I’m struggling a little finding fragmented info in a lot of threads. I’ve been doing ramping sets of 3, feeling for the max force points etc and thats fine. I’ve seen threads on splits where the issue of which split… is a non-issue. thats fine too.
Here’s my question - In CT’s “black book of training secrets”, volumes of 80-120 reps per muscle per week are recommended depending on fibre type. With the perfect rep does this change? Or are they more effective so less reps are needed / wanted? I’m working based on an average of 6 sets ramping = 18 reps, plus max reps maybe bringing to 25 reps / exercise
Second question - already answered now from further searches… thank you!
Just so i know roughly how a workout is supposed to be structured to take best advantage.
That’s the whole point of “autoregulation” little to no structure. Performance on the training day determines how much volume. Pretty sure that’s what the purpose of it is, to get newbies to listen to their bodies quicker so they can make better gains.
LOL i like it C_C! I’m happy with the idea of auto regulation of the set, and that does make more sense than 3x10 reps at x kg etc. The ramping up gives a good feel for how you are on the day. But there’s still a framework involved i.e. i know i’m going to do sets of 3 to a maximum dominated weight, then a back down set if not totally knackered.
Auto regulation for exercises and workouts in the week though, could be missed by miles. CT seems to be careful about the recovery abilities from each exercise for good reasons so i’m just wondering on how to “feel” how much is too much, or too little. For instance what if one week i decide i’m going for it, really going to do my shoulders, and out of pure enthusiasm do 2 exercises for shoulders for 3 workouts a week. Just because i feel like it. The week after, knackered shoulders, i do one exercise once.
The ramping set is finely balanced, the variation is quite small, do i stop at 5 sets? do 6? feel great and do 9? not a lot of difference in volume. start throwing in or taking out whole exercises 18-30 reps at a time makes a whole lot more difference on weekly work done.
Personally i do 2 alternating workouts, horizontal push/pull and rack deads one day; vertical push/pull and squats the other. throw in bi’s and tri’s for sets of 5 depending each time. one exercise per direction each time. that seems to be the prescribed 3 exercises per workout.
Just wondering what the thinking is on how many times a week to workout? do these back to back for 6 days, both twice a week on 4, alternate of 3 days like dc, or each once a week? a massive difference in volumes and frequency which seems a bit too much for auto regulation for me.
[quote]uklifts wrote:
LOL i like it C_C! I’m happy with the idea of auto regulation of the set, and that does make more sense than 3x10 reps at x kg etc. The ramping up gives a good feel for how you are on the day. But there’s still a framework involved i.e. i know i’m going to do sets of 3 to a maximum dominated weight, then a back down set if not totally knackered.
Auto regulation for exercises and workouts in the week though, could be missed by miles. CT seems to be careful about the recovery abilities from each exercise for good reasons so i’m just wondering on how to “feel” how much is too much, or too little. For instance what if one week i decide i’m going for it, really going to do my shoulders, and out of pure enthusiasm do 2 exercises for shoulders for 3 workouts a week. Just because i feel like it. The week after, knackered shoulders, i do one exercise once.
The ramping set is finely balanced, the variation is quite small, do i stop at 5 sets? do 6? feel great and do 9? not a lot of difference in volume. start throwing in or taking out whole exercises 18-30 reps at a time makes a whole lot more difference on weekly work done.
Personally i do 2 alternating workouts, horizontal push/pull and rack deads one day; vertical push/pull and squats the other. throw in bi’s and tri’s for sets of 5 depending each time. one exercise per direction each time. that seems to be the prescribed 3 exercises per workout.
Just wondering what the thinking is on how many times a week to workout? do these back to back for 6 days, both twice a week on 4, alternate of 3 days like dc, or each once a week? a massive difference in volumes and frequency which seems a bit too much for auto regulation for me.[/quote]
Do you realize that CT has already addressed each of the points in his forum posts?
[quote]uklifts wrote:
LOL i like it C_C! I’m happy with the idea of auto regulation of the set, and that does make more sense than 3x10 reps at x kg etc. The ramping up gives a good feel for how you are on the day. But there’s still a framework involved i.e. i know i’m going to do sets of 3 to a maximum dominated weight, then a back down set if not totally knackered.
Auto regulation for exercises and workouts in the week though, could be missed by miles. CT seems to be careful about the recovery abilities from each exercise for good reasons so i’m just wondering on how to “feel” how much is too much, or too little. For instance what if one week i decide i’m going for it, really going to do my shoulders, and out of pure enthusiasm do 2 exercises for shoulders for 3 workouts a week. Just because i feel like it. The week after, knackered shoulders, i do one exercise once.[/quote]
Don’t you realize that the situation you just described is basically “autoregulation” in practice? autoregulation is just a fancy term that CT had to come up with so people would start listening to their body, yet you still lost sight of the message. jesus christ. It’s one thing to ask for help man, but you want to be spoon fed.
[quote]
The ramping set is finely balanced, the variation is quite small, do i stop at 5 sets? do 6? feel great and do 9? not a lot of difference in volume. start throwing in or taking out whole exercises 18-30 reps at a time makes a whole lot more difference on weekly work done.
Personally i do 2 alternating workouts, horizontal push/pull and rack deads one day; vertical push/pull and squats the other. throw in bi’s and tri’s for sets of 5 depending each time. one exercise per direction each time. that seems to be the prescribed 3 exercises per workout.
Just wondering what the thinking is on how many times a week to workout? do these back to back for 6 days, both twice a week on 4, alternate of 3 days like dc, or each once a week? a massive difference in volumes and frequency which seems a bit too much for auto regulation for me.[/quote]
ive made 4 posts, and feel so welcome already. thanks guys. do you speak to people in real life like this? this is why ive merely read this site the last 2 years, as i knew any question tends to get all blown out of proportion
ive read loads about the perfect rep, what it is, supposed to be, benefits of, how to perform, what it is and isnt supposed to feel like. ive tried it in practice, yes i get it ok!
I havent found a thread that specifically deals with how many workouts a week are recommended. or what are ways of deciding how much, thats all! ive seen CT say dont worry about your split its not the most important thing. right ok, no problem. just a guideline will do, just like a 5-10 sets of ramping is a guideline, is 1,2,3, whatever exercises a week recommended per bodypart. i havent seen it, im so sorry, read loads of threads and not picked it up. my dear sensitive t-readers after attempting to read every thread in this particular forum, i havent noticed it. hence raising a thread on a subject…
[quote]uklifts wrote:
I havent found a thread that specifically deals with how many workouts a week are recommended. or what are ways of deciding how much, thats all! [/quote]
He’s discussed this at least a few times, so keep looking.
[quote]uklifts wrote:
my dear sensitive t-readers after attempting to read every thread in this particular forum, i havent noticed it. hence raising a thread on a subject…[/quote]
I don’t think that those of us who’ve responded came off as sensitive at all. It’s just that the same questions get asked over and over in this forum because people either don’t make the effort to look for the answers or they think that they are somehow different and will thus get a different response from CT.
Right i’ll have one last go to say what my question is. i’m not a newbie as far as lifting goes, not looking for a “different answer”, not refusing to read or search.
In amongst all the junk questions that have been asked, i can see CT has replied with suggested training splits copied and pasted from one of his articles. I am NOT asking about splits/workouts per week. the split as CT says - is how to divide your WEEKLY VOLUME OF REPS. the weekly volume is what im asking about.
I am asking a ballpark training volume per bodypart - as in CT own book states 80-120 reps approx per bodypart per week. type of split and number of workouts and frequency to suit your own body. I’m happy to work within that guideline already, plenty of room for “autoregulation” there.
Again jim wendler 5/3/1 - says essentially 2 lots of 5x10 assistance per workout. up to you what and how you do it. thats 400 reps / week of assistance. if your knackered, skip them. ok lovely, no need to ask questions there. ballpark rep volume/week is given
In addition CT has often answered peoples queries such as how many max reps sets should i do after the ramp ups with - “one max reps set only or it’ll hinder recovery”. so there are guidelines there, not just “make it all up totally on the day thats autoregulation”
So - is it still 80-120 reps/week/bodypart? yes/no?
Are these reps so much better or possibly more taxing that the volume of reps/week needs to be lowered?
Are these reps sufficiently more activating than normal to allow for more weekly volume and still have good recovery?
Or in fact is there no difference really in overall recovery effect, just a more motivating drive during the workout?
In some workouts a ramp of 6x3 followed by 5x5 of 85%, which i have seen long before this, would be considered a “warmup” and then 25 work reps. With the fast pace of training and max effort nature of the ramp sets would they be considered now “work reps” to be included with the overall volume of the workout. I’d assume so since CT says EVERY rep should aim to have a training effect, not just idly warming up.
The only comments made so far in this area are “twice a week stimulation, or once or 3 times depending on the person”, and various split suggestions. Also the comment “stimulate as much as possible as often as possible without hindering recovery”. But i have NOT seem an overall ballpark rep range suggestion. meaning you could greatly over or undershoot the ideal amount of reps.
Thats all - 80-120reps/part/week still roughly ok, or more, or less. simple as…
Thibs said: "90% of the population will respond best to two weekly stimulations per muscle group, and 100% of the population can get very good results with this frequency. "
This tell me almost everyone is safest doing two weeklies and not trying to fuss about being the 10% guy.
Thibs has mentioned: “80-120 reps per bodypart per week.”
That’s a LOT of variance. But OK. Let’s assume some combo of ramping 6x3s plus higher rep sets…to personal taste and recovery.
Thibs said: “I PERSONALLY don’t like to do a lot of different exercises. I prefer to increase volume (if needed) by doing more of the same stuff within a workout (I might have more variation from workout to workout).”
Indeed, Thibs gave an example of just 1 exercise he did–bench press–done with some contraction variation in the session for a total of 17 reps.
OK.
My question is why does anyone who is not a high-level competing bodybuilder really need to do more than ONE exercise per session per bodypart trained (assuming also a different related movement can be used on the other same-bodypart day)? I mean, are proper squats not enough to significantly hypertrophy glutes and quads (and deads or leg press the other day)? Is Bench pressing alone not enough for chest (and incline bench, or dips, or DB pressesm say, the other day?).
Seems to me that added exercise for the same bodypart is unnecessary re-recruitment of most of the same fibers; i.e., redundant. Indeed, Thibs seems to prefers fewer movements, but gives examples using more than one (for himself).
So again, why is one movement per bodypart per session not pretty much all you need if you get the right mount of sessional volume? Isn’t that more than sufficient hypertrophy (certainly strength) for just about anyone?
Again a good question. For info the 80-120 was for different fiber types i.e. fast - mixed - slow, was 80 - 100 - 120. so each one had a specfic target. If you search google for “80% test” you can find how to determine fibre type for each muscle group and adjust accordingly.
Not sure if this is the kind of guideline you’re looking for … I don’t want to remove any of CT’s recommendations from their context, so he wrote in the Perfect Rep article:
[quote]SETS
The target number of sets per exercise is 6 sets. With the auto-regulation principle, we will do as many as 10 sets per exercise and as few as 4 sets, but the target is always 6 sets per exercise.
The end result is, you’re performing 18 to 30 max efforts per exercise!
EXERCISES
We get our best results from using no more than three exercises per workout. Again, we’re after quality of performance, and you simply cannot train this way and do more than about three exercises in a workout.
[/quote]
Based on his shoulder specialization program, I think he might recommend more than 3 exercises, in certain circumstances, such as types of supersets.
Thanks, Brian. But I believe he suggests sessional volume must also depend on the routine organization. I’m talking about a normal training approach, not specialization.
So, if doing Total Body Training, you are doing, say Chest, Back, Legs–all for ONE exercise each, right–with Perfect Rep or Waterbury methods (which are very similar except that Waterbury likes constant loads and Thibs ramps–a big difference not mentioned, I think before). But just 1 exercise per BP makes sense because the overall sessional and weekly demand --especially when legs are involved each day–is pretty high, so bodypart volume must be lower to compensate.
Note even with “only” one exercise, one can do a minimum of 6 sets, so lots of volume.
If you train with the 4-day or 6-day splits I’ve seen here, they are doubling or tripling that bodypart volume. And for how much more–if any–muscular gain (not just pump)? I mean, really? Would it even be visible as permanent gain?
So is one exercise really enough per bodypart (I think it must be)? I think science would likely support just 1 exercise per bodypart since pretty much anything else would be a redundant recruitment of the SAME involved fibers (as with Bench Press plus Incline Bench Press, say). I realize bodybuilders do not believe that is true, but it is likely so.
This is a big question since anything more than 1 exercise represents a HUGE increase in bodypart sessional volume on a % basis. And if it is not necessary to do more, then that changes a lot of factors, saves wear and tear, enhances recovery, etc.
Thanks, Brian. But I believe he suggests sessional volume must also depend on the routine organization. I’m talking about a normal training approach, not specialization.
So, if doing Total Body Training, you are doing, say Chest, Back, Legs–all for ONE exercise each, right–with Perfect Rep or Waterbury methods (which are very similar except that Waterbury likes constant loads and Thibs ramps–a big difference not mentioned, I think before). But just 1 exercise per BP makes sense because the overall sessional and weekly demand --especially when legs are involved each day–is pretty high, so bodypart volume must be lower to compensate.
Note even with “only” one exercise, one can do a minimum of 6 sets, so lots of volume.
If you train with the 4-day or 6-day splits I’ve seen here, they are doubling or tripling that bodypart volume. And for how much more–if any–muscular gain (not just pump)? I mean, really? Would it even be visible as permanent gain?
So is one exercise really enough per bodypart (I think it must be)? I think science would likely support just 1 exercise per bodypart since pretty much anything else would be a redundant recruitment of the SAME involved fibers (as with Bench Press plus Incline Bench Press, say). I realize bodybuilders do not believe that is true, but it is likely so.
This is a big question since anything more than 1 exercise represents a HUGE increase in bodypart sessional volume on a % basis. And if it is not necessary to do more, then that changes a lot of factors, saves wear and tear, enhances recovery, etc.
Juts curious to hear what you guys believe.
Roy
[/quote]
From my experience i believe for a long time I’ve not done enough volume. i’ve worked with intensity as in %ge of 1rm, but not for long enough and so my progress has not been enough. In the prev mentioned CT book, he organised the exercises into 5x5 supersets, e.g. 5 reps barbell bench followed by 5 reps db, for 5 sets. i forget all the actual exercises. each bodypart as in shoulders, chest, back, biceps, tricpes, hams, quads, all had approx 100 reps each. which is 700 reps to spread over 3 days, hence training more often being suggested.
That seems to be CTs point with TBT, that if you did 3 exercises per workout, thats 9 exercises for 7 bodyparts. could you hit 100 reps in one exercise? thats personal choice and workout selection. if you did vert push/pull+quads one day and horiz push/pull+posterior another, you could do that more often for more volume, ie 4,5,6 days a week.
The volume you need is individual hence all this autoregulation stuff, but in my experience its easy to undershoot volume, thinking your working hard, but not qorking to your actual capacity and so not progressing as fast as you could.
hence why i wanted to know if volume was any different with this style of rep. I think also the perfect rep style/ramping/ratcheting etc, lends itself to, or maybe requires a specialization approach, simply to fit the required volume into each week i.e. 250 reps for shoulders
[quote]uklifts wrote:The volume you need is individual hence all this autoregulation stuff, but in my experience its easy to undershoot volume, thinking your working hard, but not qorking to your actual capacity and so not progressing as fast as you could.
hence why i wanted to know if volume was any different with this style of rep. I think also the perfect rep style/ramping/ratcheting etc, lends itself to, or maybe requires a specialization approach, simply to fit the required volume into each week i.e. 250 reps for shoulders[/quote]
Hi, UK. I’m thinking that if TBT were used, then all anyone needs is about 25-40 reps (MAX) per session per exercise AND that just one exercise is really needed per major bodypart, and only 4 exercises total in the whole session–for all the bodyparts. For example, if training TBT 3 days per week:
Bench Press on Day 1 for say, 25-40 reps; Incline Bench the next day; Perhaps Dips or DB presses the third. And no other “chest” movements on any of those days. Heck, Shoulders and Triceps are getting pounded with that too.
Then do your compound moves for back (pulling) and hips/legs (but also just one movement each). And throw in maybe one more movement for some other area and you are done in under an hour. Remember, how much work the biceps will get from pulling, the shoulders and triceps from any pressing, and a lot gets accomplished with squats and deads.
Even though it is done “by everyone” in gyms, I can’t possibly rationalize the NEED to do Bench Press plus Incline Bench plus Flys/Pec Dec plus whatever else in any one session for “chest development”. The redundancy is overwhelming. And I believe that most of the “chest” fibers that are going to be involved, will be recruited with any ONE basic chest exercise–per session.
Thus, I see Waterbury’s TBT approaches as being sound, but to try ramping as Thibs suggests, moving fast as possible for 25-40 reps total reps per exercise on THAT day and 75 to 120 reps per week among all the exercises for “that bodypart”. What else would really be needed that session for any but the very few who compete at high levels? Put another way, what scientific or physiological argument would support the need for all that added work, beyond that which already recruits the bulk of the involvable fibers with the one main exercise per session?
I also think “Specialization” doesn’t really say much since doing “more” than enough does not insure better development, and the need for “specialization” is almost always, IMO, due to genetics that ain’t gonna’ change much on a particular body no matter how much added attention that bodypart gets. The reverse is also true, as we know, those blessed with great calves, necks, forearms, for example, need do little if any direct work.