Other/Mixed Base Building for Strength
- Thread starter silveraw
- Start date
Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
silveraw
Level 9 Valued Member
Antti
Level 10 Valued Member
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".
bluejeff
Level 7 Valued Member
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.
Boris Bachmann
Level 8 Valued Member
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.
silveraw
Level 9 Valued Member
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."
North Coast Miller
Level 9 Valued Member
Not to discount the value of approaches like this, but I'm not sure why I wouldn't just use step loading on a daily basis. Warmups included in the volume. Change your load and steps and rep count. Shift the whole thing one way or the other or use bigger or smaller steps.
I hate the idea of only working 3x5 or 5x5 or 5x3 etc etc. By definition you're limiting your adaptive response to those loads and volumes per effort. The body notices stuff like that and builds the machine to meet the challenge. You'll have a tough time convincing me 3x5 is better than 1x12, 1x6, 1x3 with similar RPE.
This is exactly how I feel when I train traditional work now compared to overcoming isos - "look at this, the challenge is so weak I'm actually moving the load..."
My solution is to combine them. This is something I've done throughout, unless doing conditioning or circuits. Step the load up, reps down.
I hate the idea of only working 3x5 or 5x5 or 5x3 etc etc. By definition you're limiting your adaptive response to those loads and volumes per effort. The body notices stuff like that and builds the machine to meet the challenge. You'll have a tough time convincing me 3x5 is better than 1x12, 1x6, 1x3 with similar RPE.
This is exactly how I feel when I train traditional work now compared to overcoming isos - "look at this, the challenge is so weak I'm actually moving the load..."
My solution is to combine them. This is something I've done throughout, unless doing conditioning or circuits. Step the load up, reps down.
bluejeff
Level 7 Valued Member
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.
I think I ought to clarify my definition of "prehab and mobility work" too. I view low-ish load work for volume as prehab, not just stretching and bands and pvc pipes. Think more along the lines of practicing a move for a ton of reps, as opposed to zeroing in on that move for a handful of high intensity reps. It's more like practicing an instrument than strength training. I am practicing moving well, and just enough of a load to feel it helps the process.
Hung
Level 8 Valued Member
yeah look at the records of woman category and their bodyweight. Very impressive number at low bodyweight.
Hung
Level 8 Valued Member
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.
But if we talk about other lifters who use something like DUP model, then yeah, many of them goes straight to the development block right after too. Also different variation of the lift. Like conventional pull, high/ssb squat, closer/wider grip bench. I think the big different in nowadays powerlifters is in the same block, they have all three aspect of traditional training cycle (hypertrophy, strength, peaking). Which means you can see both singles, tripples and 8s at the same block. The different between blocks is the amount of each, and it does get more specific at closer to competition (like from 1x1 @6 -> 1x1 @8)
Hung
Level 8 Valued Member
it is something that I lack my my training. Thanks for reminder!
Hung
Level 8 Valued Member
Joey Flexx has something like 1x1 @6 then 8 x 3 (reps- sets) x @8.
Some coaches have lifters doing a single (at low RPE, like 5-7) between set of higher reps.
I think it's creative
Antti
Level 10 Valued Member
Personally, I don't find that load affects my recovery that much. Proximity to failure and set length are better indicators for me.
In general, I agree with your notions on prehab.
With sports such as powerlifting, I think it's important to have mobility and strength with larger range of motion than the competitive lifts. Injury prevention, if nothing else.
Take my behind the neck press. I think it's great prehab. I seek to move the bar more every time I do it , lower and more behind me. I also train it like a lift, I want to press two plates strictly. And I like it. And I want to be strong in it.
When it comes to moving well as prehab and GPP to increase SPP, I'd say that it's hard to say just how much extra movement we need, and then how much time we can afford to spend on it. I do some work with the elderly and I often think on mobility and that when I get old, I'd like to get my arms overhead, get into a squat, wipe my own butt and tie my own shoes. More is of course good, but then it becomes a cost benefit issue. More time on the mobility etc doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's always time away from something else. It's a bit like the cardio discussion. More cardio is better for my health in a vacuum, but, for example, if it's time away from my loved ones, work or sleep, is it better? Not to mention strength training.
Personally, I'm blessed that as a coach, I'm paid to spend time to get my heart rate up and move better.
Antti
Level 10 Valued Member
Personal enjoyment is my #1 reason to train and the #1 reason for me training how I train.
Antti
Level 10 Valued Member
I'm glad we agree on maintaining all attributes at most times and changing foci periodically.
Now, back to your first sentence. How different does it have to be? How good do the supporting attributes have to get? How do we measure these things?
Take work capacity, for example. How do we measure it? What would the goal be for ordinary folk, for a powerlifter, for a strongman? Taking the powerlifter, why is it advantageous to do specific work capacity work instead of periodically adding a set or lowering rest periods or such?
silveraw
Level 9 Valued Member
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.
watchnerd
Level 8 Valued Member
I can't find it yet, but Craig Nuckols wrote an article opining that standard 5x5 / Starting Strength wasn't great for beginners because it didn't build a good strength building base that spanned a spectrum from high intensity / low reps to medium intensity / medium reps, so beginners often stalled out.
Mainly because it didn't build enough work capacity to handle higher volumes.
Personal anecdote:
As an "intermediate lifter" of "masters age" (i.e. >50), I've made a lot more gains recently by working more in the base-building range, and doing less maximal work, than vice versa.
Probably because my soft tissue and neurological adaptations have already plateaued, so what I'm left with is growing muscle fibers.
Mainly because it didn't build enough work capacity to handle higher volumes.
Personal anecdote:
As an "intermediate lifter" of "masters age" (i.e. >50), I've made a lot more gains recently by working more in the base-building range, and doing less maximal work, than vice versa.
Probably because my soft tissue and neurological adaptations have already plateaued, so what I'm left with is growing muscle fibers.
Last edited:
Philippe Geoffrion
Level 7 Valued Member
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.
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.
Antti
Level 10 Valued Member
Different enough but not too different? I'm not sure I get it.
I'm not sure about the specializing vs not. There's always a cost benefit issue.
Comparison against previous performance is of course constant, but do we mean our competition results? Or our performance in the GPP? I'd say that we need to be able to measure the need for more specific GPP.
When it comes to a variety of lifts, I have some relative standards. Front squat to back squat, close grip to comp bench, etc. If a trainee is far away from meeting the standard, it's often a good idea to train it as an accessory. Simple metrics. When it comes to work capacity or such, I don't know, how much do we need? Or the hypertrophy either. I like to see muscles on a powerlifter, sure, but it's a cost benefit issue again.
I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I just like hard answers. Data backed by personal anecdotes.
Take the carries. I often program carries. Suitcase is my favorite. Often it's there to build work capacity as well, but it doesn't mean it's there for itself. First, the carry is an added exercise with a few, easy sets in a template. Then, we increase the effort needed in the exercise. We develop the desired adaptations, core strength etc. Then we use the increased work capacity by taking away the carry and replacing it with an extra set in comp lift or another accessory exercise. But I like to see a woman carry 50kg and a man carry 100kg, adjusting to overall competitive performance. After that's met, another exercise takes its place. The carry is trained and tested periodically, though.
Antti
Level 10 Valued Member
Force production is paramount. That's why I far prefer cluster sets to long sets. There's really no argument whatsoever for me when it comes to it.
Though I love how it feels to do an AMRAP bench set. I sometimes plan for a triple with my 8RM, and find myself repping more of it just because it feels so good. Then I remember to leave a couple of reps in the tank. I love it when my pecs are so sore and cramp so much I can't wash my armpits. But it's not good for my training, my performance. Fatigue must be minimized, training frequency maximized, performance must always be good.
Kids today are ridiculously strong. And it's happened fast. Whatever they're doing, it's working. They know the way. It's fun to reminisce and consider the lifters of days past, indulge in the nostalgia and the tinted pictures of old, look at their lives and training. But their numbers are being crushed.
When it comes to variety and especially hypertrophy, it is now known that specific exercises lead to specific hypertrophy. It was true in the old days, then not, and now again. The biggest part of the muscle gets the biggest amount of juice from the CNS, and the effect of specific exercises just increases, However, muscle growth quickly plateaus. Now, if we focus on hypertrophy with different exercises, we may make the muscle grow more in different, adjacent areas. They then get more juice, and maybe, just maybe, also help more in the competition lift. But yes, do hypertrophy work with different exercises, such that there's minimal fatigue, and competition lifts for their own sake. But all the variety of the big compounds with big carryover and the competition lifts themselves get you very, very far. I'm happy to just do knee extensions for my quads for more.