I have a suspicion that this was a theoretical example with a hypothetical weight.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Are we in a time warp of errors resurfacing, sort of like the body coming out of the ground in, I dunno, whatever the hell 70’s movie it was.
Oh yeah, “Deliverance.”
I am sure that I have explained already either today or yesterday in this forum that if one’s plan is to do only two reps in the last set, three reps in the next to last, etc. then this is NOT doing five sets of 5 reps.
And that only a person who is perfectly happy calling cats “dogs,” squats “deadlifts,” curls “extensions,” and two “five” would insist that it was.
Let alone that not doing five sets of 5 reps was the CORRECT (quote) way of doing five sets of 5 reps.
Give us a break. Why ridiculously misuse words like this. It does not help communication whatsoever.
It’s one thing to advise that you think it is more productive to use a protocol such as you describe. But to claim it is five sets of 5 reps when it is patently not and is deliberately avoiding being that – definitely not trying for it – is just whacked.
And this has been explained already. However, one can lead a horse to water, etc.
Actually the wording is so extremely similar to the previous post engaging in the same thing that I tend to think that this new post is from a sock puppet account, trying to show that “someone else” thinks the same. But that is neither here nor there.[/quote]
Not sure if you were referring to my post, but if you were I was simply asking Maraudermeat if he followed a similar unique way of doing “3x3” as he does “5x5” and yes I know his example was not a true 5x5 but it has obviously gotten his very strong so I would like to know more about his training methods, no matter what he calls them.
[quote]SquatDeep385 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Are we in a time warp of errors resurfacing, sort of like the body coming out of the ground in, I dunno, whatever the hell 70’s movie it was.
Oh yeah, “Deliverance.”
I am sure that I have explained already either today or yesterday in this forum that if one’s plan is to do only two reps in the last set, three reps in the next to last, etc. then this is NOT doing five sets of 5 reps.
And that only a person who is perfectly happy calling cats “dogs,” squats “deadlifts,” curls “extensions,” and two “five” would insist that it was.
Let alone that not doing five sets of 5 reps was the CORRECT (quote) way of doing five sets of 5 reps.
Give us a break. Why ridiculously misuse words like this. It does not help communication whatsoever.
It’s one thing to advise that you think it is more productive to use a protocol such as you describe. But to claim it is five sets of 5 reps when it is patently not and is deliberately avoiding being that – definitely not trying for it – is just whacked.
And this has been explained already. However, one can lead a horse to water, etc.
Actually the wording is so extremely similar to the previous post engaging in the same thing that I tend to think that this new post is from a sock puppet account, trying to show that “someone else” thinks the same. But that is neither here nor there.
Not sure if you were referring to my post, but if you were I was simply asking Maraudermeat if he followed a similar unique way of doing “3x3” as he does “5x5” and yes I know his example was not a true 5x5 but it has obviously gotten his very strong so I would like to know more about his training methods, no matter what he calls them.[/quote]
don’t worry about it bro. i got you… unfortunately most people on here like to hear themselves talk. just let them keep talking while we keep putting up weight that they couldn’t imagine putting up.
anyway… to answer your question- when i perform my “better than 3x3” Trade Mark Pending, I pick a weight that i can get 3 reps on the first set and then with fatigue i usually get 2 reps for the next two. once i can get the first two sets for three it’s time to move up in weight.
feel free to ask any questions that you have. I won’t call you a sock puppet:)
[quote]Professor X wrote:
cueball wrote:
kandra wrote:
What works for me is, I do a reverse pyramid. I warm up first, then I start with the most weight first, then work my way down. Say I do sqwat, my first set is 435lbs for 10-12 reps, second set of 435lbs, I try to get 8-10 reps and on my third set I may only get 6-8 reps with 435lbs. Pyramiding up dose not work for me.
LOL
What the hell?
Kandra, say hello to pulled/torn muscles for me.
The worst mistake I could make is walking into a gym and using my heaviest weight on my first set.[/quote]
I think what he means is once he sufficiently warms up he starts with as much as he can and does straight sets with it each set to failure. I used to train like that but it’s probably more dangerous for someone with your strength and probably not ideal for most people anyway.
Have not torn or pulled anything in 4 years.
I don’t just walk in the gym and throw on the weight, and go at it. I warm up first, tonight I did 435lbs for 10 reps on my first set, the second set I got 8 reps, droped the weight to 405lbs and did 8 reps and on my last set I did 335lbs for 12 reps.
To PX and CC, since you both seem to train with a similar type of pyramiding (or anyone else that wants to answer), do you think there’s anything ‘wrong’ with doing more sets after your one main one you’ve ramped up to and tried to beat your last workout on? For example for deadlift 135x12, 225x10, 315x5, then that main set of say 405x7 that is really your most important set, after that do say 405 x 5, then 405 x 4?
And is your answer the same for a less demanding exercise than deadlifts?
[quote]SquatDeep385 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Are we in a time warp of errors resurfacing, sort of like the body coming out of the ground in, I dunno, whatever the hell 70’s movie it was.
Oh yeah, “Deliverance.”
I am sure that I have explained already either today or yesterday in this forum that if one’s plan is to do only two reps in the last set, three reps in the next to last, etc. then this is NOT doing five sets of 5 reps.
And that only a person who is perfectly happy calling cats “dogs,” squats “deadlifts,” curls “extensions,” and two “five” would insist that it was.
Let alone that not doing five sets of 5 reps was the CORRECT (quote) way of doing five sets of 5 reps.
Give us a break. Why ridiculously misuse words like this. It does not help communication whatsoever.
It’s one thing to advise that you think it is more productive to use a protocol such as you describe. But to claim it is five sets of 5 reps when it is patently not and is deliberately avoiding being that – definitely not trying for it – is just whacked.
And this has been explained already. However, one can lead a horse to water, etc.
Actually the wording is so extremely similar to the previous post engaging in the same thing that I tend to think that this new post is from a sock puppet account, trying to show that “someone else” thinks the same. But that is neither here nor there.
Not sure if you were referring to my post, but if you were I was simply asking Maraudermeat if he followed a similar unique way of doing “3x3” as he does “5x5” and yes I know his example was not a true 5x5 but it has obviously gotten his very strong so I would like to know more about his training methods, no matter what he calls them.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure you’re missing the point as well. I’m doubt he’s calling out the efficacy of MM’s methods.
[quote]maraudermeat wrote:
SquatDeep385 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Are we in a time warp of errors resurfacing, sort of like the body coming out of the ground in, I dunno, whatever the hell 70’s movie it was.
Oh yeah, “Deliverance.”
I am sure that I have explained already either today or yesterday in this forum that if one’s plan is to do only two reps in the last set, three reps in the next to last, etc. then this is NOT doing five sets of 5 reps.
And that only a person who is perfectly happy calling cats “dogs,” squats “deadlifts,” curls “extensions,” and two “five” would insist that it was.
Let alone that not doing five sets of 5 reps was the CORRECT (quote) way of doing five sets of 5 reps.
Give us a break. Why ridiculously misuse words like this. It does not help communication whatsoever.
It’s one thing to advise that you think it is more productive to use a protocol such as you describe. But to claim it is five sets of 5 reps when it is patently not and is deliberately avoiding being that – definitely not trying for it – is just whacked.
And this has been explained already. However, one can lead a horse to water, etc.
Actually the wording is so extremely similar to the previous post engaging in the same thing that I tend to think that this new post is from a sock puppet account, trying to show that “someone else” thinks the same. But that is neither here nor there.
Not sure if you were referring to my post, but if you were I was simply asking Maraudermeat if he followed a similar unique way of doing “3x3” as he does “5x5” and yes I know his example was not a true 5x5 but it has obviously gotten his very strong so I would like to know more about his training methods, no matter what he calls them.
don’t worry about it bro. i got you… unfortunately most people on here like to hear themselves talk. just let them keep talking while we keep putting up weight that they couldn’t imagine putting up.
anyway… to answer your question- when i perform my “better than 3x3” Trade Mark Pending, I pick a weight that i can get 3 reps on the first set and then with fatigue i usually get 2 reps for the next two. once i can get the first two sets for three it’s time to move up in weight.
feel free to ask any questions that you have. I won’t call you a sock puppet:)
[/quote]
haha thanks man
Would you say that your 5x5 and 3x3 methods are pretty interchangeable or is each one better in certain situations? Or do you switch from one to the other when your progress stalls?
[quote]SquatDeep385 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Are we in a time warp of errors resurfacing, sort of like the body coming out of the ground in, I dunno, whatever the hell 70’s movie it was.
Oh yeah, “Deliverance.”
I am sure that I have explained already either today or yesterday in this forum that if one’s plan is to do only two reps in the last set, three reps in the next to last, etc. then this is NOT doing five sets of 5 reps.
And that only a person who is perfectly happy calling cats “dogs,” squats “deadlifts,” curls “extensions,” and two “five” would insist that it was.
Let alone that not doing five sets of 5 reps was the CORRECT (quote) way of doing five sets of 5 reps.
Give us a break. Why ridiculously misuse words like this. It does not help communication whatsoever.
It’s one thing to advise that you think it is more productive to use a protocol such as you describe. But to claim it is five sets of 5 reps when it is patently not and is deliberately avoiding being that – definitely not trying for it – is just whacked.
And this has been explained already. However, one can lead a horse to water, etc.
Actually the wording is so extremely similar to the previous post engaging in the same thing that I tend to think that this new post is from a sock puppet account, trying to show that “someone else” thinks the same. But that is neither here nor there.
Not sure if you were referring to my post, but if you were I was simply asking Maraudermeat if he followed a similar unique way of doing “3x3” as he does “5x5” and yes I know his example was not a true 5x5 but it has obviously gotten his very strong so I would like to know more about his training methods, no matter what he calls them.[/quote]
Your post is written as if it were you speaking. There is nothing in any way crediting Maraudermeat for what is said.
But now I am thinking you just took his post and presented it as if it were your own words.
??
[quote]SquatDeep385 wrote:
maraudermeat wrote:
SquatDeep385 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Are we in a time warp of errors resurfacing, sort of like the body coming out of the ground in, I dunno, whatever the hell 70’s movie it was.
Oh yeah, “Deliverance.”
I am sure that I have explained already either today or yesterday in this forum that if one’s plan is to do only two reps in the last set, three reps in the next to last, etc. then this is NOT doing five sets of 5 reps.
And that only a person who is perfectly happy calling cats “dogs,” squats “deadlifts,” curls “extensions,” and two “five” would insist that it was.
Let alone that not doing five sets of 5 reps was the CORRECT (quote) way of doing five sets of 5 reps.
Give us a break. Why ridiculously misuse words like this. It does not help communication whatsoever.
It’s one thing to advise that you think it is more productive to use a protocol such as you describe. But to claim it is five sets of 5 reps when it is patently not and is deliberately avoiding being that – definitely not trying for it – is just whacked.
And this has been explained already. However, one can lead a horse to water, etc.
Actually the wording is so extremely similar to the previous post engaging in the same thing that I tend to think that this new post is from a sock puppet account, trying to show that “someone else” thinks the same. But that is neither here nor there.
Not sure if you were referring to my post, but if you were I was simply asking Maraudermeat if he followed a similar unique way of doing “3x3” as he does “5x5” and yes I know his example was not a true 5x5 but it has obviously gotten his very strong so I would like to know more about his training methods, no matter what he calls them.
don’t worry about it bro. i got you… unfortunately most people on here like to hear themselves talk. just let them keep talking while we keep putting up weight that they couldn’t imagine putting up.
anyway… to answer your question- when i perform my “better than 3x3” Trade Mark Pending, I pick a weight that i can get 3 reps on the first set and then with fatigue i usually get 2 reps for the next two. once i can get the first two sets for three it’s time to move up in weight.
feel free to ask any questions that you have. I won’t call you a sock puppet:)
haha thanks man
Would you say that your 5x5 and 3x3 methods are pretty interchangeable or is each one better in certain situations? Or do you switch from one to the other when your progress stalls?[/quote]
i use 5x5 when i’m looking to get a bit more volume, need more practice on a lift or am feeling not as strong that day.
i use 3x3 when i’m feeling really good and looking to hit a heavy weight.
sometimes i use both in the same session. this past four week cycle i started with 3x3 and then on my second ME movement i used 5x5.
typically though i attempt to plan when i’m going to use either one or both.
let me know if you have further questions. i keep a training log in the over 35 lifter thread as well as at my sponsor’s website- Charles Staley.
maraudermeat wrote:
let me know if you have further questions. i keep a training log in the over 35 lifter thread as well as at my sponsor’s website- Charles Staley.
It is a damn good log too. Lots of good bits of info in there.
[quote]Free2Be wrote:
maraudermeat wrote:
let me know if you have further questions. i keep a training log in the over 35 lifter thread as well as at my sponsor’s website- Charles Staley.
It is a damn good log too. Lots of good bits of info in there.[/quote]
i appreciate the positive comment.
[quote]kandra wrote:
Have not torn or pulled anything in 4 years.[/quote]
Oh, well then…you are far past the point that any injury can occur then.
I was sooooo happy when I passed the “4 year invincibility mark”.
[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:
To PX and CC, since you both seem to train with a similar type of pyramiding (or anyone else that wants to answer), do you think there’s anything ‘wrong’ with doing more sets after your one main one you’ve ramped up to and tried to beat your last workout on? For example for deadlift 135x12, 225x10, 315x5, then that main set of say 405x7 that is really your most important set, after that do say 405 x 5, then 405 x 4?
And is your answer the same for a less demanding exercise than deadlifts?[/quote]
There are no constant rules of what you must or must not do.
Yes, I have done that before. In many cases, like today in training back, I will go up to my heaviest weight for rows and then finish with lat pulldowns (the same exercise I started with) yet drop the weight a little and just do a few sets really trying to feel that muscle group.
That doesn’t mean I reduce the weight on previous sets so I ahve more energy. I add it in if I feel like there is more in the tank, in part to get more blood in the target muscle group (burnouts) or to just feel that muscle working without the massive weight I was previously doing.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
SquatDeep385 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Are we in a time warp of errors resurfacing, sort of like the body coming out of the ground in, I dunno, whatever the hell 70’s movie it was.
Oh yeah, “Deliverance.”
I am sure that I have explained already either today or yesterday in this forum that if one’s plan is to do only two reps in the last set, three reps in the next to last, etc. then this is NOT doing five sets of 5 reps.
And that only a person who is perfectly happy calling cats “dogs,” squats “deadlifts,” curls “extensions,” and two “five” would insist that it was.
Let alone that not doing five sets of 5 reps was the CORRECT (quote) way of doing five sets of 5 reps.
Give us a break. Why ridiculously misuse words like this. It does not help communication whatsoever.
It’s one thing to advise that you think it is more productive to use a protocol such as you describe. But to claim it is five sets of 5 reps when it is patently not and is deliberately avoiding being that – definitely not trying for it – is just whacked.
And this has been explained already. However, one can lead a horse to water, etc.
Actually the wording is so extremely similar to the previous post engaging in the same thing that I tend to think that this new post is from a sock puppet account, trying to show that “someone else” thinks the same. But that is neither here nor there.
Not sure if you were referring to my post, but if you were I was simply asking Maraudermeat if he followed a similar unique way of doing “3x3” as he does “5x5” and yes I know his example was not a true 5x5 but it has obviously gotten his very strong so I would like to know more about his training methods, no matter what he calls them.
Your post is written as if it were you speaking. There is nothing in any way crediting Maraudermeat for what is said.
But now I am thinking you just took his post and presented it as if it were your own words.
??
[/quote]
I used the quote button on his post just like I am for yours right now but I guesss somehow I messed it up because I can see why you would think that.
[quote]maraudermeat wrote:
i use 5x5 when i’m looking to get a bit more volume, need more practice on a lift or am feeling not as strong that day.
i use 3x3 when i’m feeling really good and looking to hit a heavy weight.
sometimes i use both in the same session. this past four week cycle i started with 3x3 and then on my second ME movement i used 5x5.
typically though i attempt to plan when i’m going to use either one or both.
let me know if you have further questions. i keep a training log in the over 35 lifter thread as well as at my sponsor’s website- Charles Staley.
[/quote]
I looked at your logs, definitely gonna be keeping me busy reading those for awhile. I can tell there’s alot of great info in there. I was wondering what if any other types of loading you’ve used with success in the past. Maybe when you were at more of an intermediate stage?
I’ve heard/read alot about doing something like 5-8 sets of 1-3 reps at 80-90% of 1RM. Have you ever done anything like this?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
kandra wrote:
Have not torn or pulled anything in 4 years.
Oh, well then…you are far past the point that any injury can occur then.
I was sooooo happy when I passed the “4 year invincibility mark”.[/quote]
LMAO
[quote]SquatDeep385 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
SquatDeep385 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Are we in a time warp of errors resurfacing, sort of like the body coming out of the ground in, I dunno, whatever the hell 70’s movie it was.
Oh yeah, “Deliverance.”
I am sure that I have explained already either today or yesterday in this forum that if one’s plan is to do only two reps in the last set, three reps in the next to last, etc. then this is NOT doing five sets of 5 reps.
And that only a person who is perfectly happy calling cats “dogs,” squats “deadlifts,” curls “extensions,” and two “five” would insist that it was.
Let alone that not doing five sets of 5 reps was the CORRECT (quote) way of doing five sets of 5 reps.
Give us a break. Why ridiculously misuse words like this. It does not help communication whatsoever.
It’s one thing to advise that you think it is more productive to use a protocol such as you describe. But to claim it is five sets of 5 reps when it is patently not and is deliberately avoiding being that – definitely not trying for it – is just whacked.
And this has been explained already. However, one can lead a horse to water, etc.
Actually the wording is so extremely similar to the previous post engaging in the same thing that I tend to think that this new post is from a sock puppet account, trying to show that “someone else” thinks the same. But that is neither here nor there.
Not sure if you were referring to my post, but if you were I was simply asking Maraudermeat if he followed a similar unique way of doing “3x3” as he does “5x5” and yes I know his example was not a true 5x5 but it has obviously gotten his very strong so I would like to know more about his training methods, no matter what he calls them.
Your post is written as if it were you speaking. There is nothing in any way crediting Maraudermeat for what is said.
But now I am thinking you just took his post and presented it as if it were your own words.
??
I used the quote button on his post just like I am for yours right now but I guesss somehow I messed it up because I can see why you would think that.[/quote]
Simple enough. What I said had no applicability then: I apologize for responding to the way things looked instead of how they actually were but unknown to me.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Simple enough. What I said had no applicability then: I apologize for responding to the way things looked instead of how they actually were but unknown to me.
[/quote]
No apology neccessary