Sorry, and short or long rest
Pakewi to progress the 5x5 (powerfully) at 10RM weight I would aim to increase the reps to 6 and then move up in weight (2.5-5kg) or just move up in weight each time 5x5 has been accomplished perhaps 2.5kg. Either, not sure at the moment. It may depend how the last session went.
lkh short rest would be applied in GPP in order to:
-hypertrophy
-condition for short rest
-reduce staleness in SPP from not starting full RM/long rest work too soon
The 5x5 I mentioned would be used powerfully with short rest and this does fatigue the type IIb well and stimulate their growth better than 3x10 according to charles staley
Vila a beginner would probably use 10s with longer rest
Pakewi:
what about supersetting two exercises,i mean:
A1 Bench Press 12 x 2 20"R
A2 Chin Up 12 x 2 20"R
instead of doing 12 x 2 30"R for each exercise?
Maybe this could provide a solid general fitness more than the original one,but what about avoiding th unnecessary fatigued states ??
What do you think?
Whatever scheme you work out for your athletes and youself in GPP,I would make sure to:
- spread the load as much as possible
- put easy numbers in and stay there long enough
- if not avoid at least minimize fatigue.Some fatigue will -and perhaps should - result of course,but only from accumulation of the work done.
While circuit training might be an option to achieve the above, I do not see how shortening the already short rests (30’'to 20") and increasing the density (4 to 6 reps total per minute) may help.
It was only a way to shorten the total time.
Yes,from a muscular point of view it would be fine,but the increased density will have an heavier overall (systemic,nervous) effect .
Ok then,i’ll use the original protocoll 
A question: do you suggest me always 30"R for the 24x1 and 12x2 ?
I am not sure it is a good idea to shorten the total workout (set) time.It is either 24x1/ 30" or 24x2/ 30" . Obviously,different 1RM%.
You do not really want to have any “heavier” effect when using such a protocol.Other more classical protocols may accomplish the “heavier effect” task finely.
With alll this talk about sets and reps it doesn’t seem that anyone has considered the speed at which strength movements are performed.
Example…
If you prescribe 5 x 5 in squats for an athlete to perform at a given weight and the bar velocity drops to a point were the athlete is grinding out reps 4 and 5 lets say on every set. Then the quality at which you are performing the movement has dropped and therefore you are working diffrent muscular qualities on reps 4 and 5 than you did on 1-3. (Bosco) I think if strength is the emphasis (which it should be in weight workouts) that velocity at a given exercise at a given weight should stey relativelty constant >90%.
Has anyone experiemented with measuring bar velocities across diffrent sets and reps?
Velocities cant stay constant unless using a very light weight probably around 50% or less and this isnt going to stimulate strength gains well. If the fast twitch are targeted using heavy weight the speed of the last 1-2 reps is of course going to slow especially in the last 1-2 sets. Re sprinting, weights are for targeting the fibres more than the nervous system, this being gained on the track.
Velocities can stay constant at very high percentages at a given weight. It’s about quality reps over quantity. If I do an estimated 85% back squat for let’s say 4 reps and theoretically move the bar at .6 m/s on the first rep then I should maintain that velocity within -10% which means I am still applying force properly and maitaining the training stimulus (force).
If strength is the focus then highly fatigueable fibers are mainly involved with strength development. If an athlete is unable to recruit those fibers adequetly (which is represented by force output, which is shown through bar velocity) then the movement has lost it’s effectiveness because the fibers that are needed to move the bar have failed. Any additional reps will be a waste of time if strength or power development is the goal.
Undersatnd that I am not saying that the bar velocity needs to be constant across diffrent weights, obviously as weight increases the speed will decrease. I am simply stating that in a given workout, at a given weight quality must remain constant. If an athlete’s velocity falls below 90% then the weight is too heavy on that particular day. This is just an example of how variable prescibing %'s for athletes can be, which is why % of 1RM can only serve as a guidline.
I personally feel that reps that are below 90% at a given weight are what can lead to overtraining by “grinding out reps” the quality is inadequate to cause a training response. Please keep in mind that I am refering to when strength and power is the goal.
Would you have a sprinter keep doing maximal sprints if there time dropped more than 10% of there training best? Then why do it with strength training?
This is interesting. If I understand what you’re saying, you suggest that keeping the weights set at an amount that you can move relatively quickly for a few reps is better than grinding out the same reps with a heavier weight. I always thought that it would be better to go heavier in the attempt to recruit more fibers, but I’ve always wondered about the velocity issue. In other words, is lighter-faster better than heavier-slower when it comes to weight training to develop strength and/or power. I’d like to hear more about this from you and others.
Yes and no, you can still use heavy weights as long as the quality is high. For example if you back squat 1RM is 100Kg and you do 90% x 2. Lets say your first rep you move the bar at .5 m/s and the second rep you move it at .48 m/s these two reps are still within that -10% range. However if you move the second rep at .3 m/s then it was probably to heavy to do for a single. The velocity will vary day to day and week to week. The whole point is you want quality reps.
Well, lets not make it a high velocity vs. low velocity issue. In reference to you question about power, remember Power = FxV…so both parts of the F/V curve have to be accounted for in order to maximize power output. There will be both high velocity-low load and high load-low velocity components in power training.
Also, in reference to the quality of high force reps, they velocity is obviously going to be low. I think Nomad summed it up in his last post.
“Yes and no, you can still use heavy weights as long as the quality is high. For example if you back squat 1RM is 100Kg and you do 90% x 2.
Lets say your first rep you move the bar at .5 m/s and the second rep you move it at .48 m/s these two reps are still within that -10% range. However if you move the second rep at .3 m/s then it was probably to heavy to do for a double. The velocity will vary day to day and week to week. The whole point is you want quality reps.”
If you can move a weight for 3 reps, don’t just move it for the sake if doing it. If rep 3 (super-grinder) is significantly slower that 1 and 2, more than likely the weight is too heavy. In this case, you are wasting reps and burning the CNS. Train smarter, not harder.
For intensities of 90-100% of maximum load, the F-T curve is maximally steep, and velocity is not part of this. Emphasizing velocity can cause lower intensity, which can result in a F-T curve that is less steep, and less explosive strength being developed.
If velocity is not part of a 90-100% lift then it is an isometric. It’s basically the inverse of sprinting but similar concept.
Answer this question. (I am no sprint coach so this is a hypothetical example) Let’s say you take a sprinter out to run 3 x 100m @ 100%. If you notice on the second rep that an athlete who consistently runs 11.0 in training drops to a 12.5 are you going to keep running them? I would assume a drop off such as this would raise red flags with most coaches. Why? Quality of work has significantly decreased. I feel it is the same with strength training. Why do extra work to do extra work. Why force extra reps and risk overtraining.
IMO if weights/reps and bar velocities were recorded enough possible signs of overtraining would be possible to see.
quasi-isometric
This is not the best way to develop the fast twitch fibres. Just try and use this method and see. Training at say 85% for 4-5 reps with full rest to allow speed consistency will not be as effective as training powerfully with short rest to fatigue the fast twitch IIb fibres or at 90%+ where the fibres will again fatigue shown by slowing of weight. It is the fatigue of the IIB and not just the ecc phase that is responsible for most growth. Some IIb fibres will convert to IIa but this happens with weights in general and the fibres will convert back to IIb with sprint training and tapering of weights.
Search for Charles Staley and EDT on T-mag.com. There are also other articles explaining this.
Also check this hamstring programme by charles poliquin. Its a bit disjointed because of the cut and paste but basically he states one can exhaust the fibres to fully develop them and this advice is for sprinters and other power athletes. Very short rest applies here.
Table 2. Evening Hamstrings Workout
Order
Exercise
Sets
Reps
Tempo
Rest (secs)
A-1
Standing Good Mornings
4
6-8
4020
10
A-2
Romanian Deadlifts
4
8-10
4020
10
A-3
Reverse Hypers
4
15-20
20X0
120
A question was asked by a forum member:
How well does this work out for sprinters and athletes?
Charles answered:
It is a form of preparatory work for them, neural drive work has to follow.
Here is the full article:
The ”grinding” issue is only affecting some lifts (e.g. squat, bench and deadlift), it will no be an issue with snatch or cleans. So, basically, there’s also a dependence on exercise selection; where, for instance, Jonathan Edwards managed almost without “grinding potential”, since he generally did cleans and snatches (only bench falling into the possible “grinding category”).
It basically comes down to a few concerns:
A)… exercise selection
B)… work capacity vs. intensity
C)… period in the training plan
Now, all these concerns have to be dealt with during different periods in the training year, and surely, there’s a place for every aspect presented in this thread, basically being a matter of periodization.
GPP: I guess most of us want to build work capacity and whole-organism-development here; thus easily incorporating lifts such as squats as primary motors. However, we don’t want to jump the gun too early and start playing with too much absolute intensity. In this case I’m more inclined to follow an ‘accumulated fatigue plan’ than a ‘grinding your ass blue in one session plan’. Intensity regarding reps (and weight) can wait for a while.
Nevertheless, working towards SPP and a natural rise in intensity, I find it beneficial to also invest in some high intensity reps as the time passes; therefore, there comes a time when going for heavy reps (“grinding” if you like) before moving towards really heavy weights seems like a good option. It could be considered a transition towards the next phase (lower reps but much heavier weights) – bar velocity is of no concern here since it’s basically a test/transition setting. And once moving into really heavy weights, bar velocity becomes obsolete since the whole setting is quite far right on the speed/strength continuum anyway. Also, depending on what one train for, one could switch focus more towards pulling movements such as clean and snatch and naturally stay closer to the left of the curve.
Not sure i totally agree with this. Training at 85% for 4-5 reps…this will rapidly fatigue FT fibers and with the short rest ATP resynthesis with be short changed, thus forcing the unwanted recruitment and hypertrpohy of ST motor units. Type IIb fibers are there to be fast and explosive for a short amount of time (they fatigue after 10s of high intensity work), that is the purpose of the fiber, why train them slow just to try to “fatigue” them. If you train with movements that recruit the necessary fibers, they will be fatigued.
Tihanyi had shown that the quality of effert should be that an athlete is working at 90% or greater of their maximum watts for a given weight on a strength exercise, regardless of the intensity, to maximally recruit FT fibers.
Furthermore, according to Vermiel, reduction of bar velocity below 90% for a given load is an indicator of fatigue of FT motor units. Extending work beyond this will likely result in unnecessary fatigue and hypertrophy of ST motor units.
As for Poliquin’s hamstring thing there…well, he has a little too much emphasis on hypertrophy with his stuff. David Boston is probably the best example of what happens to athletes with too much sarcoplasmic hypertrophy…keep the hypertrophy functional.
It’s obvious that there is a huge misunderstanding at the point that I am trying to get across. The athlete is training powerfully on every single rep that is the whole point, QUALITY, QUALITY, QUALITY.
It’s also about EFFORT. By using a tendo to measure bar velocity it gives the athlete a visual feedback of how much force they are putting into the ground. When an athlete drops below 90% of their maximum speed on a given set, at a given weight, THEY ARE NO LONGER WORKING STRENGTH/POWER depending on the exercise selection. Please refer to the work of Carmelo Bosco he is the sports scientist who did much of the research in this area.
Everyone is made up of diffrent porporions of muscle fibers. What using a tendo or similar device does is allows individuals to work within their own capabilities. For instance one athlete may be able to do a 92.5% 1RM back squat for three reps were another may only be able to EFFFECTIVELY be able to perform 2 reps.
The only thing you have athletes do when going to absolute failure is increase the risk of overtraining and injury.
I am still waiting for a response regarding what happens in speed training when the quality drops. Do you still continue to run as hard as you can even if the quality is severly diminished?