Your goals dictate your training. Your goals say “I don’t give a damn about max strength or performance right now.” Continue what you’ve been doing.
Disclaimer: I don’t mean to diminish the importance of strength and performance, but training for looks is different than training for max strength.
Paul,
For the 350 method did you try other rep ranges, such as 30 or 40? It seems at least somewhat inspired by Doggcrapp and 50 seems like a pretty high number compared to what many DC RP sets end up at (15-30, although with much less rest). It also seems to require the first set be 25-30 reps to get to 50 in 3 sets.
Not questioning the method, just talking shop.
30 and 40 reps were too easy. And I found if I hit 18 reps on the first set, I generally hit 50.
18
12-14
8-10
Played out that way most times. So not sure why you’re saying you need 25-30 reps on the first set to hit it. 18 reps on the first set pretty much, for just about everyone I’ve had dial this in, could hit the rest and get the 50.
Even using your top range numbers, 18-14-10 is only 42. Even 18 - 18 - 10 is only 46. You almost need to get 18 on all 3 sets. 18-17-16 gets you to 51 and I bet if you are getting 17 and 16 on the 2nd and 3rd sets, the first set wasn’t real challenging.
When I did it I was generally needing to get something like 22-25 then 12-15 then another 10-12.
I actually like it with 15-18 on the first set, but for me that usually ends up being 35-40 across 3 sets which is why I asked.
Anyone else here try 350? What were your numbers?
Sorry I was walking out for dinner with my GF and winged it.
Anytime I hit 18 on the first set, I would get 50 or I would be right on top of it. Like 48ish. But within range. If I hit 20 on the first set it was a given.
IF you want to do 40, do 40. The whole point is that 50 was harder. Duh.
50 to me was just “more”, in both cases I was doing 3 sets to failure so they were both equally “hard.” for my body I had to use a weight light enough to get like 25 reps on set one, so The heavier weight with a range of 30-40 might even be a little “harder” to me personally. Back when I did DC getting those 15 rep sets could be brutal some times, so I don’t know for me if a total number of reps makes something “harder”
I do like the method though, and Talking about volume the way we have been on your forum lately put that idea on my radar if reducing the volume on that method slightly might make it even more effective… so I wanted to see if you had tried any other variants of it (aside from the DC RP ranges which are a little different)
Thanks for the back and forth, I appreciate your time.
I’m the same way.
I didn’t got to failure until the third set. The other two served as a form of accumulative fatigue. That’s probably the difference.
But even back to that - if you take a weight you can do 40 reps with 3 sets with and then can do 50 with it in 3 sets, that’s back to progressive overload.
My goal was always 225 x 50 in the three sets. Then I got to where I could hit that easily and started shooting for 275 x 50 in three.
And that’s the point. I figured when I could hit 275 x 50 in three sets there would be even more muscle from working up to that. The 50 is WHY it’s hard. 30 is just three sets of 10. That ain’t shit. 40 isn’t a ton different. The 50 is what separated those things.
Ahhh that would be different yeah… I was doing DC prior (don’t go to a gym any more so I could t really do DC all out in my garage) so I guess I was still in the 3 failure points mentality and reallllly pushed it on each set. My numbers from set to set dropped pretty notably.
Just on the personal side:
I find now, decreasing sets to 8-10, I end up increasing the intensity/ weight on my lifts.
I sense recovery issues: I “feel” ligaments and joints for „days” and as a result reduced training days from 5-6 to 3-4 a week!
Yes, the numbers, both on the scale and the weights, go up!
BUT, my mind plays tricks! I am a stimulus junky🤪, I want my 6 days…
Any thoughts?
You need to find some things in your life than makes it a struggle to fit in the gym time.
That fixes a lot of problems IMO.
I recall Waterbury many years ago talking about 25 reps being the sweet spot, the classic 5x5. He also talks about using your 5RM on these sets, in other words taking as many sets as required to hit 25 reps. I find myself going back to that continually, but I just can’t be bothered with higher rep work so it suits me more.
I started light but once I got in a groove
My numbers are in the 22 18 10 range
What rep range are you spending most of your time in? Maybe try lowering the weight and increasing the reps. Like you, I’ve started putting some of the concepts in this thread into practice. Say I’m doing an exercise for 3 sets. I’ll hit maybe 15 reps on the first set, increase the weight a bit, do fewer reps. On the final set, I’ll increase the weight more and wind up at 8-ish reps - sometimes 6 if I’m feeling frisky. I also find increasing the weight set to set feels a lot less boring that straight sets at the same weight.
Try slowing the tempo down a little. The weight will have to be lighter but the muscle goes to fatigue and you won’t be Loading the joints as heavy. You have to check the ego at the door when doing this but it still work just as well.
That sounds like it’s based off of Prilipens table, which is “ok” but there’s nothing “sweet” about it.
Hi Paul,
When you went to failure on your third set, did it also take you about 40 to 70 seconds TUT?
The origins of 5x5 predate that table. And the intensity is much greater.
Yes I’m aware that 5x5 predates PT. But again, there’s nothing special about 25 total reps either.
I like to pass along conversations to you guys that I have with people that are smarter than me (and there’s plenty) and stuff they convey to me in those.
This morning it was with a guy that is like the Michael Jordan of bio-mechanics. He’s like next level in that regard.
He said about volume “the reason so many guys think volume is important is because their execution is so shitty that it’s the only way they can create results. Where if their execution was better, they would get better results using way less volume. The problem is, over time there’s a lot of damage done to connective tissue using those methods, and also systemically there’s damage done, and bio-mechanically there’s a ton of dysfunction created.”
Now it’s interesting because MOST of the guys I see these days have no clue about good bio mechanics. And those also tend to be the ones that have really shitty movement execution, and preach high volume. Food for thought.