[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
Right now, I don’t understand why flip’s video demonstrates a 10rm versus a 1rm. He locks out at the very first rep and takes tension off the muscle.[/quote]
Because I wasn’t being as picky as some would like to think. I was pointing out that because he had to pause after the tenth rep, and because he was squatting roughly 75% of his 1RM, there is no way he could have hit 20 reps continuously, and so it did not qualify as a 20 rep max relative to the program being discussed. [/quote]
I still am unable to understand the difference in the pause between the 10th and the 11th rep compared to other pauses, but I suppose it may simply be an idealogical difference.
[quote]Yogi wrote:
are we talking about Nubret’s routine or Jaypierce’s? Because I don’t see any mention of what is an acceptable pause anywhere in the first post…[/quote]
I thought we were discussing Starting Strength?
Seriously, setting aside Jay’s warped little world for a moment, this new “constant tension” catchphrase is getting out of hand. It’s like the start of a new pendulum shift after all the “naturals should only do low reps and fullbody workouts” crap, and everyone suddenly knows how old school bodybuilders trained by reading stuff on the internet.
[quote]Yogi wrote:
are we talking about Nubret’s routine or Jaypierce’s? Because I don’t see any mention of what is an acceptable pause anywhere in the first post…[/quote]
I thought we were discussing Starting Strength?
Seriously, setting aside Jay’s warped little world for a moment, this new “constant tension” catchphrase is getting out of hand. It’s like the start of a new pendulum shift after all the “naturals should only do low reps and fullbody workouts” crap, and everyone suddenly knows how old school bodybuilders trained by reading stuff on the internet.[/quote]
Starting Strength is soooo 2014. It’s all Greyskull these days, bruh.
There’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole TUT thing anyway, which is that TUT is cumulative, so if your reps are continuous or if you rest, as long as the TUT is the same it doesn’t matter.
Of course there may be a benefit to the occlusion aspect of not resting between reps, but that’s another matter entirely.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
20 straight through? Or 20 breathing reps?
EDIT: in reference to Flip’s 315lb 20rep squats. [/quote]
somewhere in between I suppose. Closer to straight through than not. First 12 or so were without any hesitation, and the whole set only takes 1 minute.[/quote]
Fucking awesome. Its even more awesome because it’s technically a ninja technique to disguise a 10rm as a 20rm to catch other lifters off guard. Colour me impressed.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
this new “constant tension” catchphrase is getting out of hand. It’s like the start of a new pendulum shift after all the “naturals should only do low reps and fullbody workouts” crap, and everyone suddenly knows how old school bodybuilders trained by reading stuff on the internet.[/quote]
That’s what both Gironda and Nubret recommended, actually, don’t let the muscle rest even for a split second.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
20 straight through? Or 20 breathing reps?
EDIT: in reference to Flip’s 315lb 20rep squats. [/quote]
somewhere in between I suppose. Closer to straight through than not. First 12 or so were without any hesitation, and the whole set only takes 1 minute.[/quote]
Fucking awesome. Its even more awesome because it’s technically a ninja technique to disguise a 10rm as a 20rm to catch other lifters off guard. Colour me impressed.[/quote]
that’s how badass Flip is. He squats his 10 rep max 20 times!
[quote]dt79 wrote:
this new “constant tension” catchphrase is getting out of hand. It’s like the start of a new pendulum shift after all the “naturals should only do low reps and fullbody workouts” crap, and everyone suddenly knows how old school bodybuilders trained by reading stuff on the internet.[/quote]
That’s what both Gironda and Nubret recommended, actually, don’t let the muscle rest even for a split second.
[/quote]
That is a RECOMMENDATION. It does not mean it was done in exactly that manner in PRACTICE. I have heard a national bodybuilding coach(in this context, coach of a country’s national team) say exactly the same thing, but in practice, I have never seen a lifter training under him put his all into a set of high rep squats and didn’t pause at least 3-4 times nearing muscular failure. The intensity and effort put into a set is what matters, NOT even the rep number, depth or how often you lock out.
This is what I’m talking about. You are relying on the internet and selected quotes from people without seeing how they actually coached others or executed the exercises themselves. And what you see in videos is just a few minutes of their training lives. You think this sums up DECADES of training for them?
[quote]dt79 wrote:
this new “constant tension” catchphrase is getting out of hand. It’s like the start of a new pendulum shift after all the “naturals should only do low reps and fullbody workouts” crap, and everyone suddenly knows how old school bodybuilders trained by reading stuff on the internet.[/quote]
That’s what both Gironda and Nubret recommended, actually, don’t let the muscle rest even for a split second.
[/quote]
That is a RECOMMENDATION. It does not mean it was done in exactly that manner in PRACTICE. I have heard a national bodybuilding coach(in this context, coach of a country’s national team) say exactly the same thing, but in practice, I have never seen a lifter training under him put his all into a set of high rep squats and didn’t pause at least 3-4 times nearing muscular failure. The intensity and effort put into a set is what matters, NOT even the rep number, depth or how often you lock out.
This is what I’m talking about. You are relying on the internet and selected quotes from people without seeing how they actually coached others or executed the exercises themselves. And what you see in videos is just a few minutes of their training lives. You think this sums up DECADES of training for them?[/quote]
Main thing for me is that it allows you to get more out of a light weight. Others will argue that it’s for the occlusion effect. The other thing is that the weight in flipcollar’s recorded set is too heavy for this particular routine, and this has to do with the way it is performed; I don’t think anybody said that it wasn’t a great set, or perfectly legit, btw.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
this new “constant tension” catchphrase is getting out of hand. It’s like the start of a new pendulum shift after all the “naturals should only do low reps and fullbody workouts” crap, and everyone suddenly knows how old school bodybuilders trained by reading stuff on the internet.[/quote]
That’s what both Gironda and Nubret recommended, actually, don’t let the muscle rest even for a split second.
[/quote]
That is a RECOMMENDATION. It does not mean it was done in exactly that manner in PRACTICE. I have heard a national bodybuilding coach(in this context, coach of a country’s national team) say exactly the same thing, but in practice, I have never seen a lifter training under him put his all into a set of high rep squats and didn’t pause at least 3-4 times nearing muscular failure. The intensity and effort put into a set is what matters, NOT even the rep number, depth or how often you lock out.
This is what I’m talking about. You are relying on the internet and selected quotes from people without seeing how they actually coached others or executed the exercises themselves. And what you see in videos is just a few minutes of their training lives. You think this sums up DECADES of training for them?[/quote]
Main thing for me is that it allows you to get more out of a light weight. Others will argue that it’s for the occlusion effect. The other thing is that the weight in flipcollar’s recorded set is too heavy for this particular routine, and this has to do with the way it is performed; I don’t think anybody said that it wasn’t a great set, or perfectly legit, btw.
[/quote]
At this point I really am curious what weight I would have to use to knock out 8 sets of 12, with only 60 seconds rest between sets. It has to be stupidly low. I may try it with 135 next time I squat.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
At this point I really am curious what weight I would have to use to knock out 8 sets of 12, with only 60 seconds rest between sets. It has to be stupidly low. I may try it with 135 next time I squat.[/quote]
[quote]dt79 wrote:
The intensity and effort put into a set is what matters, NOT even the rep number, depth or how often you lock out.
[/quote]
This took me SO long to figure out. I remember being young and reading the elitefts logs and wondering why everyone was “training wrong” because they weren’t using the “strength rep range” for all their movements.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
The intensity and effort put into a set is what matters, NOT even the rep number, depth or how often you lock out.
[/quote]
This took me SO long to figure out. I remember being young and reading the elitefts logs and wondering why everyone was “training wrong” because they weren’t using the “strength rep range” for all their movements.
[/quote]
Haha I remember when I was young, one of the big guys I trained with would yell, “(loosely translated) Don’t count the reps! I will count for you! Just empty your fucking tank!” when we were doing squats or deadlifts for reps.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
At this point I really am curious what weight I would have to use to knock out 8 sets of 12, with only 60 seconds rest between sets. It has to be stupidly low. I may try it with 135 next time I squat.[/quote]
For squats, it’s 90 seconds. Try 225 at least.
[/quote]
You’re vastly overestimating my level of conditioning. But I could start at that and see how things go.
To lump even more onto this whole thing. In at least one of his programs, Waterbury liked to cut-off the RM when a rep is significantly slower in terms of bar speed than the previous rep, when utilizing that rep max for several sets and not specifically an all-out rep max attempt.
[quote]TX iron wrote:
To lump even more onto this whole thing. In at least one of his programs, Waterbury liked to cut-off the RM when a rep is significantly slower in terms of bar speed than the previous rep, when utilizing that rep max for several sets and not specifically an all-out rep max attempt.[/quote]
That would probably help quite a bit, especially when you’re first adapting to such high volume. But when you’re used to it, that’s when the real fun starts.
Yet another reason I really like the modified reverse pyramid setup. I can start with a much higher weight, push absolutely as many reps as possible without locking out, and not have to worry about the next few sets. 60 seconds of rest and 10% less weight later, I’m hitting another set that’s just as tough as the last one, for the same number of reps.
So for example, if I wanted to hit 6x12 with narrow stance, full depth safety bar squats; I could do:
6x12 straight sets with ~150lbs
Or
220x12, 200x12, 180x12, 165x12, 150x12,135x12.
Every set is equally hard to complete, and total work is higher.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
The intensity and effort put into a set is what matters, NOT even the rep number, depth or how often you lock out.
[/quote]
This took me SO long to figure out. I remember being young and reading the elitefts logs and wondering why everyone was “training wrong” because they weren’t using the “strength rep range” for all their movements.
[/quote]
Haha I remember when I was young, one of the big guys I trained with would yell, “(loosely translated) Don’t count the reps! I will count for you! Just empty your fucking tank!” when we were doing squats or deadlifts for reps.[/quote]
