Marc,
Thanks, you answered most of my questions there…
But…you say that you are currently on five sets of three…how many sets are YOU going to work up to? Or is five your upper limit?
I’ve been reading around…many articles on this topic go along the lines of an EMOM approach. Do you se this as a viable prospect, or are you insistent that a three to five minute rest period is better?
Marc,
Fully agree with you about the important areas of the body…(chest and arms have never been my “thing”)…but I would add upper back to that list however…even if it is for functionality.
Alactic training seem to correspond with the current science in strength oriented training.
Reading Brad Schoenfeld, his current “strength phase” training suggestion is based around the basic lifts (no biceps/triceps) for 3 to 5 reps (for 3 to 5 working sets). Rest periods of 3 to 5 minutes between sets. Training 3 times a week.
The only difference to alactic training, as I see it, is Brad’s idea of explosive intent in reps, compared to slower, more controlled reps as suggested here.
Are we complicating things? Old is new?
Strength programs where you keep the reps low, stay away from failure, never miss a rep, never grind a rep, and rest relatively long between sets have been around for awhile, as far as I can tell. Calling it anti glycolytic may just be a new way to promote an old training method.
Pavel’s use of the term is in conjunction with what he calls Strong Endurance. He claims you can become better at doing repeated fast/powerful movements.
I’ve seen some articles where the same ideas are applied to sprint interval training for track athletes.
So maybe it is just another way to talk about training methods where you try to keep intensity high, but fatigue low, or at least at more manageable levels.
2 Likes
Interesting. The similarities are striking. I forgot to mention that Schoenfeld also recommend RPE of 80%.
Marc,
I’m intrigued…
You say that you are up to 3 to 5 sets ( of 3 reps each I presume) on two exercises, with presumably 5 minute rests in between each subsequent set, using ( I’m guessing) 85% of your 1 rep max.
So a couple of questions if you will…
- How many sets per exercise do you propose to work up to, before raising the weight and starting all over again with less sets? Are you going to work up to ten sets as in the Waterbury method? He proposes using 85% of a one rep max for ten sets with a much shorter rest time than you seem to be using. So if you are currently on only five sets, with a three to five minute rest between each, then your poundages must be closer to your one rep max than 85% surely?
- How many sets of 3 did you start with?
- When do you add a set? Is it when the last set (in this current case…the fifth) feels easy to perform? So now time to add another…
- You claim that this is an ideal routine for the older lifter…but is the protocol of using heavier weights not going to have a negative impact on ageing joints and connective tissue? Or does the fact that you are not going to failure offset this? Do you ever find yourself grinding out a rep in order to complete a set of 3? Bad days happen…what do you do if the set feels tough to complete?
Not being contentious…just trying to wrap my head around the concept, which is difficult for a long time one set to failure person to do…
————
Contentious is Ok! But you are fine! I should have listened to my fellow hillbillies years ago. Bob Peoples and Paul Anderson about rep ranges. Low rep sets of heavy weights. Beyond strong! What is missing- cardiovascular conditioning! This is the most important thing!
As regards
1)
Chad Waterbury refined his method to 8 sets total
I did 6 total sets of Nautilus decline bench press
It felt excessive, maybe I need to work up to that total- experiment gone wild- who knows?
But 4-5 total sets depletes phosphagen levels perhaps enough for older drug-free lifters.
Note: if you are on HRT, experiment for YOU!
I do not foresee 10 sets in my future!
- till the weight speeds up as one lifts.
- till the weight speeds up as one lifts
- alactic training is another tool in the toolbox
However , cardiovascular fitness is more important. If you perfect your form and don’t use maximum weights, this is extremely safe. More movement helps the joint to get stronger and lubricate with synovial fluids. I never grind out reps. I don’t lift if I feel incapable of accomplishing the task! Lifting this way is much more exhilarating to the nervous system.
I hope this helps
Experiment
Marc
Marc,
Thanks for the response.
Marc,
One last question…do you see any merit in the EMOM approach? ( every minute on the minute…as promoted by Pavel and others) …or are you insistent that 3 to 5 minutes is a necessary rest period between sets?
Marc,
The reason I ask about EMOM as opposed to 3 to 5 minute rest periods is because of this paper…
If you say that you have to avoid fatigue, then according to this, 3 to 5 minutes may not be necessary and would make the protocol quicker and easier to work.
And Marc,
I agree with your stance on cardio…do 4 sessions a week of 30 to 45 minutes of zone 2 work myself.
This may interest you…
Marc,
The only downside to what you are saying comes from this meta analysis which states that arterial stiffness is increased long term with higher load training, but, despite acute increases from lower loads and higher reps, long term there are positive effects with lighter load training.
Gave the 10x3 a try Monday, but with less rest between the same exercises, so more of a metabolic conditioning emphasis. All three exercises were performed on a Nautilus Multi Exercise machine.
Hip belt squat 3 r @ 10 sec
10 sec rest
Chin 3 r @ 10 sec
10 sec rest
Dip 3 r @ 10 sec
10 sec rest
Repeat for 10 bouts
Thinking of adding heel raise next session to build time between the same exercise. In this format, to get 3 minutes between exercises, you would need 9 different exercises and that would require 30 minutes to complete the entire workout. Doesn’t sound like much, but 10 minutes damn near killed me.
1 Like
Sounds like plenty to me! Instead of immediately cranking the knob to 11, I’ll work my way there. CW’s Fat Loss version called for 30-45 secs between sets. I tried some the other day and started with 15-18 secs and increased as the sets went along. Secs rest: 18*,18,21,21,24,24,27,27,30 (I use breaths to time my breaks, 3 secs/breath). Each workout, I will try and decrease the rest times (18,18,18,21,21,21,24,24,24).
When I’m down to 15 secs or less, it’ll be time to ‘Up’ the weight!
I don’t know
I will let you decide for yourself
Science and empirical evidence abounds that 3-5 minutes is correct.
That is why sprinters don’t even think about repeats.
They all do partial sprints in training.
Even in 100 meters there is deceleration of the sprinter’s speed.
Pavel knows cardiovascular conditioning. Listen to him.
But for strength, 5 minutes rest.
1 Like
No resistance training program is sufficient for cardiovascular conditioning. The lifting of weights interferes with venous return. The intrathoracic pressure is increased during resistance training. This decreases the filling of the left ventricle thereby decreasing eccentric hypertrophy development. This decreases cardio output. Resistance training increases peripheral vascular resistance thereby squeezing blood vessels diameter and impeding blood flow and subsequent oxygen delivery. Yes Dr . McGuff is wrong about cardiovascular conditioning.
You need activity that:
-
utilize at least 50 % of available muscle mass
-
fast rhythmical contraction-relaxation of agonist and antagonist muscles
-
no interference with breathing - such as the Valsalva maneuver as the lifting of weights will limit blood return to the right atrium of the heart as it compromises the Superior Vena Cava. When blood cannot return to the heart it can not get reoxygenated.
1 Like
Marc,
“That is why sprinters don’t even think about repeats.
They all do partial sprints in training.
Even in 100 meters there is deceleration of the sprinter’s speed.”
Fully agree with this. But however, there is a general “unwritten” rule for rest periods for sprinters, of rest one minute for every ten metres run. So if you were only doing 10 metre accelerations, you wouldn’t have to rest for much longer than a minute, before doing another one. So with this in mind, the study that I shared, comparing shorter rest periods, for shorter, less fatiguing sets, DOES have some validity don’t you think? It also does tie in with Waterbury’s approach, who you have cited as supporting your decision to try your recent training experiment. His approach, whether it was 10 sets or 8, uses rest periods much shorter than three to five minutes. Maybe this is in mind of the lifter? As if some of the programs I’ve seen of his did have rest periods that long, the gym staff would be switching off the lights and locking the doors while you were still in the middle of it.
Also Marc,
You didn’t respond to / address the arterial stiffening aspect / meta analysis that I posted.
Although your new training direction has merit with some reasoning to support it, I would have thought that the arterial stiffening aspect would have been of importance to you, taking into account your views on cardio and longevity.
I would say that arterial stiffening might have been an even bigger factor in this regard than any potential benefits of training with heavy weights and low reps.
Once again, not being contentious, but just trying to flesh this out with possible outcomes / drawbacks before diving in and giving it a go myself.
I would call this a good reason to proceed with the lower weight / shorter rest periods version of this kind of Training. 70-75%1RM, with rest periods of 15-40 secs (start higher and shorten the rest periods as you go and get better conditioned). I’m test driving this variation for the next 4-6 weeks. There may be only 3 reps in each set, but 1) the accumulated rep numbers, 2) the rest periods, 3) the rhythmic rep speeds, and 4) the contingency to stop the set if rep speed slows (i.e. avoid high-intensity straining), would all lend themselves as boons to the arterial stiffness dilemma!!
This is the conclusion from the paper you posted:
The evidence from our systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis confirmed that RE intensity is the key variable to promote arterial stiffness. Precisely, low-to-moderate-intensity RE is effective in improving arterial stiffness in young and middle-aged adults. In contrast, high-intensity RE is ineffective in decreasing the PWV. Therefore, practicing high-intensity RE should be cautious in particular age groups/patients due to the unfavorable effects on arterial stiffness. Practicing of low-to-moderate-intensity RE is beneficial to promote arterial stiffness that may aid to reduce the risk for cardiovascular diseases.
My reading is that lower intensity RE improves arterial stiffness. Higher intensity does not improve arterial stiffness. They do not conclude that higher intensity RE makes stiffness worse.
So I would quibble with the wording of the 4th sentence. In my mind it should probably say “practicing high intensity RE should be cautious in particular age groups/patients due the LACK OF FAVORABLE effects…”
In the realm of cardiovascular exercise, long duration low intensity running has beneficial effects on arterial stiffness. But there is some thought that, as you get older, it gets harder to improve arterial stiffness, even with cardio.
My guess is that by the time you hit 60 or 65, any kind of exercise starts to have diminishing returns on arterial stiffness. If you are younger, maybe it is wise to combine some low/moderate intensity resistance work and cardio into your program, to offset whatever adverse impact might come from a low to moderate number of heavy lifting sessions?