[quote]DH wrote:
Well there are a few ways to look at this, Zraw.
-
This is a supergrowth phase and the purpose is to create a rebound effect so I don’t think your idea is off base at all. But the one caveat to take into the big picture is duration of supergrowth. On many programs guys will deload for a week. Call it Blast and Dust or Blast and Cruise or whatever your flavor is. In the end its a down week or two at most.
-
BBB gives you a true 3 week phase. In my opinion this is too long to just go with what you propose. If we were going a week or two, then I like the idea. But the duration of your “cruise” is longer than others suggest. Also, by virtue of fewer reps and sets, the total volume has been reduced by about 40-60% (without busting out a calculator). Then the rest periods are increased dramatically. This creates a longer and more long term plan for rebound/growth.
So, you idea is solid for sure, but it would be better to back off that significantly ONLY if you were using a week or two for a “cruise”.
Now, I do like the idea of leaving a rep in the hole, at least until the final set. But you will find that I like this approach most of the time anyway. Leaving one rep shy will give the same growth response and better ensure recovery.
Now, one thing I should clarify. Leaving a rep in the hole is best left to guys with a good 6 months expereience at least. They know where that point is and they can generate the intensity that allows them to benefit from coming “close” to failure vs failure.
Here is a study that hits on this idea:
J Appl Physiol 100: 1647-1656, 2006. First published January 12, 2006; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01400.2005
8750-7587/06 $8.00
Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains
Mikel Izquierdo,1 Javier Iba�±ez,1 Juan Jos�© Gonz�¡lez-Badillo,2 Keijo H�¤kkinen,3 Nicholas A. Ratamess,4 William J. Kraemer,5 Duncan N. French,6 Jesus Eslava,1 Aritz Altadill,1 Xabier Asiain,1 and Esteban M. Gorostiaga1
1Studies, Research and Sport Medicine Center, Government of Navarra and 2Olympic Center of Sport Studies, Spanish Olympic Committee, Madrid, Spain; 3Department of Biology of Physical Activity, University of Jyv�¤skyl�¤, Jyv�¤skyl�¤, Finland, 4Department of Health and Exercise Science, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, New Jersey; 5Department of Kinesiology, Human Performance Laboratory, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut; and 6Institute of Sport, Northumbria University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
Submitted 4 November 2005 ; accepted in final form 8 January 2006
The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of 11 wk of resistance training to failure vs. nonfailure, followed by an identical 5-wk peaking period of maximal strength and power training for both groups as well as to examine the underlying physiological changes in basal circulating anabolic and catabolic hormones. Forty-two physically active men were matched and then randomly assigned to either a training to failure (RF; n = 14), nonfailure (NRF; n = 15), or control groups (C; n = 13). Muscular and power testing and blood draws to determine basal hormonal concentrations were conducted before the initiation of training (T0), after 6 wk of training (T1), after 11 wk of training (T2), and after 16 wk of training (T3). Both RF and NRF resulted in similar gains in 1-repetition maximum bench press (23 and 23%) and parallel squat (22 and 23%), muscle power output of the arm (27 and 28%) and leg extensor muscles (26 and 29%), and maximal number of repetitions performed during parallel squat (66 and 69%). RF group experienced larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions performed during the bench press. The peaking phase (T2 to T3) after NRF resulted in larger gains in muscle power output of the lower extremities, whereas after RF it resulted in larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions performed during the bench press. Strength training leading to RF resulted in reductions in resting concentrations of IGF-1 and elevations in IGFBP-3, whereas NRF resulted in reduced resting cortisol concentrations and an elevation in resting serum total testosterone concentration. This investigation demonstrated a potential beneficial stimulus of NRF for improving strength and power, especially during the subsequent peaking training period, whereas performing sets to failure resulted in greater gains in local muscular endurance. Elevation in IGFBP-3 after resistance training may have been compensatory to accommodate the reduction in IGF-1 to preserve IGF availability.
strength training; repetition to failure; insulin-like growth factor 1; insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-3; testosterone; cortisol
[/quote]
Thank you for the reply and explanations
