[quote]SSC wrote:
I’m glad others have all this science-y stuff and interesting insights. Because my best response would be, “Because bigger and smarter people told me to.”
Good enough for me. shrug[/quote]
Good point. Wasn’t trying to say that the people prescribing these rep ranges are wrong, far from it. I just wondered if there would be any difference to doing other reps instead. Obviously I know there wouldn’t be a huge difference but I just thought it was something interesting.
[/quote]
Oh, it’s definitely an interesting question and I certainly didn’t mean to insinuate otherwise! Really, everyone has a different blend of fast twitch/slow twitch fibers that will dictate what kind of rep range works best for them. And you know, training style will also dictate success with those ranges as well. I’ve just found so many times that when I get caught up in minutia like “I need to X weight for X reps” or “yadda yadda % of my max” and all of that, it ended up being more of a science project rather than what we all know and love - getting in the weight room, tearing shit up and just having fun.
[quote]SSC wrote:
I’m glad others have all this science-y stuff and interesting insights. Because my best response would be, “Because bigger and smarter people told me to.”
Good enough for me. shrug[/quote]
Good point. Wasn’t trying to say that the people prescribing these rep ranges are wrong, far from it. I just wondered if there would be any difference to doing other reps instead. Obviously I know there wouldn’t be a huge difference but I just thought it was something interesting.
[/quote]
Oh, it’s definitely an interesting question and I certainly didn’t mean to insinuate otherwise! Really, everyone has a different blend of fast twitch/slow twitch fibers that will dictate what kind of rep range works best for them. And you know, training style will also dictate success with those ranges as well. I’ve just found so many times that when I get caught up in minutia like “I need to X weight for X reps” or “yadda yadda % of my max” and all of that, it ended up being more of a science project rather than what we all know and love - getting in the weight room, tearing shit up and just having fun.
Anyway, carry on. Good discussion potential here.[/quote]
Yeah percentages get a little annoying lately I’ve just been picking a number and working up in weight until I know it’s not gonna happen on the next set. That’s why i was interested rather than getting into percentages etc.
Concerning Waterbury’s set/rep bible article, do those charts refer to the amount of work the muscle should do in a given workout or for a single exercise?
[quote]Gnarly wrote:
Concerning Waterbury’s set/rep bible article, do those charts refer to the amount of work the muscle should do in a given workout or for a single exercise?[/quote]
Waterbury generally breaks things down by movement pattern - vertical push, vertical pull, horizontal push, horizontal pull, quad-dominant lower body, hip-dominant lower body - so it’d basically be per muscle group (total), not per exercise.
From that article’s discussion thread (page 2):
[quote]Chad Waterbury wrote:
[quote]Snoop wrote:
Great article CW!
I guess the question in there is; does it matter if the reps/sets come from the same movement or can it be applied to muscle targeted?
Snoop[/quote]
The targeted set/rep volume doesn’t need to come from the same exercise. The parameters are for the muscle group in question. For example, you could perform 3 different triceps exercises for 3x3 (9x3, total) and hit the range. [/quote]
[quote]The_Jed wrote:
Today on my deadlift amrap set I failed at 13… the horror![/quote]
Haha that’s funny!
I’m liking this better doing 4’s instead of 5’s etc. Don’t know if its a mental thing because its new and I’m doing one less rep but I’m feeling stronger and like I can do more volume.