I’ve started using a hypertrophy programme by Alywn Cosgrove following some good success on a strength phase he outlined.
In summary, it consists of two workouts using an upper/lower body split; training 3-4 times per week. The rep ranges alter every workout between 5x5, 4x10 and 3x15; the rest times also vary, i.e. 90, 60 and 30 seconds.
The question is should you use drop sets for the higher rep workouts? Otherwise the 3x15 will end up turning into a 1x15, 1x9 and 1x6, etc, especially given the 30-second RI.
I’m assuming this is not what Cosgrove intended, however, I can’t see this explained in any of his writings.
Does anyone have any experience with such programmes that could feedback on this?
Does no one consider performance drop off anymore? In my opinion, I think that if one is able to 3 sets of 15 reps, the weight is too light. 1x15, 1x9 and 1x6 (these hypothetical numbers) are fine. You shouldn’t expect to get all three sets done for 15.
I think if your using a rep range, for example, 10-15 reps, once your able to do 15 reps for the FIRST set and a number relatively close to that for the second set (say 13 or 14), then its time to increase the weight.
So what do you think of 5x5? Isn’t it still true that the weight is lighter then on the first set than what could actually be done for 5 reps?
How 'bout however many sets of 10?
As to whether being able to get 15 reps in three successive sets is reasonable, IMO it would depend on the individual and the movement. For me it would be reasonable for biceps for example, but completely unreasonable for say rows. For another person it might be fine for rows. In contrast some have productively done 40 rep rows. But I would need the pink dumbbells for that.
Im not sure I exactly understand your original question.
But I always total reps, not sets. No, this doesn’t make me a “CW fan boy”. I incorporate such methods in a split routine.
I like the premise of 5x5, but, if one is using substantial weight, your not gonna get all 5 sets of 5. It might look like: 5,5,4,3,3.
But now its not 5x5. Its 2x5, 1x4, 2x3. Add up the reps and you get 20. Thats 5 reps less than 25, which is the goal right? If I was curling 100 lbs, that means I got 2000lbs worth of work ddone. But If I did as many sets as it took to get 25, than my poundage adds up to 2500lbs.
All in all, I dont a person should worry about completing a certain amount of reps within a given amount of sets. Let your body tell you when you had enough.
Actually you did answer my question by replying, “I like the premise of 5x5, but, if one is using substantial weight, your not gonna get all 5 sets of 5. It might look like: 5,5,4,3,3.”
The thing is you are introducing another premise. Namely that when a person writing an exercise program specifies 5x5 that he means the weight should be one that permits 5 reps ONLY on the first set or two and then suffers a drop off.
But that is NOT what the person writing the program intends.
Basically, you and the OP are reading instructions given one way and turning it into something else, while calling it the same thing.
5,5,4,3,3 is not 5x5.
And there will exist a weight where one can do 5x5 but could not do it with a greater weight.
You may not want to train that way yourself, but if a program is calling for that or someone is talking about it, that’s what they’re talking about, and it’s not so that it is going to wind up 5,5,4,3,3 – unless a mistake is made.
Well, while I know you asked pros and cons, as that seems more problematic to me, myself I’ll address instead a related matter.
Doing as many reps as possible for each of 5 (or some other multi-set number) sets will permit less total volume to be performed. Or alternately, perfoming the sets in for example 5x5 style with a weight permitting that will allow greater volume than using a greater weight that started at 5 reps but where reps had to descend.
That is in and of itself neither good nor bad. It’s mentioned only for reasons of planning: if say you’ve been doing every set for as many reps as you could and now are thinking of trying a period of doing everything in a straight set manner (if we can call it that), greater volume should be planned; and vice-versa.
If that isn’t done, then the new method may be judged to have problems.
As to whether with a protocol such as 5x5 the first sets will be or seem mere warmups, that will vary according to the individual, the exercise, the rest periods, nutritional support with regard to macronutrients, nutritional supplementation of other types if applicable, and drug use if applicable.
In many cases performance in later sets is not so compromised that the early sets are anything like so easy as to be only warmups.
They’re each focused on different training capacities. Strict 5x5 can be used in high frequency training, high volume training, or somewhere in between.
On the other hand, diminishing reps would be a result of either high intensiveness or density. In other words, you’re either going to failure every set or you’re limiting your rest time.
Obviously you can’t train all capacities at once. Bodybuilding is usually a balance between volume and intensiveness, although there are exceptions.
Personally, I’ve little issues with the 5x5. I would select a load that would generate something like 5,5,5,5,3 then stick to it until I get the final 25 reps before increasing the load.
The higher rep sets, however, are far less consistent in practice. And, as stated earlier, a 3x15 results in a 15,9,6 (30 total reps) using the same load and short rest intervals. Clearly if I adopt the same policy as 5x5 here then I would need to try and eek out those remaining 15 total reps by adding one here and there per week. The chances are I would never get near doing that before the programme became stale and gains dropped off (thus negating the whole philosophy of undulating periodization).
James, actually, yes, you beat me to it, it was a late night post replying to Forbes and I realized earlier this morning that I had been incomplete in my reply in an important way that you’ve addressed.
Namely, that while when a program is “5x5” that doesn’t mean choosing weights every week that routinely cannot be done for anything like but instead have the performance drop-off Forbes was referring to, the weight being too heavy, it also is the case as you say that in an ongoing 5x5 program it absolutely can be the case that 5x5 as actually 5 sets of 5 reps was achieved with a given weight and then the weight is increased, still yielding 5 reps on earlier sets but then suffering a drop at the end just as you said.
