Oh, and yes, you’re right, it does count as a fundamental difference as well that you weren’t counting the ramping sets.
It just wasn’t the one I had in mind 
But it’s equally valid.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Oh, and yes, you’re right, it does count as a fundamental difference as well that you weren’t counting the ramping sets.
It just wasn’t the one I had in mind
But it’s equally valid.[/quote]
This thread has been like a light bulb moment for me…because I knew that my lack of progress was something to do with my doing too much (but I was confused since apparently my volume was already low). To demonstrate why I knew I was doing too much:
Sex drive plummetted (good sign!)
Lifts stagnating (even though not that strong)
Irratable
Lack of zeal for training
Loss of appetite
And…drum roll…a huge Flu virus this past week has just knocked me out! lol
Now that I’ve had a week off from the gym…I’ve turned back into a sexed up dog on heat, my mood’s 20x better, I feel possitive about my training etc.
I feel pretty stupid because I was kind of doing this sort of training before (ramping up to just one set) and getting great results…why the heck did I stop it???
I have an important question about ramping. I will research it more (e.g. CT’s version)…but until then I would really appreciate a rough guide before I do my workout tomorrow?
At what point would you class the ramping sets as a work set?
Like would it be when you do 50% onwards?
So say you want to do a total volume of 25 reps for an exercise. At which point do you count the reps? Do all the CNS activation sets count towards a total volume of say 25 reps (e.g. 5x5) even though they weren’t all max effort?
This is totally new to me since I’m only used to doing straight max effort sets (and warming up to them doing highish reps).
I’d guess you stopped it because it is very natural to think – and any number of those not so successful at gaining mass or strength would have you think – that doing as many reps as you can every set must give more returns than having most sets less than maximal in terms of reps.
On the what points would people class the ramping sets as work sets:
If I understand Christian Thibaudeau properly, he figures 70%.
Soviet sports scientists and coaches, or at least some of them, figured 55%. Now this is not with casual easy lifting of doing a triple, or five reps, with 55%, but with doing those reps FORCEFULLY.
Where hypertrophy is the goal the normal thing is to do more than this, but you had indicated (or I thought you did) that you are more interested in strength as the first priority. So some powerlifting type thought may be more appropriate for you.
Prilipen (one of the aforementioned Communists) summarized things as follows:
55-65% 1RM
3-6 reps per set
24 reps optimal total (range 18-30)
70-75%
3-6 reps per set
18 reps optimal total (range 12-24)
80-85%
2-4 reps per set
15 reps optimal total (range 10-20)
90+ %
1-2 reps per set
7 reps optimal total (range 4-10)
And while of course I’m not remotely doing justice to Louie Simmons’ teachings with this summary, this is something of his that I’ve saved that is one of his recommendations summarized by percent 1RM:
70% 8x3 60s
75% 8x3 60s
80% 6x2 90s
85% 4x2 90s
The last values are rest intervals between sets.
Now he would also have accessory work done with schemes such as 5 sets of 10, so it is not that the above was the ONLY training method. But it is an example for both bench and squat.
What I described in the second of my earlier posts that I quoted on the preceding page was, except for the 5x5 which was more traditional and more on the bb’ing side, I think in reasonable line with Prilipen, Simmons, and Thibaudeau. A little bit on the higher volume side perhaps. It also just works well, which is the main point
If you like figuring things kind of technically – which is not necessary, it is just if you like it – one way of looking at things is relative tonnage. (Tonnage is the total of the weights for every rep lifted; relative tonnage is the total of the percents relative to your 1RM.)
So let’s say you’re going to be topping out at triples at 85%.
Your ramping-up triple at 70% actually contributes nearly as much to tonnage as does a triple at 85%. Not quite as much, but enough that it shouldn’t just be neglected.
Where you can use this concept is when you are coming up with your own thing and you want to see if it is sane, or whether it is in line with some standard that is known.
So for example, you could figure the relative tonnage of say a Smolov Jr workout – which is extreme – and see how your plan comes out compared to that. Let’s say we pick the 10x3 at 85% workout. That’s 30 reps total at 85%, or an RT of 2550 (30 x 85.) Trust me, this is for the most part a reasonable approximate-max for one exercise in a workout. And it’s even more for the week, as there are 4 workouts totalling 10,255. Too much to do week-in week-out, advisable only for brief periods such as 3 weeks, and not doable for multiple exercises but usually just one exercise in those weeks (maybe 2 for differing bodyparts if you are a stud.)
So let’s see how your 8 @ 50%, 6 @ 50%, 6 @ 65%, 6 @ 75%. 4 @ 75%, work sets (7, 6, 5, 5, 4 @85%) works out:
8x50 + 6x50 + 6x65 + 6x75 + 4x75 = 1830 in your ramping-up sets
27x85 = 2295 in your top-weight sets
Grand total = relative tonnage of 4125 per workout, 8250 per week.
For each of many exercises.
Which equals too much.
When advising you not to be a pussy and to do more volume, I was going on your statement that you were doing 2 or 3 sets of 7 for one exercise per bodypart.
Now, in terms of generally planning workouts I would not recommend you aim for the Smolov level of relative tonnage per week. The example methods I gave were reasonable for longterm, as will be example workouts you find from top powerlifting writers (there are several great ones) as well as what Christian Thibaudeau has been talking about. Or advice such as from Cephalic_Carnage, Professor X, and quite a number of others will also give you examples of what is productive.
Or as one example, a traditional straight-weight 5x5 at say 80% 1RM, with LIGHT initial warmup weight that need not be counted, then let’s say getting ready for the work weight with 5 reps at 35%, three at 50%, and singles at 60% and 70%, adds up to an RT of 2455 per workout, and if twice per week, 4910 for the week. Not much more than half of your total.
Ramping the 5 sets of 5 yields a similar though slightly lesser total.
You DON’T have to do these calculations. It is a way of resolving doubt if wondering how a ramping scheme compares in workload to an established straight-weight scheme, or otherwise comparing programs. A person can also certainly just pick a good program and never do a calculation other than what, if any, the program may call for. But it seemed that you personally might like a way of seeing how workload levels may be figured so comparisons could be made, so I went into more detail than most would probably appreciate
Or as I see you were also wanting something quick for tomorrow’s workout:
I wouldn’t be well-equipped to put very briefly what CT has taught. I might accidentally mis-represent. It would be best to go to his forum and find his explanations, though I know that’s not as quick.
For something that’s not drastically different – but is not what Thibaudeau has said, as it starts lighter and is willing to have some workouts ending lighter than I think CT would have – at your choice of percent 1RM for top work weight, then one of these:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
If you’re looking for strength as a higher priority than development, look at reps and volumes such as – assuming you’re ramping and starting at 55% 1RM and going up 5% RM each set:
5 reps ramping up to 70%
4 reps ramping up to 75%
Triples ramping up to 80% OR do doubles and on reaching 80%, do up to 6 sets
Doubles ramping up to 85% and on reaching that, do up to 4 sets
You can cycle up through these percentages rather than sticking with the same percentage for a long period of time.
Don’t worry that you could have gotten more reps with these percentages. This is still properly challenging work if you drive every rep as hard as you can rather than simply lift them.[/quote]
If desired, these protocols can be cycled through each 2 weeks, if training the exercise twice per week. It’s also acceptable to add another protocol, Hepburn, to the end of that series, if doing it as a series. In this, warm up with very light weight, then do a set of 5 at 50%, singles at 60, 70, and 80%, optionally additionally another at 85% if you feel this will help you get the first 90% set, then 4-10 singles at 90%. When you can reach 10, use a higher weight next time as the nominal “90%” value. As a side note, it’s interesting and perhaps no coincidence that Prilipen’s value for rep range at 90% is the same as Hepburn’s, as the Soviets greatly respected Hepburn.
But it’s also possible of course to stay at a given percentage for a little while rather than necessarily moving up the next workout.
Lastly, for figuring these things, right now if you are getting 7 reps fresh with what you call your 85% 1RM, while you may or may not be accurate with what you think your 1RM is, for these purposes I’d suggest calling that weight 75% 1RM. Or add 13% to whatever value you are using for 1RM in the calculation. While it’s possible you have unusual rep endurance, it may be more likely that your 1RM’s are underperformances in exercises where you get 7 reps at “85%.”
CT’s ramping style:
(note: I’ve seen him write about starting the work sets at 50%, 60% or 70%… Guess we’ll have to wait for IBB to come out and clear everything up once and for all… I start my work sets at 50-60% usually. And for heaven’s sake, don’t bring a bloody calculator. [quote]
Yeah, I ought to clarify that percentages on the way up – and for that matter even the top percentage – need not be exactly, for example, 70.00% or whatever.
If the right general areas are being hit by going up 10 lb a side with each set or whatever, then great. There’s no need to fret that calculations using 65.00%, 70.00%, etc would yield increases of only 9.2 lb per side or 10.9 lb per side or what-have-you. Doesn’t matter.
And it doesn’t take a calculator. If you know that say you plan on having 5 sets total (which means 4 increases) and for example you figure that the top set will be 80 lb heavier than the lightest set, why, that’s a 20 lb increase per set.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Yeah, I ought to clarify that percentages on the way up – and for that matter even the top percentage – need not be exactly, for example, 70.00% or whatever.
If the right general areas are being hit by going up 10 lb a side with each set or whatever, then great. There’s no need to fret that calculations using 65.00%, 70.00%, etc would yield increases of only 9.2 lb per side or 10.9 lb per side or what-have-you. Doesn’t matter.
And it doesn’t take a calculator. If you know that say you plan on having 5 sets total (which means 4 increases) and for example you figure that the top set will be 80 lb heavier than the lightest set, why, that’s a 20 lb increase per set.[/quote] ← Well, you don’t really plan out the amount of sets you’re going to do with Thib’s ramping style.
Bill, my calculator comment was not in response to your previous post (just saw that one now). I just wrote that so it’s_just_me won’t think that he MUST start his working sets at EXACTLY 50% of his EXACT 1RM or else it won’t work
For everybody still wondering about the method and auto-regulation, CT has talked about it in detail in his sub-forum.
[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
CC, my delt/back day looks something like this:
2 sets standing military, one 6-8 the other 10-12
1 set of SHIPS, around 6-8 or so [/quote] I read in BOI that you had some trouble with these due to some shoulder issue? Are you doing them Ruehl style or McGrath style? [quote]
1 set of DB laterals
Back starts with either rack pulls or t-bar rows. Either way, two sets.
If I do the t-bars I might do yates rows after; if I do rack pulls on that day then I won’t do yates, as my low back isn’t the greatest (I need to see a chiro soon)
Then I might do pulldowns, one set for AMAP, and then finish with bent-over rope pulls like the justin harris vid. [/quote]
Thankyou BR and CC
Yeah I was thinking about getting out the calculator until my common sense kicked in and told me that I never needed that for warmups lol. For benching, I would start off with about half, and add up to my max in about 10kg’s. Deadlifts would be different in that I’d use 20kg’s to build up to my work sets.
To BR, I’m just as interested in getting stronger as I am in getting bigger (without getting excessively fat). If I had a choice I could not sacrifice one for the other.
The only difference in what has been described and what I’m used to is the mutiple sets at a given percentage. I’m not used to using a weight that will only cause me to reach failure on the last set (accumilating fatigue). Although the tonnage is greater, there’s something about not doing one max set for 85%+…I just like to be able to have lifted near my best for as many reps as possible in just one set.
But as has already been mentioned, doing this (accumilating fatigue over multiple low rep sets) as apposed to doing max’s on each set is a better way to increase volume without overtraining…it’s also more efficient.
CC, I noticed that on one occasion you recommended ramping like this (on about a 500lb+ max)
-1358
-2255
-2153 (or 1)
-40512
So on that occassion (without using calculators lol) you recommend just working up to one set to failure (increasing load as CNS is waking up more and more). But on this thread you recommend me doing multiple low reps building up to failure on the last set (keeping load constant). I preffer the former method, but is there any reason for the latter recommendation?
Did my first day today (after a break with Flu) and felt great!
Keeping exercise selection low just now (since I lack equipement at home and I’m more interested in bringing my lifts up to good standards first).
I’ll just state the flat bench as an example of what I did for most exercises (cut out most warmups after first exercise):
Benching
Warmup-8 reps @ 50%, 5 reps with 10-20% extra, 3 reps with 10% extra
Work sets (load constant)-5 sets of 5 (failed on last rep of last set).
For progression, I intend on doing another set…and keep adding reps until I can make 35 total reps. When 35 is reached (e.g. 7x 5reps), I’ll increase load and do as many good sets as possible again (it’ll probably lower to about 5x5 again).
I love this form of progression, can put 100% focus into it without it draining me!
Is this good?
If you want to make it more bb’ing oriented then there is nothing the slightest bit wrong with maxing out your reps on the top set. In fact that would be ordinary.
Or alternately with CT’s style, you keep adding weight until the planned reps were all you can do.
While not having all the details like CT’s, I have followed that last method – ramping with constant reps and adding weight until the planned reps were maximal – much more than the more PL’ing style that I described. But it has to be noted that a lot of powerlifters have gotten huge and strong ending with the top set NOT being for maximal reps, but for the planned number and weight. How this works is because the reps are driven very forcefully.
Minor note on your described plan: You say you got the 5x5, but yet failed on the last rep of the last set. What does this mean? You did not get the rep (failed to get it?) Or did you succeed in getting all 5 reps?
On your method: That’s okay. Not my favorite but okay. I would suggest the admittedly-unusual “filling in” technique that I described for progressing on this plan. Namely, don’t do the “natural” thing and do more work at the beginning and possibly fail to make the planned reps at the end, but do the other way around.
So, if you’ve got to do it this way, then on getting the 5x5, if not sure that you could get 6x5 merely a few days later, which might well be unrealistic, try something you believe you should be able to get, such as doing just a double for the first set and then 5x5 for the remainder. You’ve moved up two reps, but in a much more doable way than trying for 7 reps on the 5th set when you “failed” (whatever you meant by that) on the 5th rep of the 5th set last time. If you get it, next time you could try a triple to lead things off, for example.
When you finally have 6x5, then do likewise for filling in the first of what will be seven sets.
Though I’d rather see the plan work as keeping it 5 sets, and on achieving the 5x5, adding weight and using the “filling-in” technique to make the next workout 4,4,4,4,5; then the next might be 4,4,4,5,5; then as you’re feeling quite strong the next workout you try for and get 4,5,5,5,5; and finally 5x5 again now at the slightly higher weight.
Alternately, if you feel you are capable of progressing faster than that, then TRY doing 5x5 with the increased weight, and let’s say it comes out to 5,5,5,4,3.
Next workout, turn this around and add a rep to what is now the first set, but had been the last. You go for 4,4,5,5,5.
Then continue to fill in as described above.
The far-more-common progression procedure is to make the next workout 5 reps for as many sets as possible and then having performance (probably) fall off and miss reps, and in later workouts try not to miss them, but regardless of that being more common I do think the above-described technique is better.
Yes, I know these do not give 35 reps, but 25 or slightly less. But though it may seem low to you, it’s very well established including for both bb’ing and strength. Though, on let’s say your triceps work you could do 5x10 to advantage, for example, rather than necessarily copying this protocol over to there.
It may need to be made clear that this – straight-weight, as per your wishes – if done is not in addition to ramping, but instead of. When taking this approach, you want minimal draining from the warmup. Obviously personal methods will vary: my approach is to do a set or two with extremely light weight (I normally use 15% 1RM; I’ve recently learned that CT favors 10% and I’ve tried that and found it good, so let’s say 10-15%), with quite a few or even a lot of reps but keeping it short of anything that could be draining; then a set of 5 with about 1/3 1RM, a triple with 50% 1RM, then singles with 60% and 70% 1RM (or also 80% 1RM if the workouts are over that.)
Or if you are really a fan of doing as many total reps in an exercise as you can and building up this number until it really should go no higher and then adding weight, then you might like CT’s “Beast” protocol.
I don’t know how he wants you to lead into it. I do it with the same warmup/workup that I described for 5x5.
The protocol is to rip as many triples in a fixed time – 10 minutes – as you can. Allow yourself just enough rest to be able to, as he puts it, “dominate” each rep of the triples, rather than have the last one be grinding. Don’t do this with a weight that it’s hard to get a triple with in the first place, but for example something you could get 5 or 6 reps with when fresh. Or in your case, as your figures were unusual on this, if you get 7 reps with 85% of a true 1RM, then try your 7 rep value.
When you get 10x3, go up. (I am not sure CT says that: that is me.)
So now you have a number of choices. Any will do well for you. There is no “wrong” choice among them, though for a given person at a given time one might be yet more suited than another. But particularly with what you’re coming off of, any of these will be fine. So there’s no need for anxiety or “analysis paralysis” on which way to go, or whether to do some in some weeks and others in other weeks. Basically you’ve got a better toolbox of things to pick from now.
BR, interesting concept that: doing 44455. It would save you more and prepare the CNS better for last set I guess…but the only downside (especially for me since I’ll probably be progressing faster) is that you’ve got to predict what you may be able to do and this may make you sell yourself short. Whereas going 55554 (for example) would be more accurate to what you can actually do. I don’t know for sure, that’s just my first impression.
I do prefer to stick around mid 20’s total reps (has always been a favourite total), but many authors often recommend as high as 35 reps for hypertrophy?
As regards rep range, I have heard it said many times that it’s volume that counts rather than rep range (for hypertrophy)…but this has not strictly been my experience (6 or 7 max rep sets seem to “fill” my muscles better)…but then again, I don’t know if that’s just me making things up in my head lol.
On your first concern: That’s why I have the “turn-around” procedure where if not really knowing what can be done, you try for 5x5, but if it comes up short, you flip it around for next time, and add a rep in one of the sets that came short.
So as another example, let’s say you well overshot with weight – yet want to stick with it – and wound up getting 5,5,4,3,2.
Turn it around, add a rep (in this case right at the front) and next time go for 3,3,4,5,5.
Then after that, 3,4,5,5,5; after that 4,4,5,5,5; etc.
(As to why I said “in this case right at the front,” if a turned-around pattern were for example 3,3,5,5,5 then you would fill this in by going for 3,4,5,5,5 rather than adding the rep at the front in that case. You add to the front ONLY when the front has fewer reps than any other set.)
Particularly when doing the exercise twice per week, you don’t have to worry about “just” an added rep each time being not good enough progression.
It’s true that you’re “predicting” what you can do but there is something to be said for having a prediction that almost undoubtedly will be attainable and achieving it on a pretty consistent basis. Sure, there will be times when instead you wind up dropping back to 4 reps on the last set, in which case keep the front end the same but try for 5 next time.
The concern about it possibly – despite being an added rep over a few days ago – not being as much as could have been done is not a necessary concern, particularly if you are driving the reps forcefully.
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Thankyou BR and CC
Yeah I was thinking about getting out the calculator until my common sense kicked in and told me that I never needed that for warmups lol. For benching, I would start off with about half, and add up to my max in about 10kg’s. Deadlifts would be different in that I’d use 20kg’s to build up to my work sets.
To BR, I’m just as interested in getting stronger as I am in getting bigger (without getting excessively fat). If I had a choice I could not sacrifice one for the other.
The only difference in what has been described and what I’m used to is the mutiple sets at a given percentage. I’m not used to using a weight that will only cause me to reach failure on the last set (accumilating fatigue). Although the tonnage is greater, there’s something about not doing one max set for 85%+…I just like to be able to have lifted near my best for as many reps as possible in just one set.
But as has already been mentioned, doing this (accumilating fatigue over multiple low rep sets) as apposed to doing max’s on each set is a better way to increase volume without overtraining…it’s also more efficient.
CC, I noticed that on one occasion you recommended ramping like this (on about a 500lb+ max)
-1358
-2255
-2153 (or 1) [/quote] 315 you mean Would have probably done 315x3, then 355x1 or so, then the work set[quote]
-40512 [/quote] BTW, depending on the way you set up your split etc, you could do 2 top sets at different rep ranges (5-8 + 9-12 or the other way around) here. [quote]
So on that occassion (without using calculators lol) you recommend just working up to one set to failure (increasing load as CNS is waking up more and more). But on this thread you recommend me doing multiple low reps building up to failure on the last set (keeping load constant). I preffer the former method, but is there any reason for the latter recommendation?[/quote]
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.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
I do it like that. Here is how I do my chest/arms day:
Pin CGP: CT’s variant
Smith High Incline: CC’s variant, 6-10 on top set
Skip Laterals: CC’s variant, 8-12 on top set
Pinwheel curls: A couple of warm ups, then 1x12-20
Dead Stop Extensions: CT’s variant
Alt. Offset curls: CT’s variant
I superset those last two exercises. I haven’t seen any drop off in performance doing them that way, and it saves me some time. I guess that may change when I get stronger, but it’s fine for now.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
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
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
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).
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 ).