Has anyone ever tried the 20 rep squat program? Its essentially doing a widowmaker 3x a week.
I am by no means strong (still a beginner), but even I think I would struggle to recover fast enough to do that 3x a week. I have done widowmakers quite a bit and can manage them twice a week, probably no more. But I know some intermediate lifters that have done it and swear by it
I respect you modok, but basic weekly periodisation just seems too damn sensible to dismiss. As far as a routine being complicated goes, BBB seems like a lot more hassle than just ramping up to a 1-5rm once a week, doing some challenging straight sets once a week and doing some light squats on a third day during the week. It’s just another way of getting more weight on the bar.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Personally I am of the “science is fun” approach and I enjoy thinking things out like that. It can lead to overanalysis, but it’s fun…for me.[/quote]
I’m starting to think there are multiple types of people when it comes to the above.
Guys like you, who CAN get into the science side of things, who excel with science, theory and nuclear chemical engineering.
Guys like myself, that do better sticking to “get stronger in a moderate rep range on all movements”. And Unlearning what all the authors and “guru’s” tell you in order to learn how MY body responds to certain variables.
Guys who have guru’s like Rippetoe’s cock stuffed so far down their throat that they can’t see that not everyone is the same, and people aren’t going to respond to a cookie cutter program equally. (I’m not saying this is anyone in this thread, or specifically Rip, but he has been brought up the most in this thread. And SS blows for bodybuilding.) These guys will blindly follow whatever “professional” program blindly to the detriment of their own development, both physically and in knowledge of one’s own self.
Guys that would grow from hotdogs and steady state cardio
Hopeless guys that should just stick to WOW.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
On the other hand you have a point that heavy hard training should be fun because it’s your lifestyle, and if it’s not fun, then don’t do it unless. Some people get a kick out of trying to get the most optimal training possible, so they get into east european protocols and waves and all that. It’s fun for them; the science is fun for them. Some people just like to go in and grind out heavy shit.
So I think you’re both right. I think this training can in fact be very useful to build big ass legs, and even touch them up if you plan it properly. But if you don’t like the technical side and prefer to just do your thing, or if you get bored easily, then don’t do it.
Personally I am of the “science is fun” approach and I enjoy thinking things out like that. It can lead to overanalysis, but it’s fun…for me.[/quote]
Agreed. My mentor, was a ‘do what you gotta do’ type of Trainee. He was an intuitive trainee in the extreme.
However another great influence on my ‘education’ as a Weight Trainee, was a friend whom turns everything about training into math. She knows all of this shit, just volumes of percentages, and you fucking name it.
They are two ends of the Trainee Psychology Spectrum really.
The gym is big enough for both.
PS: I am more like MODOK, and my mentor. I train, intuitively in the extreme. But I did learn some from the scientist-type-trainee.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
The other Rob wrote:
I respect you modok, but basic weekly periodisation just seems too damn sensible to dismiss. As far as a routine being complicated goes, BBB seems like a lot more hassle than just ramping up to a 1-5rm once a week, doing some challenging straight sets once a week and doing some light squats on a third day during the week. It’s just another way of getting more weight on the bar.
What are you talking about? I never dismissed “basic weekly periodization”. I am an advocate of BASIC PERIODIZATION, or any other simple progression. I just re-read my original post, and don’t see how you arrived at that conclusion.
BBB is just a periodized scheme… one with particular attention to progressive resistance. There is nothing complicated about it.[/quote]
Sorry if I misquoted you, I read into your comments on improving every session. I think we actually agree, damned internet.
[quote]elano wrote:
The idea isn’t necessarily improving workout to workout (except for beginners), more that a collection of workouts act as a stress/recovery cycle that results in you being stronger than before. [/quote]
I’m doing a period of frequent squatting right now for this very purpose. I know I’m not going to get stronger every workout (I’m getting weaker, in fact). But after this cycle is over and my body overcompensates for the training stress, I should be a few pounds stronger in the squat and have better recovery capacity.
[quote]That One Guy wrote:
The other Rob wrote:
mr popular wrote:
I think you missed the point.
Of course you COULD structure your training so that it would allow you to squat heavy three times a week… but, why would we want to do that? We would be missing out on a lot of stimulation for our thighs that we would otherwise get, just for the sake of squatting every other day. You aren’t likely to build a great lower body by training this way, because you’ve sacrificed so much just so you could get stronger a little faster on one exercise right now (which is also going to stall out do to a lack of accessory work, since you leave hardly enough room to recover from the squats alone)
If you’re a powerlifting doing a sheiko program or something, great… have at it… but I don’t see how squatting three times a week would EVER be relevant to a bodybuilder (yes, even a newbie, Starting Strength sucks balls)
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but doesn’t OTS’s Big Beyond Belief have a set up that allows you to squat 2 (maybe 3) times per week? I remember Smalltobig had some pretty good results on that program.
As far as accessory work goes, some can easily be added on to the higher volume day with a small reduction in volume in squats to target any apparent weaknesses. Otherwise, I can’t see the problem with squatting to get better at squats.
Not everyone agrees, or does well, with BBB protocols.[/quote]
I don’t know of anyone who squats three times a week on BBB… You have hamstrings too, after all.
Some interesting posts in this thread, deserves to be kept going.
The main point has been made; it’s easy for people to jump to conclusions that a person who squats 3x per week is slacking, simply because the main people that do it are beginners. And the point is that advanced lifters CAN squat 3x/week if the volume/intensity is alternated.
The question is; is this type of training practical for bodybuilding?
Correct me if I’m wrong but is not frequency training more beneficial to the CNS rather than to the local muscle? Would it not be EASIER for a bodybuilder to burn out their CNS before the muscle cells have had adequate stimulation doing this training?
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
I don’t know of anyone who squats three times a week on BBB… You have hamstrings too, after all.
[/quote]
You are forgetting that Mark Rippetoe (aka God to some people) thinks that anyone who doesn’t do “rock bottom” squats (which stimulate hamstrings more) are wimps! lol
[quote]MODOK wrote:
elano wrote:
I’m not questioning anybody’s achievements. I am just trying to explain how this shit works for those people who immediately call bullshit on any full body routine or any routine that has you work a muscle group more than once per week. Sure other things work great but I made this thread to try and give a little credibility to the full body method.
I think this shit just sounds more complicated than it is. It’s all really really simple. By stress/recovery cycle I am just referring to the process of stimulating a muscle enough to grow and then allowing time to let it recover. I actually just made up that term because I thought it was self explanatory.
My apologies- I know its simple… but I am waiting patiently on my first instant message from a newb on how to incorporate the strength recovery cycle into EDT while taking HMB, ZMA, and PCP.[/quote]
Modok, you still doing Phil Hernon’s thing? How’s that going for you?
[quote]MODOK wrote:
…I can follow what he’s saying…its not all that difficult or scientific, but if you can’t bench press 225 fuckin pounds, why are you even reading this stuff?
[/quote]
This was fucking great to hear. Are you the reincarnation of my Uncle/Mentor?
[quote]MODOK wrote:
Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
MODOK wrote:
elano wrote:
I’m not questioning anybody’s achievements. I am just trying to explain how this shit works for those people who immediately call bullshit on any full body routine or any routine that has you work a muscle group more than once per week. Sure other things work great but I made this thread to try and give a little credibility to the full body method.
I think this shit just sounds more complicated than it is. It’s all really really simple. By stress/recovery cycle I am just referring to the process of stimulating a muscle enough to grow and then allowing time to let it recover. I actually just made up that term because I thought it was self explanatory.
My apologies- I know its simple… but I am waiting patiently on my first instant message from a newb on how to incorporate the strength recovery cycle into EDT while taking HMB, ZMA, and PCP.
Modok, you still doing Phil Hernon’s thing? How’s that going for you?
Awesome. It took a minute to dial it in…but after about a month I had the weights matched to the reps and sets nicely. We’ll see how much muscle I’ve added in the spring, but its put some beef on me, especially the upper back for some reason.[/quote]
How’s your strength coming along then? Sounds like you’re making fine progress.
I actually wanted to discuss something with you, I’ll revive your old “bodypart once a week” thread in the cell for that purpose if you don’t mind, as soon as I can find the time…
[quote]MODOK wrote:
Science is very intriguing to me… it has to be as my doctorate and career is based in science. But I learned over the years this training stuff is unbelievably simple. Its a simple matter of goal-setting and adding weight to the bar, and then having the balls to go where you’ve never been before. I don’t say this in a vacuum- I have read everything that has been written about training over the years. Everything. I’ve wasted thousands of dollars. Some of it has actually been interesting and held my attention…98% of it was worthless in the gym when I actually put it to practice. Why? Because there is more fake scientific bullshit in bodybuilding than actual bull shit laying on the ground in Texas. Remember Power Factor Training? Cybergenics? HMB? I could go on to the modern day but I might start stepping on toes. How about Hatfield and all that shit he talks about “GAS” “SAID”, bla bla bla. I can follow what he’s saying…its not all that difficult or scientific, but if you can’t bench press 225 fuckin pounds, why are you even reading this stuff? Enjoying all that is ok, IF…IF you don’t get lost in it. How many people can do that? I don’t know, but I’d love to show you my inbox from people who are wandering aimlessly, lost in the forest of concepts, writing to ask should they train in the morning or evening to take advantage of their diurnal rhythm. No kiddin.
My advice- if you find that your brain is more exhausted than your body, its time to donate some books to charity. [/quote]
I agree with you 100% actually. I think you might be surprised at the amount of “scientific” or otherwise written information that you read that you actually kept over the years and just didn’t “know” it. I said this in another thread, but basically a lot of the stuff that is simple and second nature to me NOW, used to be fucking rocket science when I was just getting into this and even during my early intermediate days. I kind of internalized a whole bunch of training literature and science without really even knowing it…until every long once in a while I look back at my lifting career and put things in perspective.
I do agree with you too that you have to avoid getting lost in all the stuff and get in the gym and train while you sort things out. And I agree 10000000% that not a lot of people can do that as newbs/beginners/early intermediates. Echo your thoughts on your inbox. 
[quote]MODOK wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
MODOK wrote:
elano wrote:
The idea isn’t necessarily improving workout to workout (except for beginners), more that a collection of workouts act as a stress/recovery cycle that results in you being stronger than before.
I am no beginner, and the idea is absolutely about improving workout to workout. You guys with all that pseudo-scientific bullshit really make my eyes go crossed. “Stress-recovery cycle”… I don’t even want to ask what the fuck that is. I’m a simple-minded person who thinks and sets goals linearly. I’ve got pretty damn close to a 500 lb raw bench just adding a small amount of weight to the bar or squeezing out another rep over the years. Using a “stress-recovery” cycle, I might be able to bench more than that… but I really don’t give that much of a shit about it honestly. I don’t think 530 lbs will do anything for me that 490 won’t. I LOVE training- its simple, honest and straight-forward. If I were to start following protocols from guys with Eastern European names, doing waves, speed training, bla bla… it wouldn’t be fun anymore.
I guess I’m saying that the fancy training may have a place in high level athletics, but for 99.9% of us, linear progression will get you VERY big and strong… and thats all that we are really after anyway.
I think you guys missed each other on this. Elano meant that the goal was not to improve from Monday to Wednesday to Friday in one week, which I think would be suicide and pointless. Obviously you would want to improve in some fashion from monday to monday, or from month to month if following a prescribed volume/intensity wave like many O-lifters do.
On the other hand you have a point that heavy hard training should be fun because it’s your lifestyle, and if it’s not fun, then don’t do it unless. Some people get a kick out of trying to get the most optimal training possible, so they get into east european protocols and waves and all that. It’s fun for them; the science is fun for them. Some people just like to go in and grind out heavy shit.
So I think you’re both right. I think this training can in fact be very useful to build big ass legs, and even touch them up if you plan it properly. But if you don’t like the technical side and prefer to just do your thing, or if you get bored easily, then don’t do it.
Personally I am of the “science is fun” approach and I enjoy thinking things out like that. It can lead to overanalysis, but it’s fun…for me.
Science is very intriguing to me… it has to be as my doctorate and career is based in science. But I learned over the years this training stuff is unbelievably simple. Its a simple matter of goal-setting and adding weight to the bar, and then having the balls to go where you’ve never been before. I don’t say this in a vacuum- I have read everything that has been written about training over the years. Everything. I’ve wasted thousands of dollars. Some of it has actually been interesting and held my attention…98% of it was worthless in the gym when I actually put it to practice. Why? Because there is more fake scientific bullshit in bodybuilding than actual bull shit laying on the ground in Texas. Remember Power Factor Training? Cybergenics? HMB? I could go on to the modern day but I might start stepping on toes. How about Hatfield and all that shit he talks about “GAS” “SAID”, bla bla bla. I can follow what he’s saying…its not all that difficult or scientific, but if you can’t bench press 225 fuckin pounds, why are you even reading this stuff? Enjoying all that is ok, IF…IF you don’t get lost in it. How many people can do that? I don’t know, but I’d love to show you my inbox from people who are wandering aimlessly, lost in the forest of concepts, writing to ask should they train in the morning or evening to take advantage of their diurnal rhythm. No kiddin.
My advice- if you find that your brain is more exhausted than your body, its time to donate some books to charity. [/quote]
That post should be required reading for anybody new or at a sticking point in their training- I couldn’t agree with Modok more!
As a relatively older guy ( compared to the young bucks on here ) Here is what I have learned during my 25 years of lifting.
Pars
If you include front squatting in the same session with back squats to be 2 times squatting, I’m squatting more than 3 times a week.
I have recently dropped extensions and quad “isolation” movements completely, greatly increased my squatting frequency, and my quads are now exploding (and my squat is going way up).
Didn’t Arnie and most of the old crew generally do larger splits (something like upper/lower) and much higher frequency (3-4 times a week)?
[quote]MODOK wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
If you include front squatting in the same session with back squats to be 2 times squatting, I’m squatting more than 3 times a week.
I have recently dropped extensions and quad “isolation” movements completely, greatly increased my squatting frequency, and my quads are now exploding (and my squat is going way up).
Didn’t Arnie and most of the old crew generally do larger splits (something like upper/lower) and much higher frequency (3-4 times a week)?
Yep. They had some crazy volume, but their splits work great. Our sport has amnesia for some reason. Its really perplexing.[/quote]
Yeah I remember reading a pretty in depth article walking through a training day (hour by hour) for arnold and detailing, step by step, his actual workout. He was doing an upper/lower split but 2 sessions a day so he did the whole body each training day. I think it turned out to be about 4 hours of training and he was doing that 3 or 4 times a week, while doing the big movements like squats and deads every time. I wish I could find the article, it was pretty interesting.
Maybe you can argue the guys could have been better developed using a more modern BBing split, but to think that training high frequency/volume is useless you have to essentially forget what a lot of the greats did.
For those that squat three times a week, how often do you squat through being sore? I finally hit 315 for five reps the other day and my legs are super stiff and aching today but I’m probably going to squat anyway. I do Starting Strength btw.
[quote]ckallander wrote:
For those that squat three times a week, how often do you squat through being sore? I finally hit 315 for five reps the other day and my legs are super stiff and aching today but I’m probably going to squat anyway. I do Starting Strength btw. [/quote]
Depends on how sore. If they’re so sore they hurt the touch and they’re too stiff to bend, then no I don’t squat. If it’s DOMS but I can work myself into the ROM that I need, then I will often squat anyways, but light and with a very extended warm-up to make sure the blood is flowing well and I have full flexibility back. If it’s mild soreness, then yeah I do it as planned.
Sounds like you should consider not squatting today, or perhaps you should warm up and see if your leg mobility improves, then squat real light to get the blood flowing.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Depends on how sore. If they’re so sore they hurt the touch and they’re too stiff to bend, then no I don’t squat. If it’s DOMS but I can work myself into the ROM that I need, then I will often squat anyways, but light and with a very extended warm-up to make sure the blood is flowing well and I have full flexibility back. If it’s mild soreness, then yeah I do it as planned.
Sounds like you should consider not squatting today, or perhaps you should warm up and see if your leg mobility improves, then squat real light to get the blood flowing.[/quote]
I did an extra lengthy warm-up, and by the time I got to my work sets my legs felt nearly 100%. Only got a few extra reps with 315 but progress is progress nonetheless. Thanks for the advice man.
You’re obviously doing 1/4 squats if you’re able to hit 315x3x5 on the SS program. I find it hard to believe your training week was:
Monday 305x3x5
wednesday 310x3x5
friday 315x3x5
I call bullshit. Also judging by your legs in your pic you couldn’t squat 315x1 below parallel. If you can please post a video an prove me wrong!