Ok then.
So how do you structure a program that has only effective reps.
1 Like
I laughed so hard at this BTW.
IF this was true, in the definition of mechanically loading the muscle, then we’d all be super jacked just from doing regular shit.
1 Like
But you were talking shit about him before he came to the forums and respectfully replied to you 
7 Likes
Well if you were going to try to train in a way where you’re only using effective reps in every set then you’d just figure out all of your 5RM loading and use that.
However that tends to beat the shit out of people pretty fast, so you need to compromise in order to reduce the stress to the joints via the heavier loading, then figure out if you respond better from a nervous system level to moderate or higher rep ranges.
So it’s not just hitting the effective reps…it’s also looking at muscular and nervous system recovery.
And that’s going to be different for everyone at both levels, but moreso at the nervous system level. And that’s why extra reps counting towards fatigue for the effective reps can be a really bad thing, and often the very problem with guys not recovering from training sessions/weeks to see performance improvements.
And when he did I showed him respect.
I’ve got problems with Greg that I’m not going to get into here that have nothing to do with lifting. If Greg wants to talk lifting shop in here I’m totally open to that.
Clearly people didn’t read the first post when they come in thread saying shit like “But but but this coach said…” “but but but that article said…” “but but but scientific studies show…”
Training comes down to a case by case basis and there are so many variables that arent considered in a sterile environment for scientific studies. Coaches train differently, and athletes respond to training differently. There is no one size fits all solution.
So you tell me, how is it that PC can say:
And then have the nerve to say some shit like:
and then have some sci-fi input like:
There’s a lot of value in the anecdotal experience of knwoledgeable coaches and high level athletes that scientific studies don’t, and can’t cover. We’ve gone from one end of Bro Science to pedantic shit about people wanting to cite everything. If it works, it works.
3 Likes
Ian King could have told you that 20 years ago.
4 Likes
I loled at this one.
1 Like
I got a lot out of this thread, all the bullshit aside. @Paul_Carter I appreciate you continuing to bang your head against the wall in these threads. your patience is astounding.
I’m assuming this whole conversation about the 5 effective reps is geared towards building muscle size (please correct me if I’m wrong, I read this thread pretty quickly). Does this concept carry over pretty directly to strength-training, specifically for building a 1rm, or would you just be applying this in more of a bodybuilding context? For my own purposes, I’m considering the implications for strongman training. No idea how I’d apply it to loaded carries, but considering that as well.
4 Likes
Dude answering that shit is my daily life…and then when I get tired of smart ass comments or guys wanting me to explain every nuance and detail of this stuff, then suddenly I’m the asshole.
Dude thank you. Sometimes that’s all someone needs to hear after answering 50,304 really stupid questions and guys asking questions for the absolute sake of it, or simply wanting to argue.
Muscle growth ONLY . Pure strength is more related to decreasing the intramuscular latency of the activation of the high threshold motor units. Which is why CAT works so well strength athletes because that’s exactly the principle it’s working on (SIZE principle). But it can do so without creating a lot of peripheral fatigue (muscular) or nervous system fatigue since you’re not doing a lot of reps AND staying very far away from failure.
3 Likes
High rep shit of going into 12s and 15s is what made me jump the fuck up from 170s to 200.
8x8 with short rest is what got me out of the 170s slump
1 Like
I’m not trying to be snarky or even adversarial, my post history in your forum alone backs me up on that. I’m just saying the idea that the hard reps at the end of the set is not a new and novel Paul Carter idea, even if you are bringing new info to the table to some people.
Even if the old guys didn’t know about the exact number of reps, they knew that the hard ones at the end were the ones that counted… theyunderstood it enough to get jacked as fuck.
Chad Waterbury writes exteeeeensively about this, and why he rotates rep ranges throughout the week instead of using 5x5 for every exercise every day. Again, maybe he didn’t read the same studies you did or know that 5 growth reps is the actual number, but he understood the idea even so.
Again, been a fan for a long time since the early days of LRB blog and I’ll keep reading and learning after today, but claiming you are essentially discovered or created the idea of what you are calling growth reps or that the last 5 reps is the exact number, and getting mad at another VERY well established and knowledgeable strength coach says something similar, is just hyperbolic and silly
Literally at no point did I ever claim that I am the one who “discovered” this. That’s absurd. And you guys leap to say that I’m claiming that is even more absurd.
The fact is, knowing the number is more relevant than you’re giving credit to. Because it can help someone tremendously with program design and efficiency. But you guys are so willing to argue over the nuances of petty shit that you’re not seeing that.
I’ve talked about the mechanisms behind it and what drives that process to arrive at such a number. Which is actually substantiated throughout studies.
And my comments about Thibs are more sarcastic humor because of the inside conversation we had about it, and then he’s off writing articles about it.
Do you believe that the number varies from meaningfully as a consequence of training maturity as generally advanced lifters are better at recruiting their muscles? Or is it about the same to the point of minutiae
Paul, have you written about this idea yet? Or are you currently planning to. I would like to hear your take on it.
Hi Paul - this is a very interesting subject. How do you gauge where someone is falling on the recovery vs needing more spectrum without falling back into losing up volume? Is going as close to 5RM as feasible without too much joint pain a simple enough approach?
No the number isn’t going to vary. Not with training experience either because it’s all about what’s going on physiologically between the nervous system and the muscles. And that never actually changes in the context of this particular discussion.
I don’t know what “losing up volume” right there means.
Any of these…
2 Likes
The comic book nerd in me still gets upset that they used a photo of a guy wearing a Punisher skull for “superhero muscle”.
Does the Punisher have superpowers? No (minus a few one off issues/series)
Is the Punisher a hero? No. At BEST, he’s a vigilante that operates in a grey area of justice. That’s best case.
But no, it’s cool, he’s a superhero guys…
4 Likes