ramping leans more towards strength gains.
Because of the inverse relationship between volume and intensity: a straight set 5x5 workout for the bench press might look like this:
Set 1: 285# x 5 reps
Set 2: 285# x 5 reps
Set 3: 285# x 5 reps
Set 4: 285# x 5 reps
Set 5: 285# x 5 reps
Total Volume: 7125#
And a ramp up 5x5 workout for the bench press might look like this:
Set 1: 110# x 5 reps 550
Set 2: 160# x 5 reps 800
Set 3: 200# x 5 reps 1000
Set 4: 250# x 5 reps 1250
Set 5: 315# x 5 reps 1575
Total Volume: 5175#
From this example we can see that the total volume in the first method is higher (better for endurance), but that the second method allows you to handle a greater load on the final set (better for strength gains).
So, which method is better for hypertrophy? That depends on what you think triggers muscle gain. Personally I lean more towards LOAD over VOLUME, so I recommend the second method.
Also, fwiw, a article recently published on this site stated that Reg Park’s would warm up/ramp up for the 2 first sets of his 5x5 workouts and only use straight sets on the final 3 sets (so more of a mixed approach than what many had originally believed).
I agree with most of what you have stated, with just a few exceptions.
This is exactly right. That is why doing BB style workouts can be used for a longer period of time, because there is little CNS involvement. True, this kind of workout does not increase strength like other types of workouts, but if we are just talking hypertrophy, then technically this kind of workout would be better in the long run because the CNS never gets fatigued and as a result never shuts down or limits the load lifted.
This is also why cycling from a BB style workout (with a fresh CNS) to low set high intensity workouts (IMO) is the best approach. You hit the CNS hard for a few months then move to a BB style method for a few months to let the CNS recover, then go back to the high intensity method again. This allows continuous muscle fiber and metabolic stimulation while resting the CNS.
The problem with this kind of logic is that while something may work for a few genetically gifted guys, that doesn’t mean it will work for all. I base my understating of what should work for all, not just a select few.
[quote]
I agree, which is why I personally prefer a single ball busting set to multiple ball busting sets. If you aren’t going to perform ball busting sets at least on a regular basis (there could be times when “light days” can be incorporated to good effect), then IMO you’re wasting your time.
Gotta disagree. “Less intense” sets are a waste of time IMO. You need to force your muscles to adapt, not kindly ask them. If you aren’t making your muscles work as hard as they can, then they have no reason to improve, or at least will do so at a lesser rate.
Effort is the #1 most important component to any training program. If a program calls for you to use less effort than you are capable of, what should that tell you about that program?
How many people who ever got huge do you think didn’t put all of their effort into their training? How many of them do you think purposely avoided putting all of their effort into their sets?[/quote]
I know this is the common belief in the gym, and again, probably works well with genetically gifted people. However, for the rest of us science has clearly shown that increasing the load is the main stimulus for growth. This means that neither going to failure or maxing on your 1-rep max is required for hypertrophy. And again, for continued growth over the long haul that is why cycling intensity is a good approach (IMO).
But as you stated, whatever is working for you keep doing. When and if it stops working, then try a more balanced approach (IMO).
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
This is exactly right. That is why doing BB style workouts can be used for a longer period of time, because there is little CNS involvement.
True, this kind of workout does not increase strength like other types of workouts, but if we are just talking hypertrophy, then technically this kind of workout would be better in the long run because the CNS never gets fatigued and as a result never shuts down or limits the load lifted.
[/quote]
What is your definition of a “BB style workout”? Because just about every successful BB’er that I’ve ever seen train ramps up to a top all out set of each exercise, the advanced ones usually do 3-4 exercises for each muscle group.
This places a lot of strain on the CNS (hence the reason they need a full week of recovery before hitting that muscle group again).
Also, the goal of the majority of successful BB’ers is to gain strength. Their programs work quite well at achieving this. No, they don’t train specifically for 1RM strength or use ME and DE methods.
But there are quite a few successful BB’ing routines that are absolutely built around increasing strength for moderate reps (DC is probably the most successful and well known atm).
This also completely overlooks the fact that the key principle in building muscle is progressive resistance (as you mention later in your post). So, any program that isn’t designed around making you stronger is pretty much a waste of time.
Cycling, or periodization, can be an effective method. But again, I want to know how you would define a “BB style workout”, because all of the BB’ers that I watch train are all about getting stronger and pushing maximum weights for moderate reps (usually with one top set per exercise).
No, in fact it’s quite the opposite. How many huge guys can you name who didn’t train the way I described? If you look at the way that 90% (maybe more) of all big huge guys train, they pretty much all ramp up to a top all out set for each exercise, trying to add weight or reps every time they train.
So, if the majority of successful BB’ers train this way, how can you possibly say that they’re the exception to the rule? Sure they’re the exception when looking at the whole population, but that has more to do with dedication, intensity, and consistency.
Yes, genetics obviously plays a role, but if anyone thinks that they’re gonna be gracing the Olympia stage with shit genetics (regardless of training style) they’re seriously delusional.
Again, where are all of the genetically challenged people who are getting huge using a different approach?
If I can name dozens, maybe close to a hundred successful BB’ers who train the way that I describe above and you can’t name considerably more that train the way that science says is superior, where is the proof that these other methods are superior for the majority?
I don’t really care what 12 week studies performed on rats or previously untrained individuals says unless it produces actual flesh and blood results in the gym.
And even then I don’t realy care unless it does this more effectively than what’s been proven to work for literally decades (and is the way that the vast, vast majority of successful BB’ers train).
I do agree though that if something isn’t working, something needs to change. That could be diet, rest/recovery methods, or yes even training style. Do what works for you, but I for one am going to follow the example of those successful people who have come before me.
