Prof X or Others Help: Moving from Upper/Lower

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
That was my old way of ramping. As I said, I’m trying out CT’s variant and am liking it. You can choose either of the two… Perhaps start your heavy exercise with a CT ramp of fives or threes and do your second exercise the way shown above.

Right now, I’m going to be doing CT ramping (fives) for upper body, but just use your old way of ramping for lower body (to keep volume low and enable a higher rep range).

So for benching as an example it would be:

1308
1805
2103
Work sets
2505
2505
2505
2505
2505
[/quote] That is not ramping, and certainly not the way CT trains
It’s one of the various 5x5 variants, a non-ramped one in this case. (Not my fav, especially outside of dedicated 5x5 programs, to be completely honest)
What’s your Bench max (rough estimate is fine) ?

A CT ramp for you may look like this (5 reps on warm-ups as well for simplicity’s sake)
45x5
135x5
155x5 (last feel set)
180x5 (first work set)
205x5
230x5
255x5
(265x5 if you felt strong enough on the last set/didn’t hit failure…)
and possibly more… Or less… Depending on where you hit failure. All reps are done explosively etc, see the “perfect rep” guidelines in CT’s sub-forum…

I choose 25 lbs jumps here for most of the work sets, but you’ll just have to find your individual preferences… Rest periods are fairly short, except perhaps before the last set or two…

[quote]

Just a note to BR, my failure on the last rep of my 5th set is a “comfortable failure” (where one more rep with not so good form could have been made). This will change if I progress in the load too quickly…something I’d rather not happen (I’d rather the sets feel “comfortable” so that progression is pretty much guaranteed).

Then, for sqauts/DL my scheme would be as follows (example):

-1308
-2005
-2403
-30012
[/quote] Depending on how many exercises you do for your lower body, you might want to consider doing a heavy (5-8 or 4-6) rep set followed by a somewhat lighter 9-12 repper… Works pretty well. Try to progress on both whenever you can. That’s for the main exercises, squat variants and DL variants mostly.[quote]
I like high reps for lower body (seems to make it grow better). And I find it’s easier to make rep progression (per set) on higher reps - whereas, for upper body the multiple sets allow the possibility of gradual progression (i.e. 3 sets to failure is harder to progress on than 5 sets with just the last being failure).[/quote]

[Bill_Roberts]

[quote]Antares wrote:
BR, this ‘Beast Protocol’ is allot like, but not identical to some of my mentors practices…Who is CT? He is Christian Thibaudeau, from this site, correct? You put him in the ranks of those Soviets, and and the American Simmons ( Whom as far as I know, uses methods based on the Soviet stuff ). Thats is a fascinating honor.

In light of your obvious formal ( weight training ) education. ( You have read allot of books correct )? I will look further into this CT dude.

( Edited due to my lack of computer skills ).[/quote]

Yes, by CT I meant Christian Thibaudeau.

Yes, I have a very high opinion of him (and not for reasons having anything to do with any affiliation with Biotest.) I didn’t necessarily mean a full equivalence in including his name in the same phrase, but definitely I take his advice with serious weight.

[Antares]

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

I like high reps for lower body (seems to make it grow better). And I find it’s easier to make rep progression (per set) on higher reps - whereas, for upper body the multiple sets allow the possibility of gradual progression (i.e. 3 sets to failure is harder to progress on than 5 sets with just the last being failure).[/quote]

OP : I too have found like CC ( if I understand his post ), that high-set-low-rep systems works well for your ‘main’ Leg Movements ( such as Full Squats ) lets say, and then the ‘analogue’ work like Good Morning or Lunges Variations, being at a high-rep-low-set system.

[Bill_Roberts]

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
its_just_me wrote:
Right now, I’m going to be doing CT ramping (fives) for upper body, but just use your old way of ramping for lower body (to keep volume low and enable a higher rep range).

So for benching as an example it would be:

1308
1805
2103
Work sets
2505
2505
2505
2505
2505

That is not ramping, and certainly not the way CT trains
It’s one of the various 5x5 variants, a non-ramped one in this case. (Not my fav, especially outside of dedicated 5x5 programs, to be completely honest)
What’s your Bench max (rough estimate is fine) ?

A CT ramp for you may look like this (5 reps on warm-ups as well for simplicity’s sake)
45x5
135x5
155x5 (last feel set)
180x5 (first work set)
205x5
230x5
255x5
(265x5 if you felt strong enough on the last set/didn’t hit failure…)
and possibly more… Or less… Depending on where you hit failure. All reps are done explosively etc, see the “perfect rep” guidelines in CT’s sub-forum…

I choose 25 lbs jumps here for most of the work sets, but you’ll just have to find your individual preferences… Rest periods are fairly short, except perhaps before the last set or two…[/quote]

Just for clarity:

My reason for following up with a straight-weight 5x5 explanation, after I’d previously discussed ramping protocols, was because after the ramping explanations the OP still planned on doing straight-weight.

And as that can work, it was a “you asked for it, you got it!” deal.* Which is something I always try to do when reasonable. I don’t have any problem with people wanting to try any of various things that can work well even if not my first recommendation.

• 10 points for anyone remembering what Arnold movie that is a quote from (not by Arnold) and what was written down immediately afterwards.

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

Just for clarity:

My reason for following up with a straight-weight 5x5 explanation, after I’d previously discussed ramping protocols, was because after the ramping explanations the OP still planned on doing straight-weight.
[/quote] I was just confused as to why it’s_just_me would state
“Right now, I’m going to be doing CT ramping (fives) for upper body” and then proceed to give an example of an upper body lift done with straight weight 5x5

So I assumed that he had misunderstood something and thus gave my example. [quote]

And as that can work, it was a “you asked for it, you got it!” deal.* Which is something I always try to do when reasonable. I don’t have any problem with people wanting to try any of various things that can work well even if not my first recommendation.

• 10 points for anyone remembering what Arnold movie that is a quote from (not by Arnold) and what was written down immediately afterwards.[/quote]

[its_just_me]

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
That is not ramping, and certainly not the way CT trains
It’s one of the various 5x5 variants, a non-ramped one in this case. (Not my fav, especially outside of dedicated 5x5 programs, to be completely honest)
What’s your Bench max (rough estimate is fine) ?

A CT ramp for you may look like this (5 reps on warm-ups as well for simplicity’s sake)
45x5
135x5
155x5 (last feel set)
180x5 (first work set)
205x5
230x5
255x5
(265x5 if you felt strong enough on the last set/didn’t hit failure…)
and possibly more… Or less… Depending on where you hit failure. All reps are done explosively etc, see the “perfect rep” guidelines in CT’s sub-forum…

I choose 25 lbs jumps here for most of the work sets, but you’ll just have to find your individual preferences… Rest periods are fairly short, except perhaps before the last set or two…

Depending on how many exercises you do for your lower body, you might want to consider doing a heavy (5-8 or 4-6) rep set followed by a somewhat lighter 9-12 repper… Works pretty well. Try to progress on both whenever you can. That’s for the main exercises, squat variants and DL variants mostly.
[/quote]

My benching is about 6 reps (max) for 255lbs (haven’t tested 1RM recently).

For some reason, I can do several sets of 5 reps at just 245lbs, but if I were to do my first set at 255lbs (and fail at 7 reps), my reps after that 1st max set would quickly drop (like 5, 4 etc). In other words, just by dropping the load by 10lbs, I can do loads more total reps (the tonnage is a lot greater). I understand now though, that I should NOT be failing on my first set lol.

Is there any particular reason why a constant load is not good?

e.g. 5x5 with 245lbs (failing on last set?)

I guess ramping would allow ones best loads to be used without burnout?

Yeah I’ve heard a lot of people recommending one heavy set with a “light” set on the legs (I think it was on Dante’s site). Something I’ll probably try. Although the high rep set for lower body feels pretty brutal enough lol…especially since there isn’t even that much of a difference in the load between a 6 rep max and a 12 rep max for some reason??? Only about 30lbs lighter for the high reps. Or is that just me?).

[Bill_Roberts]

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
So I assumed that he had misunderstood something and thus gave my example. [/quote]

Oh yes, your example was clearly needed.

I can appreciate the OP’s difficulty: it’s a real problem having both new ideas AND new terminology – that the brain does not already have “slots” for – presented at the same time.

(I’ve long been interested in what are the practical impediments to learning and how to get around them for people.)

As an example of the difficulty the brain has with this kind of thing:

Imagine that someone is giving you say a 5-step set of directions to get someplace and every landmark and street he names is well-familiar to you.

This is not hard to understand, is it? The brain does not struggle, and the directions will likely get through and be usable on a single reciting. As the instructions are being given, your mind is saying “Oh yeah, the Acme Rocket factory, okay, we turn right there” and is comprehending everything just as fast as it’s given.

But what if the directions are of the precise same sort, but every landmark and street is an utter unknown to your mind?

If there were just one, you could likely still use the directions, but there would be more mental effort involved with the 1-step directions with the one unfamiliar term than with the 5-step directions with all well-familiar terms.

But a somewhat lengthy set of directions like that with every landmark being something your mind does not have a “slot” for already and therefore cannot really process the information?

Very very hard.

[its_just_me]

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
I was just confused as to why it’s_just_me would state
“Right now, I’m going to be doing CT ramping (fives) for upper body” and then proceed to give an example of an upper body lift done with straight weight 5x5

So I assumed that he had misunderstood something and thus gave my example.
[/quote]

Correct, lol. I thought that BR was talking about ramping when he was talking about the 5X5 straight sets. It’s a bit obvious now that I think about it…duh

[its_just_me]

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
So I assumed that he had misunderstood something and thus gave my example.

Oh yes, your example was clearly needed.

I can appreciate the OP’s difficulty: it’s a real problem having both new ideas AND new terminology – that the brain does not already have “slots” for – presented at the same time.

(I’ve long been interested in what are the practical impediments to learning and how to get around them for people.)

As an example of the difficulty the brain has with this kind of thing:

Imagine that someone is giving you say a 5-step set of directions to get someplace and every landmark and street he names is well-familiar to you.

This is not hard to understand, is it? The brain does not struggle, and the directions will likely get through and be usable on a single reciting. As the instructions are being given, your mind is saying “Oh yeah, the Acme Rocket factory, okay, we turn right there” and is comprehending everything just as fast as it’s given.

But what if the directions are of the precise same sort, but every landmark and street is an utter unknown to your mind?

If there were just one, you could likely still use the directions, but there would be more mental effort involved with the 1-step directions with the one unfamiliar term than with the 5-step directions with all well-familiar terms.

But a somewhat lengthy set of directions like that with every landmark being something your mind does not have a “slot” for already and therefore cannot really process the information?

Very very hard.[/quote]

Thankyou all for your patience/understanding…I’m surprised you haven’t gotton fed up with me by now lol.

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
That is not ramping, and certainly not the way CT trains
It’s one of the various 5x5 variants, a non-ramped one in this case. (Not my fav, especially outside of dedicated 5x5 programs, to be completely honest)
What’s your Bench max (rough estimate is fine) ?

A CT ramp for you may look like this (5 reps on warm-ups as well for simplicity’s sake)
45x5
135x5
155x5 (last feel set)
180x5 (first work set)
205x5
230x5
255x5
(265x5 if you felt strong enough on the last set/didn’t hit failure…)
and possibly more… Or less… Depending on where you hit failure. All reps are done explosively etc, see the “perfect rep” guidelines in CT’s sub-forum…

I choose 25 lbs jumps here for most of the work sets, but you’ll just have to find your individual preferences… Rest periods are fairly short, except perhaps before the last set or two…

Depending on how many exercises you do for your lower body, you might want to consider doing a heavy (5-8 or 4-6) rep set followed by a somewhat lighter 9-12 repper… Works pretty well. Try to progress on both whenever you can. That’s for the main exercises, squat variants and DL variants mostly.

My benching is about 6 reps (max) for 255lbs (haven’t tested 1RM recently).

For some reason, I can do several sets of 5 reps at just 245lbs, but if I were to do my first set at 255lbs (and fail at 7 reps), my reps after that 1st max set would quickly drop (like 5, 4 etc). In other words, just by dropping the load by 10lbs, I can do loads more total reps (the tonnage is a lot greater). I understand now though, that I should NOT be failing on my first set lol.
[/quote] I personally don’t care about tonnage at all… Now, don’t get me wrong. Some systems are based on it and work… More or less.
Again, CT’s recent work pretty much goes against the whole tonnage thing if you ask me…
Whenever I tried the whole “do 25 reps under workload” or “do 50 reps under workload” or whatever thing, my joints and tendons started to feel it… Most of these “rules” and suggestions seem too random to me, and often over the top. It’s nice that you can do 30 reps with your 3 RM in a session, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, get what I’m saying?
Not necessary for getting big and strong either, that one’s for sure.

[quote]
Is there any particular reason why a constant load is not good?

e.g. 5x5 with 245lbs (failing on last set?)

I guess ramping would allow ones best loads to be used without burnout?
[/quote] The ramping style I’ve mainly used over the years is closer to a “low volume” method, yeah… Works well for most of the BOI people and lots of others. It doesn’t cut into recovery all that much… More general fatigue than muscular soreness etc, but not a great deal anyhow unless you do a lot of exercises. [/quote]
The main difference between that and traditional bodybuilding-style ramping (as used by, say, Professor X) is that I go down in reps on my warm-ups to conserve more energy for my top set.)
Now, CT’s ramping is even more geared towards revving up your nervous system (or whatever…) to make you as strong as you can be in that particular workout.
Due to the smaller weight jumps compared to traditional BB ramping, you still get enough work above 70% of your max in, despite the usually low reps.

If you just can’t bring yourself to give up straight load training, then at least do your heavy ramped movement first:

-Bench press off the pins: CT ramp in threes (powerlifting setup, for heaven’s sake)
-HS Flat Bench or regular Bench or whatever: 5x5 straight weight (I wouldn’t do it, I’d just do some kind of ramping for everything)

Or alternatively, (this might actually work ok with that 3-way): Do just one movement for each muscle-group (or for most, anyway… Some imo are better off with two simply due to their various functions):
-Bench Press variant: CT ramp in threes or fives, then 5x5 straight weight on the same exercise with… Whatever, 80 percent of your top set or so to start with? Gotta find that one out yourself.

[quote]
Yeah I’ve heard a lot of people recommending one heavy set with a “light” set on the legs (I think it was on Dante’s site). Something I’ll probably try. Although the high rep set for lower body feels pretty brutal enough lol…especially since there isn’t even that much of a difference in the load between a 6 rep max and a 12 rep max for some reason??? Only about 30lbs lighter for the high reps. Or is that just me?).[/quote]

Well, back when I was training DC the difference between my heavy back squat set (4-6) and my widowmaker was 180 lbs near the end

The “2 top sets at different rep ranges” thing works very well for many people… I’d certainly do it if I were alternating between squats and deadlifts (for example) from cycle to cycle (i.e. leg session 1: squats + other shit, leg session 2: deadlifts + other shit) or if doing a triple rotation even…

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
My benching is about 6 reps (max) for 255lbs (haven’t tested 1RM recently).
[/quote]

Then when doing a CT ramp properly and also using 5 reps as your goal for each set, I’d say you should be good for about 270 or more for 5… But don’t get discouraged if you can’t hit that the first time around, it should only be a matter of 2 or so sessions then at most…

Thib’s system basically lets you do more work on days on which you feel good and are all revved up, and on days where you’re just not as good, it won’t force you to do some arbitrary amount of work and hence you can recover better (or whatever, CT is the smart man here, not me… Go read his threads

It works for me so far… Has been a godsend for my stubborn squat, that’s for sure…

[Bill_Roberts]

Again just for clarity: I brought in tonnage as a way of getting a handle on what the workload is for some scheme that is being considered, but which is an unknown.

For example, it was unknown (other than that an experienced person could have had an idea just from looking) just how severe the workload was that the OP had previously described.

Using relative tonnage enabled demonstrating that it was giving every bodypart a relative tonnage comparable to Smolov Jr, and therefore had to be excessive.

It was intended as a tool for being able to evaluate ideas that were being considered.

I don’t believe in using tonnage or relative tonnage as a direct target or as a principal factor in planning.

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
So I assumed that he had misunderstood something and thus gave my example.

Oh yes, your example was clearly needed.

I can appreciate the OP’s difficulty: it’s a real problem having both new ideas AND new terminology – that the brain does not already have “slots” for – presented at the same time.

(I’ve long been interested in what are the practical impediments to learning and how to get around them for people.)

As an example of the difficulty the brain has with this kind of thing:

Imagine that someone is giving you say a 5-step set of directions to get someplace and every landmark and street he names is well-familiar to you.

This is not hard to understand, is it? The brain does not struggle, and the directions will likely get through and be usable on a single reciting. As the instructions are being given, your mind is saying “Oh yeah, the Acme Rocket factory, okay, we turn right there” and is comprehending everything just as fast as it’s given.

But what if the directions are of the precise same sort, but every landmark and street is an utter unknown to your mind?

If there were just one, you could likely still use the directions, but there would be more mental effort involved with the 1-step directions with the one unfamiliar term than with the 5-step directions with all well-familiar terms.

But a somewhat lengthy set of directions like that with every landmark being something your mind does not have a “slot” for already and therefore cannot really process the information?

Very very hard.[/quote]

Agreed on that one… It probably doesn’t help that we’re presenting him with more than one way to do things (i.e. go about his sets, for example) here either.

Ok, that’s that, let’s move on to Rest-Pause (all variants), Cluster-training, Wave-loading patterns and Twitch Reps. You wanna go first Bill?

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Again just for clarity: I brought in tonnage as a way of getting a handle on what the workload is for some scheme that is being considered, but which is an unknown.

For example, it was unknown (other than that an experienced person could have had an idea just from looking) just how severe the workload was that the OP had previously described.

Using relative tonnage enabled demonstrating that it was giving every bodypart a relative tonnage comparable to Smolov Jr, and therefore had to be excessive. [/quote] I certainly agree with that. [quote]

It was intended as a tool for being able to evaluate ideas that were being considered.

I don’t believe in using tonnage or relative tonnage as a direct target or as a principal factor in planning. It can be a useful evaluator though, either of workload of a plan being considered, or if it is noted that one has increased in this parameter while nothing else has been lost, then this is a form of progression that has been accomplished.[/quote]

Again, I should have mentioned that my comment was not directed at you (if, by chance, that was the vibe you got from it I mean… It seems that we keep running into this situation… You write something, and I make a comment on the topic while either only noticing afterwards that you’d done so as well or just not thinking of your comment while making my post. Sorry about that :),
I know you’re doing your best to explain/help out with the many things that get mentioned here.

[Bill_Roberts]

Actually, in no case had I thought that your post was a criticism of mine!

In every case I thought your post was providing very useful and important additional help for the OP.

Where I had another post on a given topic that you’d just mentioned, it was because your post brought out to me that I needed to clarify further what I’d said previously.

E.g., it was natural enough that when bringing in relative tonnage before, I didn’t make the post yet longer by providing caveats about how not to use the concept. The post was complex enough already.

Yet, it would be natural for a reader to whom that was new to conclude, “This is an important concept which I need to use,” and then possibly to apply it in ways which I hadn’t intended. Not that the OP had done that yet, but it could have happened. So it seemed worth clarifying at that point that it’s not a concept to go overboard with.

[Bill_Roberts]

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Ok, that’s that, let’s move on to Rest-Pause (all variants), Cluster-training, Wave-loading patterns and Twitch Reps. You wanna go first Bill?

[/quote]

I think we need to next have several posts each on each and every one of the Weider Principles.

And THEN move on to the Twitch Reps, Wave Loading, and of course, CNS Activation.

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Ok, that’s that, let’s move on to Rest-Pause (all variants), Cluster-training, Wave-loading patterns and Twitch Reps. You wanna go first Bill?

I think we need to next have several posts each on each and every one of the Weider Principles.

And THEN move on to the Twitch Reps, Wave Loading, and of course, CNS Activation. [/quote]

My bad, one can’t possibly become a successful bodybuilder without first knowing every single of the 342423 Weider principles (i.e. take any method/aspect of training, no matter how successful and no matter where it came from, and slap “Principle” along with a number on lol).

Let’s discuss Weider Princple #300005324 - The twitch principle. That way we both get what we want.
(poor Joe)

[its_just_me]

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
I personally don’t care about tonnage at all… Now, don’t get me wrong. Some systems are based on it and work… More or less.
Again, CT’s recent work pretty much goes against the whole tonnage thing if you ask me…
[/quote]

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I don’t believe in using tonnage or relative tonnage as a direct target or as a principal factor in planning.[/quote]

You both just gave Charles Staley a heart attack lol

[its_just_me]

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
The ramping style I’ve mainly used over the years is closer to a “low volume” method, yeah… Works well for most of the BOI people and lots of others. It doesn’t cut into recovery all that much… More general fatigue than muscular soreness etc, but not a great deal anyhow unless you do a lot of exercises…Due to the smaller weight jumps compared to traditional BB ramping, you still get enough work above 70% of your max in, despite the usually low reps.

If you just can’t bring yourself to give up straight load training…[/quote]

I’ll do whatever it takes

It sounds to me like CT ramping is the best way to go…that is, not 5x5 straight sets lol.

[Cephalic_Carnage]

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
I personally don’t care about tonnage at all… Now, don’t get me wrong. Some systems are based on it and work… More or less.
Again, CT’s recent work pretty much goes against the whole tonnage thing if you ask me…

Bill Roberts wrote:
I don’t believe in using tonnage or relative tonnage as a direct target or as a principal factor in planning.

You both just gave Charles Staley a heart attack lol[/quote]

Your tonnage cannot increase forever, you’d kill your tendons in no time. His system is also auto-regulated to some degree.

Doing EDT; you might start with, say, 100 lbs on a given exercise and work your way up from 35 reps to 50 done in a 15 minute period… You may have sessions in there where your performance decreases by more than 5 percent (or whatever percentage he uses) and then you have to decrease your weight the next session I think, something like that… Been a while since I’ve read his stuff…

Anyway, your tonnage will go up and down due to increasing the weight and losing many reps or whatever…

It certainly won’t stay the same or increase all the time.

Besides, EDT is based on time/density… The vast majority of other successful programs are not directly focused on that, though some make use of high work density… So tonnage is far, far less important to many other systems, especially the “low-volume” ones.

Confused yet?