I don't buy to the idea that doing high rep main lift variation or main lift itself is the only way to do base building.
How does it work?
There are a lot of ways to do this.
My theory is that spending more time in the 60-80% range for higher volume (measured in number of lifts) will improve your coordination in those lifts which will support the more specific 80% + strength work that necessitates a lower volume of reps while incurring a higher recovery cost.
It is a lot easier to recover from 3 hard sets of 8 than 8 hard sets of 3.
If you want to maintain strength practice it isn't even a bad idea to work up to a heavy set of 5, drop 10-20% and do 3x5, repeat same thing next week with triples and the week after that with singles (probably drop down to a triple). (I'm at risk of just straight up stealing a 5/3/1 template at this point though)
I like short sets for my hard stuff; building max strength, high tension, etc. This is just my experience, so I'm not saying it applies to everyone necessarily, but I find that when I add in some lighter weight, higher rep sets, two things happen: First, they feel more tiring (at least at first). Second, I get stronger. For whatever it's worth, when I do this, I tend to do "bodybuilding style" reps. I focus on feeling the muscles I want to work, and I do a pretty slow tempo. Depending on the exercise, a pretty light weight can sometimes be pretty hard.I agree that the majority of the training volume must be in a lower intensity range. However, it does not have to be long sets.
I think you make a mistake when you say: "It is a lot easier to recover from 3 hard sets of 8 than 8 hard sets of 3." I'd rather say: It is a lot easier to recover from 8 sets of 3 than 3 hard sets of 8. Now, of course, the triples will leave one at least somewhat fatigued in the end. As we know, "the motor unit that is not recruited and fatigued is not trained".
GPP in a SPP context (intelligently programmed, of course) does this.Why don't we treat "prehab and rehab" exercises like performance-enhancing exercises?
(I realize you mean these at rhetorical questions but Imma give answers anyway) Most people (especially when they train themselves and I raise my hand here) focus on what they want to do more than what they should do. Sometimes it's hard to connect the dots among various training inputs and when you have a limited training time budget to spend, it's easier to justify to yourself that (for example) "I NEED TO SQUAT TONIGHT!" rather than "I should sit in front of television, relax, and do some mobility work"Sooooo.....why don't we spend more time progressing things that make us move better?
Soooo....why isn't there a focus on progressing the things that actually make your body feel better and move better?
I don't think anyone would disagree with this if they understand training at all.Tying it back to "base building," the argument could be made that building up your ability to move well, and loading that stuff, would translate to better sports performance. It could be done weekly, if programmed intelligently (at my old gym our prehab classes were about once per week), or it could be done in the off season for sports. I'm not talking about just reducing weight and doing hypertrophy blocks or whatever. I'm talking about specifically improving range of motion, joint health, anything that makes you move better, and progressing it.
I know not everyone will agree, and there are a lot of individual nuances, but it's my thought anyway.
No, but it does have to be different and focus on supporting attributes that will support your strength practice.However, it does not have to be long sets.
I don't like higher reps because I don't generate lots of force with it. Or at least that's what I feel. And I feel unmotivated by doing it.
I am definitely guilty of that haha. You're spot on about the time budget too. The list of things I want to do is far, far longer than the time I have available to train. I guess part of my sentiment was also that I feel and move better, and get stronger when I shore up my weak links, which "prehab" work is sort of supposed to do. I could reduce the frequency of my main stuff and add more of the "prehab" stuff, and I wouldn't be surprised if it made me stronger. But I like what I'm doing right now a lot! So I try and sprinkle it in as I can.Most people (especially when they train themselves and I raise my hand here) focus on what they want to do more than what they should do. Sometimes it's hard to connect the dots among various training inputs and when you have a limited training time budget to spend, it's easier to justify to yourself that (for example) "I NEED TO SQUAT TONIGHT!" rather than "I should sit in front of television, relax, and do some mobility work"
yeah look at the records of woman category and their bodyweight. Very impressive number at low bodyweight.I just recently had a thought, of how much dedicated hypertrophy work really helps a powerlifter
me? A week f****** around with machine and stretching, then I go to the next development block (which mean sbd normally, maybe with more volume and self-limiting variation (spoto, convent, ssb squat). Rep range still low, occasionally an amrap set.How does your programming change after a peak?
it is something that I lack my my training. Thanks for reminder!spending more time in the 60-80% range for higher volume (measured in number of lifts) will improve your coordination
Joey Flexx has something like 1x1 @6 then 8 x 3 (reps- sets) x @8.If you want to maintain strength practice it isn't even a bad idea to work up to a heavy set of 5, drop 10-20% and do 3x5, repeat same thing next week with triples and the week after that with singles (probably drop down to a triple). (I'm at risk of just straight up stealing a 5/3/1 template at this point though)
I like short sets for my hard stuff; building max strength, high tension, etc. This is just my experience, so I'm not saying it applies to everyone necessarily, but I find that when I add in some lighter weight, higher rep sets, two things happen: First, they feel more tiring (at least at first). Second, I get stronger. For whatever it's worth, when I do this, I tend to do "bodybuilding style" reps. I focus on feeling the muscles I want to work, and I do a pretty slow tempo. Depending on the exercise, a pretty light weight can sometimes be pretty hard.
As for recovery, I notice that if the weight isn't too high, I can do those kinds of exercises fairly often. This leads to another thought I wasn't able to get out earlier:
This could warrant it's own thread, but I think it shares some conceptual crossover here:
Why don't we treat "prehab and rehab" exercises like performance-enhancing exercises? It seems like a lot of folks use it as either warm up or because they can't do [x] as well if they don't do it. The intent of prehab is, generally speaking, injury prevention, greater mobility, range of motion, etc. In short, "prehab" (however you want to define it) ought to make you move better. Sooooo.....why don't we spend more time progressing things that make us move better?
I get that someone's sport requires that they spend more time doing specific training for it. So, obviously that should be the focus. But what if we chose some "prehab" exercises, and actually progressed them more? I'm kind of taking a page from Tim Anderson, "it feels good to feel good." Soooo....why isn't there a focus on progressing the things that actually make your body feel better and move better?
Tying it back to "base building," the argument could be made that building up your ability to move well, and loading that stuff, would translate to better sports performance. It could be done weekly, if programmed intelligently (at my old gym our prehab classes were about once per week), or it could be done in the off season for sports. I'm not talking about just reducing weight and doing hypertrophy blocks or whatever. I'm talking about specifically improving range of motion, joint health, anything that makes you move better, and progressing it.
I know not everyone will agree, and there are a lot of individual nuances, but it's my thought anyway.
GPP in a SPP context (intelligently programmed, of course) does this.
(I realize you mean these at rhetorical questions but Imma give answers anyway) Most people (especially when they train themselves and I raise my hand here) focus on what they want to do more than what they should do. Sometimes it's hard to connect the dots among various training inputs and when you have a limited training time budget to spend, it's easier to justify to yourself that (for example) "I NEED TO SQUAT TONIGHT!" rather than "I should sit in front of television, relax, and do some mobility work"
I don't think anyone would disagree with this if they understand training at all.
No, but it does have to be different and focus on supporting attributes that will support your strength practice.
Volume is just easy to show and works.
You could just as easily do a week of power focus working up to 3/8 followed by a week of heavier weight working up to 5/5 (or whatever rep range) followed by a week of working up to heavy triples ALA "cube" method. But I tend to like the Tactical Barbell philosophy of "Advance the priority attribute for a period while maintaining the lower priorities." Its simple and seems to have less room for user error.
I've tried conjugate in the past, and user error was very much an issue with it. I forget who said it, but one of the former westside guys said something along the lines of "Conjugate is the simplest system that is consistently screwed up and misapplied by new lifters."
Different enough but not too different.How different does it have to be?
Better than they are but not so much you start specializing in that attributeHow good do the supporting attributes have to get?
Against your previous performance seems like the obvious route.How do we measure these things?
Different enough but not too different.
Better than they are but not so much you start specializing in that attribute
Against your previous performance seems like the obvious route.
I’m pretty much in the same boat as @Antti and @Hung. The idea of training the powerlifts for high reps not only no longer seems optimal to me, it is downright counter productive.
When I go to perform a competition lift, doing so in any manner other than treating the weight as heavy (even when it’s not) will undoubtedly tamper with my technique. Once you start going above five reps, you’re not preparing for heavy weights anymore…you’re tuning yourself to the ability to endure a long set and subconsciously will hold back to save strength for the latter part. Bad habits will follow.
In powerlifting, you’re sim is to maximize your leverages and make the weight feel as easy as possible. This includes using a low bar, high arch or mixed grip for me. The problem with this is…this makes these lift terrible hypertrophy movements! Shorten range of motion, positions that are hard to hold for long duration not to mention the precision required to make all these things happen…reps absolutely wreck this.
I’ve found as I’ve gotten older, working less hard actually yields better results. Fatigue is the enemy of strength. Nothing kills my joints or motivation more than a high volume workout… but a high volume workout with the competition lifts???
It’s become a trend, as Greg Pandora recently mentioned; modern powerlifters are obsessed with technique. At my gym, which is overrun by powerlifters, the lifts (especially the bench press and squat) are trained around 3x a week. Id also like to emphasis…these kids are strong…
The 165ers bench around 300, pull over 5 wheels, squatting just a nudge under…there are numerous 700 + squatters and pullers as well.
Now, back to the schedule I observe…
If a lifter trains 3-5 working sets of 3-5 reps 3x a week or so, that’s like training 5 x 5 (at the low end of this model) without the workout hangover. Not only that, but the load can be higher (and varied) and the frequency higher allowing more skill practice. I find this highly preferable as the Norwegian study has shown that the same volume dispersed throughout a week lead to greater strength gains than a concentrated session.
However, in regards to hypertrophy, this is where the ancillary lifts come in. Getting volume on a similar but different lift is my preferred method of building the base. High bar, front squats, Larsen press, RDL’s all fall under this category. These lifts serve 3 important purposes.
- they train a weaker range/muscle/motor pattern
- they’re lighter in load than the main lift (allowing less intrusive volume work)
-breakdown in technique from hard set won’t as adversely affect comp technique.
Not to mention we do dumbbell press, rows, lunges etc.
Now for those not really interested in powerlifting, these things aren’t as crucial. But once you start to descend down the rabbit hole of optimizing the lifts to the maximum degree for competition standard performance, these factors become much more meaningful.