305pelusa
Level 6 Valued Member
Hello everyone,
Had somewhat of a revelation two days ago based on some personal training experience. Here's what I have noticed:
1) For some exercises, like the Pistol and the BB Press, I've noticed I'm capable of somewhat high reps when training at 80-90 % of 1 RM. More so than a lot of those "1 RM estimate" calculators. Here's some examples:
A) For the Pistols, I could manage 5 reps at at a Bodyweight of 140 with 75 lbs added (215 lbs total). But failed to get a single rep at 85 lbs.
B) For the Press, I could manage 9 reps at 120 lbs, but only 5 once I went up to 125.
This can be explained in this Hypothesis: "Reps get cut drastically once you add only a small amount of weight". Or the converse "Unloading your maximal weight by only a little bit will let you do quite a few more reps than expected".
Now I know I know. "Those calculators are only so accurate". But I think there's more to it. My intuition tells me that in the Pistol, it's easy to grind out reps at a slightly lower weight if you have the mental strength. But add a bit more weight, and you get to the "threshold" where it's too much. The Press, I think it's because the first rep doesn't have a negative so 1 rep is much harder, relatively speaking, than multiple reps.
2) For other exercises, I've noticed the exact opposite. For weighted Dips, I find I can dip quite a bit of weight, but struggle with slightly higher reps unless I really unload the weight. My 5 RM might be more like 80% of my 1 RM.
So why is this even relevant?
It's relevant because it says something about how you need to train a lift in order to improve your 1 RM. Exercises in the first category would benefit for weights closer to 1RM and less volume (because improving your 5 RM doesn't seem to drive the 1 RM as much). The ones in the second category though, benefit from more volume (because improving your 5 RM seems to really push the 1 RM higher).
To give a more concrete example, we're told you must "To press a lot you must press a lot". Which is a quirky circular fallacy, but the point is that volume drives the press. But I'd argue if your press behaves like mine does, then I'd argue a better saying is "To press heavy you must press heavy".
Here's something useful to take from this:
The ROP has you doing a whooping 75 reps with 24 kg presses before proceeding to the 32 kg. But I see again and again people achieving this drastic volume and still unable to transition. So they must get the 28 kg bell. Which defeats the purpose because the point of that high volume was to make that big transition.
Perhaps, instead of building such high volume with a 24 kg bell, it makes more sense to do more moderate volume, and sprinkle almost daily singles with the 32 kg bell. Almost like a GTG. If your Press behaves like mine, this would have you handling the 32 kg for ladders way faster and less umcofortably than by building up to 75 reps.
Thoughts? Comments? Anyone noticed their lifts behave similarly?
Had somewhat of a revelation two days ago based on some personal training experience. Here's what I have noticed:
1) For some exercises, like the Pistol and the BB Press, I've noticed I'm capable of somewhat high reps when training at 80-90 % of 1 RM. More so than a lot of those "1 RM estimate" calculators. Here's some examples:
A) For the Pistols, I could manage 5 reps at at a Bodyweight of 140 with 75 lbs added (215 lbs total). But failed to get a single rep at 85 lbs.
B) For the Press, I could manage 9 reps at 120 lbs, but only 5 once I went up to 125.
This can be explained in this Hypothesis: "Reps get cut drastically once you add only a small amount of weight". Or the converse "Unloading your maximal weight by only a little bit will let you do quite a few more reps than expected".
Now I know I know. "Those calculators are only so accurate". But I think there's more to it. My intuition tells me that in the Pistol, it's easy to grind out reps at a slightly lower weight if you have the mental strength. But add a bit more weight, and you get to the "threshold" where it's too much. The Press, I think it's because the first rep doesn't have a negative so 1 rep is much harder, relatively speaking, than multiple reps.
2) For other exercises, I've noticed the exact opposite. For weighted Dips, I find I can dip quite a bit of weight, but struggle with slightly higher reps unless I really unload the weight. My 5 RM might be more like 80% of my 1 RM.
So why is this even relevant?
It's relevant because it says something about how you need to train a lift in order to improve your 1 RM. Exercises in the first category would benefit for weights closer to 1RM and less volume (because improving your 5 RM doesn't seem to drive the 1 RM as much). The ones in the second category though, benefit from more volume (because improving your 5 RM seems to really push the 1 RM higher).
To give a more concrete example, we're told you must "To press a lot you must press a lot". Which is a quirky circular fallacy, but the point is that volume drives the press. But I'd argue if your press behaves like mine does, then I'd argue a better saying is "To press heavy you must press heavy".
Here's something useful to take from this:
The ROP has you doing a whooping 75 reps with 24 kg presses before proceeding to the 32 kg. But I see again and again people achieving this drastic volume and still unable to transition. So they must get the 28 kg bell. Which defeats the purpose because the point of that high volume was to make that big transition.
Perhaps, instead of building such high volume with a 24 kg bell, it makes more sense to do more moderate volume, and sprinkle almost daily singles with the 32 kg bell. Almost like a GTG. If your Press behaves like mine, this would have you handling the 32 kg for ladders way faster and less umcofortably than by building up to 75 reps.
Thoughts? Comments? Anyone noticed their lifts behave similarly?