When people are talking about 90%, is this based on max or training max?
The study says itās 90% of their one rep max.
Indeed they are able to, but even for women sets of 3 with 85% would be easier than sets of 4 with 90% even when doing three fewer sets.
If they could do 7 x 4 with 90%, that would mean that there would be a decent amount of reps in reserve on the first set they did 3 with 85%.
It depends on how they determined the max. Did they establish it based on a set using multiple reps? Did they use a training max and not a true max? Was it based on failure measured as a breakdown of technique or the inability to perform another rep even with poor form?
I donāt see a distinction.
Could you describe both in enough detail to see the distinction? Free free to use the bench press as an example, as we are all familiar with the lift.
As to an ideal number of reps to optimize muscle growth (not necessarily hypertrophy) I have heard that is 25 working repetitions is a good foundation.
- 7 sets of 4 reps = 28 reps
- 4 sets of 8 reps = 32 reps
- 3 sets of 12 reps = 36 reps.
All of the set/rep arrangements are greater volume than the 25 reps supposed volume that I had heard. Interesting.
I went and read parts of the study itself. Two things really stood out to me:
-
These subjects were very WEAK. None of the groups had an average one rep max that exceeded 135 pounds at the start of the study.
-
They were all effectively untrained: āSubjects were physically active but had not participated in any organized program involving regular exercise for at least 1 year before testing.ā
The loading parameters make a lot more sense to me in light of the fact that these folks were all basically beginners.
Edit: They also didnāt actually hit all of their reps: āFrom the fourth to 10th week, the mean number of repetitions in each set was 3.4 Ā± 0.3 in the 4RM group, 7.1 Ā± 0.4 in the 8RM group, and 10.5 Ā± 0.4 in the 12RM group.ā When they did hit all their reps, load was increased for the next session by 2.5kg.
Thats pretty much what I was getting at previously. A trained powerlifter or serious lifter/bbār is going to have but a much higher max (5% of 425 lbs. vs. 5% of 135 lbs.) And it will be a much more accurate max effort lift.
Yup. The experienced lifter will be much better at expressing his/her strength in a one rep max than a beginner.
Training max and true max have been discussed on this site a million times. Itās part of 531, for example.
Iāll accept that explanation, though I am not familiar with the distinction.
When I think my max, it is simply the greatest weight I can perform one ālegalā rep.
And that weight can change month to month, day to day, hour to hour.
I would think that is obvious that your max improves as the month proceeds if you are making progress, though I donāt know how anyone could ascertain the amount their ācurrentā max changes from day to day, and especially, hour to hour.
Now I should qualify that I believe biorhythms affect strength throughout the day, but I always remove that variable by lifting the same time of the day.
Iām with you. Never understood the distinction between true max and training max. Way back when I ran 5/3/1 I went with the prescribed 90% recommendation as your āTraining Max.ā A few months into the program, hitting 14 reps on my 5s week, I got completely bored with it and burned out, as hitting close to 15 reps wasnāt what I signed up for.
These days I build programs around my true max.
If your squat max is around 405, then your TM @ 90% would be 365. If you ran 5/3/1 for, say, 2 years - your TM would increase 5# a month, aka 120 pounds, to 485, which would put your true max (TM/.9) at around 535-540. Another year and youāve cracked 600. Itās definitely a ātrust the processā kind of program.
The idea of a training max is just a failsafe to stop you getting near failure. If you never hit 100% of your training max, you can never come close to 100% of your true max. Sometimes we have shitty days where 95% feels like 101%, but when weāre never programmed to go over 95% of a training max, accidentally hitting failure doesnāt happen. Besides, hitting 14 reps on your 5ās week a few months in is nothing but a predictor of a nice long progression.
1 Like
I hear you. Itās just never resonated with me to approach it like that. It feels like lying to myself or trying to trick myself. For me my training max is my true max. Iām so diligent about sleep, diet, recovery, etc. that I think Iāve failed a rep twice in the last 2 years, and both times was bench where I knew I might not get it and was going for broke with the help of a trustworthy spotter. Iād rather calibrate and periodize around % of true max each week, so I donāt have to mentally convert back and forth all the time.
Maybe the 14 reps was good indicator, but it actually burned me out. The rest of the workout was shit and it felt like the only productive thing I could accomplish that day was all left in that one set. I ran 5/3/1 for 6 months and ended up with the worst physique of my entire lifting career. I doubt Iād ever give it another run, unless I used a true max instead of 90%.
1 Like
To be fair, 531 is not designed as a physique oriented program. I know it gets used as such by lots of people, but itās not written with that intent.
Someone should do a study on why everyone who does a study on hypertrophy uses a strange methodology and a strange selection of subjectsā¦
3 Likes
Training Max is your everyday yeah-sure-I-can-lift-that Max, while True Max is first-prize-is-a-date-with-Jessica-Alba Max.
@The_Mighty_Stu to get somewhat back on track around variablesā¦ as a natural pro and coach, how do you determine when someone is doing too much to progress vs. just being whiny and needs to suck it up?