Thib,
I have a resting heart rate of 45 bpm. Do you have any recommendations on how to perform cardio? It doesn’t appear that my muscles have the endurance required to do the target heart rates for the time needed. For instance it appears I’d need to run 55-60 second 400s constantly. Or would you take this to mean that I should give up cardio completly, even in fat loss phase, until my heart has been deconditioned?
Thanks.
[quote]Thy. wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Thy. wrote:
Thib, I was reading Sheiko’s book and one thing I refuse to understand is how the hell one should get stronger by lifting predominantly in the 80% range with only 3 reps per set. Sure, the volume is big, but all the sets are done at half the reps that could be done.
For example, here is a typical Sheiko week for bench press:
Mon 70%x2x3, 80%x6x3
Wed 70%x2x3, 80%x2x3, 85%x2x2, 80%x2x3
Fri 70%x2x3, 80%x7x3
(sets x reps)
And this is actually one of the toughest weeks! Many weeks have 80% only for few sets and a lot of 70-75% work. A few peaking weeks may include some 90% work but only for 1 rep and 2-3 sets.
And then somehow magically you’re supposed to get stronger in 1RM.
Surely, this system works (for some), but I don’t get the theory behind this. Aren’t you supposed to lift heavy and intensely to get stronger ?
Any weight of 80% or more has transfer on to maximal lifting.
Force = mass x acceleration… even if you are not lifting maximum weights (heavy mass) you can produce near maximum force by trying the lift the weight as fast as possible (high acceleration). This is why Westside powerlifters do 50% of their work on the bench and squat with 45-55% of their maximum, for sets of 2-3 explosive reps. It is also why the average training weight of elite olympic lifters is around 75%.
Thanks Thib.
Would you personally do a lot of submaximal 80% work focusing on acceleration if you were looking to improve one lift ?
[/quote]
Yes, I do now and I did when I was competing as an olympic lifter.
CT,
Are their direct hypertrophy benefits to this protocol or are they all indirect via increases in strength? I ask because I gained a considerable amount of bodyweight doing advanced GVT despite the fact that it called for about 50% of the total number of reps that you are capable of doing in each set. Albeit it also called for very high volume so it has me thinking if this approach could be used in a typical bodybuilding type split.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Thy. wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Thy. wrote:
Thib, I was reading Sheiko’s book and one thing I refuse to understand is how the hell one should get stronger by lifting predominantly in the 80% range with only 3 reps per set. Sure, the volume is big, but all the sets are done at half the reps that could be done.
For example, here is a typical Sheiko week for bench press:
Mon 70%x2x3, 80%x6x3
Wed 70%x2x3, 80%x2x3, 85%x2x2, 80%x2x3
Fri 70%x2x3, 80%x7x3
(sets x reps)
And this is actually one of the toughest weeks! Many weeks have 80% only for few sets and a lot of 70-75% work. A few peaking weeks may include some 90% work but only for 1 rep and 2-3 sets.
And then somehow magically you’re supposed to get stronger in 1RM.
Surely, this system works (for some), but I don’t get the theory behind this. Aren’t you supposed to lift heavy and intensely to get stronger ?
Any weight of 80% or more has transfer on to maximal lifting.
Force = mass x acceleration… even if you are not lifting maximum weights (heavy mass) you can produce near maximum force by trying the lift the weight as fast as possible (high acceleration). This is why Westside powerlifters do 50% of their work on the bench and squat with 45-55% of their maximum, for sets of 2-3 explosive reps. It is also why the average training weight of elite olympic lifters is around 75%.
Thanks Thib.
Would you personally do a lot of submaximal 80% work focusing on acceleration if you were looking to improve one lift ?
Yes, I do now and I did when I was competing as an olympic lifter.[/quote]
[quote]pflifter wrote:
CT,
Are their direct hypertrophy benefits to this protocol or are they all indirect via increases in strength? I ask because I gained a considerable amount of bodyweight doing advanced GVT despite the fact that it called for about 50% of the total number of reps that you are capable of doing in each set. Albeit it also called for very high volume so it has me thinking if this approach could be used in a typical bodybuilding type split.
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Thy. wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Thy. wrote:
Thib, I was reading Sheiko’s book and one thing I refuse to understand is how the hell one should get stronger by lifting predominantly in the 80% range with only 3 reps per set. Sure, the volume is big, but all the sets are done at half the reps that could be done.
For example, here is a typical Sheiko week for bench press:
Mon 70%x2x3, 80%x6x3
Wed 70%x2x3, 80%x2x3, 85%x2x2, 80%x2x3
Fri 70%x2x3, 80%x7x3
(sets x reps)
And this is actually one of the toughest weeks! Many weeks have 80% only for few sets and a lot of 70-75% work. A few peaking weeks may include some 90% work but only for 1 rep and 2-3 sets.
And then somehow magically you’re supposed to get stronger in 1RM.
Surely, this system works (for some), but I don’t get the theory behind this. Aren’t you supposed to lift heavy and intensely to get stronger ?
Any weight of 80% or more has transfer on to maximal lifting.
Force = mass x acceleration… even if you are not lifting maximum weights (heavy mass) you can produce near maximum force by trying the lift the weight as fast as possible (high acceleration). This is why Westside powerlifters do 50% of their work on the bench and squat with 45-55% of their maximum, for sets of 2-3 explosive reps. It is also why the average training weight of elite olympic lifters is around 75%.
Thanks Thib.
Would you personally do a lot of submaximal 80% work focusing on acceleration if you were looking to improve one lift ?
Yes, I do now and I did when I was competing as an olympic lifter.
[/quote]
With the I, BB program you’ll see how these methods can be used for hypertrophy. But yeah, accelerative work with 80% of your max for submaximal reps can build muscle.
Thib,
When it comes to performing straight sets of a given number of reps with the same weight, you’d execute a few practice sets to get a feel for the working weight and then move on to the “work” sets. At any given load, you’d likely end up either coming out of the gate flying on the first few sets and then dropping off on the last few in you have a specific number of sets as a target or you’d leave something in the tank early on and the last set or two would be the only ones where you’d be pushing the envelope.
Is this largely why you believe in ramping? Each set improves CNS activation a bit more on the way up to an all-out set that recruits and fatigues as many MU’s as possible as opposed to either burning out quickly and finishing off with relatively ineffective (or at least less effective) sets or leaving some in the tank early on but not really deriving any noticeable increase in CNS activation over the course of those sets?
Thib, I’m thinking of a cycle for bench press focusing on acceleration and motor learning.
W1 80% x 3
W2 85% x 2
W3 90% x 1
W4 Deload : half the volume
I would use time as auto-regulation, and benching 3 times a week, basing light and medium days on the heavy day.
Mon (heavy) max sets in 20-25 mins (aim for 14-16 sets)
Wed (light) no more than 50% of Monday’s sets number (7-8)
Fri (medium) no more than 80% of Monday’s sets number (10-12)
No assistance for pressing. Some submaximal (low volume) deadlifts and sqauts and back work throughout the week.
Do you like this set-up or there is something wrong as always ? 
[quote]Thunderstruck88 wrote:
Thib,
When it comes to performing straight sets of a given number of reps with the same weight, you’d execute a few practice sets to get a feel for the working weight and then move on to the “work” sets. At any given load, you’d likely end up either coming out of the gate flying on the first few sets and then dropping off on the last few in you have a specific number of sets as a target or you’d leave something in the tank early on and the last set or two would be the only ones where you’d be pushing the envelope.
Is this largely why you believe in ramping? Each set improves CNS activation a bit more on the way up to an all-out set that recruits and fatigues as many MU’s as possible as opposed to either burning out quickly and finishing off with relatively ineffective (or at least less effective) sets or leaving some in the tank early on but not really deriving any noticeable increase in CNS activation over the course of those sets? [/quote]
That is EXACTLY the purpose.
Each set has two effects that can change performance of the subsequent work…
Activation/potentiation: a set increase the working state of the CNS thus improving performance potential.
Fatigue (neural or muscular) which can decrease performance. The closest to your limit a set is, the more fatigue (neural) it will have.
Activation minus neural fatigue = CNS “firing level”
CNS “firing level” minus muscular fatigue = performance
Most people need 3 work sets to properly activate the nervous system (some will need up to 5… those with an inefficient CNS and others will only need 1… those with a cat-like CNS).
So you will reach your peak neural potential on the 4th, 5th or 6th set… THIS is where you should go balls out. Getting your best, most demanding set earlier than the 3rd set of an exercise will drastically reduce your results simply because your neural activation state is not optimal.
Now, you also want to avoid too much neural fatigue before that last, balls-to-the-wall set because it would impair performance.
Since going close to your limit reps with a given weight will create more neural fatigue, you want to gradually ramp up those sets.
Thib, thought you would appreciate this old school olympic lifting video.
Maybe you’ve seen it already.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
Thib, thought you would appreciate this old school olympic lifting video.
Maybe you’ve seen it already.[/quote]
Beautiful.
Thib, I’m sure you must really miss the O-lifts when you’re not doing them for some time ? (I assume you haven’t done these lifts at least while working on I, BB ?)
I mean, I’m not an Oly lifter, I have poor technique and use weak weights, but nevertheless still have that pleasure throwing something over my head.
I can’t imagine how it must feel throwing something with perfect technique, speed, and tons of load like you are able to.
[quote] DO NOT GO CLOSE TO 90% MORE THAN ONCE A WEEK ON A LIFT. When doing a lift 3 times a day, the second workout is a 'recharge", you should practice DESTROYING, DOMINATING the weights. Use around 80% of the max you reached on the first workout, NO MORE. This means around 70-75% of your max and focus on lifting the weight with as much explosion as possible. Shoot for 5-7 sets of 3.
Remember that YOU SHOULD NOT LOOK AT A WORKOUT IN ISOLATION. Each workout affect the next ones. So each workout needs to ENHANCE THE EFFICACY OF THE NEXT WORKOUT. By going heavy all the time to feed your ego your workout not only does not make the next one better, it makes it worse.
MUCH WORSE. The nervous system takes a long time to recover. By training like you are I can garantee you that in 10 years you will not have had any progress.
WAKE UP!
P.S. You see to have a mental block because you think that if you are not training hard enough, you will not progress. And in your mind hard work = heavy lifting.
REMEMBER THAT JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS LIGHT DOESN’T MEAN THAT IT IS EASY!!!
Force = Mass x Acceleration
This means that you can produce more force by focusing on heavy lifts (mass factor) and/or acceleration. Lifting a weight that is 70-75% of your max with a lot of speed requires as much force, if not more than doing a near maximal lift. [/quote]
This is awesome advice and I wish I would have taken it a couple years ago… I learned this lesson the hard way but glad to see the same words come out of the mouth of someone as experienced as Thib. Definitely listen to him – your gains (and your joints for that matter) will thank you.
Hi Christian. Hopefully this question doesn’t get me flamed haha.
I’ve been training for over 7 years and I’ve gained what I’d estimate to be around 40 pounds of muscle. I know it sounds whacky, but I just don’t want to get that much bigger, or at least for the time being. I can’t imagine not challenging myself in the gym though, so what would recommend as far as a lifting program that would lend itself to strength gain and/or a more dense appearance without resulting in much size gain?
I’ve always trained somewhat low-volume and very seldom go above 8 reps or more than 9 sets for a large body part. To this day I still grow off that as long as I challenge myself to improve execution or the load used. I was thinking dropping the reps as low as 3 would maybe result in minimal size gain?
Thanks!
[quote]Thy. wrote:
PB Andy wrote:
Thib, thought you would appreciate this old school olympic lifting video.
Maybe you’ve seen it already.
Beautiful.
Thib, I’m sure you must really miss the O-lifts when you’re not doing them for some time ? (I assume you haven’t done these lifts at least while working on I, BB ?)
I mean, I’m not an Oly lifter, I have poor technique and use weak weights, but nevertheless still have that pleasure throwing something over my head.
I can’t imagine how it must feel throwing something with perfect technique, speed, and tons of load like you are able to.
[/quote]
I still use the power snatch in my own programs. Yeah, there is nothing like doing a perfect Olympic lift, feels effortless.
CT,
I was looking to follow the vertical jump program in the Get Strong, Get Fast, Get Vertical! article. My question is concerning modification of the upper body days. I’m a triceps dominant person who is looking to build a lagging chest, particularly upper chest. My triceps seem to gain size and strength just fine without any isolation at all and my chest has a hard time growing on compound exercises. Also, I’m currently working on increasing the amount of one-arm push-ups I can perform. I realize this is quite a few things to work on at once, so if necessary I can drop the one-arm push-ups, but would prefer not to. What would you suggest? Thanks.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Thy. wrote:
PB Andy wrote:
Thib, thought you would appreciate this old school olympic lifting video.
Maybe you’ve seen it already.
Beautiful.
Thib, I’m sure you must really miss the O-lifts when you’re not doing them for some time ? (I assume you haven’t done these lifts at least while working on I, BB ?)
I mean, I’m not an Oly lifter, I have poor technique and use weak weights, but nevertheless still have that pleasure throwing something over my head.
I can’t imagine how it must feel throwing something with perfect technique, speed, and tons of load like you are able to.
I still use the power snatch in my own programs. Yeah, there is nothing like doing a perfect Olympic lift, feels effortless.
[/quote]
I think it is for this reason alone for why I want to start Oly lifting again. When you execute a snatch perfectly, there is honestly no other feeling in weightlifting.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
That is EXACTLY the purpose.
Each set has two effects that can change performance of the subsequent work…
Activation/potentiation: a set increase the working state of the CNS thus improving performance potential.
Fatigue (neural or muscular) which can decrease performance. The closest to your limit a set is, the more fatigue (neural) it will have.
Activation minus neural fatigue = CNS “firing level”
CNS “firing level” minus muscular fatigue = performance
Most people need 3 work sets to properly activate the nervous system (some will need up to 5… those with an inefficient CNS and others will only need 1… those with a cat-like CNS).
So you will reach your peak neural potential on the 4th, 5th or 6th set… THIS is where you should go balls out. Getting your best, most demanding set earlier than the 3rd set of an exercise will drastically reduce your results simply because your neural activation state is not optimal.
Now, you also want to avoid too much neural fatigue before that last, balls-to-the-wall set because it would impair performance.
Since going close to your limit reps with a given weight will create more neural fatigue, you want to gradually ramp up those sets.[/quote]
Thib,
Are there a few instances where you’d still be likely to advocate performing a specific number of sets where the load is held constant or relatively constant across all of the sets? If so, what would be the most likely situations for this?
Thib,
I have taken bits and pieces of your information and crafted a temporary program. The problem is, after 2 short weeks I feel burnt out already…what the heck?
Week 1 I do well above max static holds to stim my CNS - then I do mechanical drop sets ( the different exercises and body split need not be specified - I lift 3 days a week)
Week 2 I do a very small range pin press to stim CNS - then I do 5x5 ( the different exercises and body split need not be specified - I lift 3 days a week)
So I basically alternate weeks to throw new stimulus at my body.
For two weeks I felt great…strong…pumped etc…
Now I am just burnt - always tired - no desire to workout.
Mike
Hey Thib,
It’s looks like the I, BODYBUILDER program is going to break some new ground in terms of what is possible. I was wondering out of your older programs, what would you still recommend? Is the Beast Building series still “up to date” or would you modify it in any way?
Thanks!
Hi Thib,
For training younger athletes (aged 16-18) who have had little to no weight training experience, would you advise that they begin their first mesocycles with hypertrophy before moving onto strength or would it be strength before hypertrophy? What would provide the best neural adaptation in the safest way?
Would a basic linear periodisation plan be the most effective way to start their training or can they benefit from something a bit more advanced?
Thank you
[quote]Will07 wrote:
Hi Thib,
For training younger athletes (aged 16-18) who have had little to no weight training experience, would you advise that they begin their first mesocycles with hypertrophy before moving onto strength or would it be strength before hypertrophy? What would provide the best neural adaptation in the safest way?
Would a basic linear periodisation plan be the most effective way to start their training or can they benefit from something a bit more advanced?
Thank you[/quote]
I don’t like linear periodisation. It’s based on a theory that looks good on paper but doesn’t work in real life.
If the athlete lacks muscle mass for his frame I’d have him do a mix of:
High acceleration lifting for 3-5 reps using the maximum weight that can still be accelerated for the prescribed number of reps.
Various low-intensity jump drill and medicine ball throws
A relatively high volume of sets of low-moderate reps (3-5 reps, a bit short of failure). I prefer to have a young athlete do 10 sets of 3 reps, progressively increasing the weight on each set, than 3 sets of 10 reps. Of those 10 sets, 3 would be high acceleration stuff (around 65-75% of maximum), 4 would be ‘max force’ sets (75-85%) and 3 would be heavy sets (85-90%). The way to make the early sets work is to always accelerate as much as possible.
So an exercise might look like
Set 1: 100lbs x 3
Set 2: 110lbs x 3
Set 3: 120lbs x 3
Set 4: 130lbs x 3
Set 5: 135lbs x 3
Set 6: 140lbs x 3
Set 7: 145lbs x 3
Set 8: 150lbs x 3
Set 9: 155lbs x 3
Set 10: 160lbs x 3
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Thunderstruck88 wrote:
Thib,
When it comes to performing straight sets of a given number of reps with the same weight, you’d execute a few practice sets to get a feel for the working weight and then move on to the “work” sets. At any given load, you’d likely end up either coming out of the gate flying on the first few sets and then dropping off on the last few in you have a specific number of sets as a target or you’d leave something in the tank early on and the last set or two would be the only ones where you’d be pushing the envelope.
Is this largely why you believe in ramping? Each set improves CNS activation a bit more on the way up to an all-out set that recruits and fatigues as many MU’s as possible as opposed to either burning out quickly and finishing off with relatively ineffective (or at least less effective) sets or leaving some in the tank early on but not really deriving any noticeable increase in CNS activation over the course of those sets?
That is EXACTLY the purpose.
Each set has two effects that can change performance of the subsequent work…
Activation/potentiation: a set increase the working state of the CNS thus improving performance potential.
Fatigue (neural or muscular) which can decrease performance. The closest to your limit a set is, the more fatigue (neural) it will have.
Activation minus neural fatigue = CNS “firing level”
CNS “firing level” minus muscular fatigue = performance
Most people need 3 work sets to properly activate the nervous system (some will need up to 5… those with an inefficient CNS and others will only need 1… those with a cat-like CNS).
So you will reach your peak neural potential on the 4th, 5th or 6th set… THIS is where you should go balls out. Getting your best, most demanding set earlier than the 3rd set of an exercise will drastically reduce your results simply because your neural activation state is not optimal.
Now, you also want to avoid too much neural fatigue before that last, balls-to-the-wall set because it would impair performance.
Since going close to your limit reps with a given weight will create more neural fatigue, you want to gradually ramp up those sets.[/quote]
Thanks for this, as I am still learning alot about the CNS this answers some questions I had.
One quick question though, would the CNS react the same way if you ramped up to say 3 working sets ( by this I mean say set 1) 10 reps set 2) maybe 7 or 8 set 3) 5 or 6 or something like 3x5 with 85% of 1RM give or take some, these are just random sets and reps) vs one all out set?
Thanks in advance coach.