Other/Mixed How would you train for long squat sets?

[North Coast Miller]

Personally once I hit about 20-25 reps to tech failure on any exercise, strength gains tend to stall out. If I increase load and backfill up to 20 reps I can drop load to the original load and get more than my original rep count.

Recent experiment with isometrics has me blowing the door off my previous rep counts.

 

[John K]

I honestly find it interesting how the exercises seem to change people's perspective a lot. If the question was "how do I get to 40 push-ups/pull-ups/reps in the long cycle with double 32kg", I assume few people would suggest working up to a single with twice the weight or a one-armed push-up/pull-up first. Why is there a tendency to view the squat differently?

I think there's a couple things that go into that. First is the loadability of the squat (or barbell moves). If you look at training for the 225lb bench rep test, folks do train it like we're talking with the squat - increase your 1RM, and then come back and "convert" that max strength into strength-endurance. It works, and it works well. (This is often dependent on how strong they are though - if they're benching 400lbs, they take a different approach than if they're benching 275lbs. It is also dependent on time frame.)

Second, I think it depends where you are with your strength. If you're trying to get 40 reps with LCCJ @ 32kg, but can't do a single rep with the 28kg, we're talking a vastly different story than if we're capable of doing 20 reps and are looking at doubling that. If I can jerk a 40kg kettlebell for a single, but only do a 36kg for a single and a 32kg for a double, we can see where my weakness is and we can craft a plan.

We have dials of volume and intensity. The kettlebell volume knob has very fine tune adjustments but the intensity knob has very coarse adjustments; this effects how we choose to train - often emphasizing volume. The barbell volume knob has the same fine tune adjustments, but now our intensity knob has mediumly-fine adjustments as well - we have another variable we can play with easier than with kettlebells.

Incidentally, you do see both tracks with kettlebells. Look at the snatch test - one method of preparing for it is the "do more snatches at your test bell." Another method is to get really good at snatching a bell size or two higher than your test bell - then when you do test at the smaller bell, it feels so light as to be almost effortless. I think both have been used to successfully pass the snatch test, but I think you also have to be aware of what is the limiting factor for that individual.

(I think the cyclic nature also comes into play, but I'm not certain how much that effects things.)

Like with a lot of things, there probably isn't a right way, and maybe not even a best way.

 

[william bad butt]

I honestly find it interesting how the exercises seem to change people's perspective a lot. If the question was "how do I get to 40 push-ups/pull-ups/reps in the long cycle with double 32kg", I assume few people would suggest working up to a single with twice the weight or a one-armed push-up/pull-up first. Why is there a tendency to view the squat differently?

I would still train for strength to build the base. I used to train 1-3 pullups with hundreds of extra pounds. This allowed me to do lots of pullups (not 40 but maybe 20).

Same thing with kbell overhead lifting. Focus my training on pressing the Beast or focus on benching 300-400 lb? Both make double 32's seem lighter.

I'm not saying this is the only way. It is just the way I know. I'm sure there is not 1 way to skin the cat.

For me this is all hypothetical because I've never had a 40 rep goal. Maybe 20 reps.

Eric

 

[Period]

Definitely not with other training. What I mean by "focused" is, nothing else but strength - dropping all other training and doing a focused strength-building program only. The one I'm most familiar with is Starting Strength Novice Linear Progression, but I'm sure there are other alternatives that would get a similar result. I have seen, not firsthand, but online (and similar firsthand, but not as dedicated or impressive) many younger, untrained males go from 150 or less to 300 or more with 3-4 months on this program, and many women get to upper 200 lbs in squat. For myself, with a little over 3 months of this, my squat went from a 1RM of 200 to 260 lbs, and a 5RM a similar increase from about 150 to 210 lbs. I was not starting from untrained, having already done 5/3/1, a little PTTP, and SFL prep, so already able to do 150 lbs for 5 reps when starting it. Also, female in my late 40s at the time. In contrast, I've never been able to increase pull-up or any pushing exercise even remotely as much.
[...]
I also tend to think the ability to use strength endurance to drive strength gains and other adaptations has a lot to do with one's aerobic base -- primarily, lactate production and ability to buffer and shuttle it around in the body for use elsewhere in the body in slow-twitch fiber "sinks". People who walk a lot, are generally active, or do base-building aerobic training tend to have a good aerobic base whether they even know it or not, and this affects their response to other types of training as sort of a silent variable. They can do a lot more volume of work, and therefore it works better to drive strength increases.

That is a quite significant difference, if we assume a grappling sport as the "main course" and strength training on the side as indicated in the original scenario. There are also potentially some other "problems" from the viewpoint of a grappler - if someone drops all the training they have been doing and switches to a strength-only program, they will have a hard time not to gain significant weight - if we are talking about three months, somebody would probably pack on about 20 pounds if they are squatting heavy and regularly. In the meantime, their aerobic and anaerobic conditioning will suffer, and their technique surely won't improve as well.

An increase of your 1 RM by 60 pounds over 3 months is definitely respectable; I would argue that 50-100 pounds at most would be realistic, 150 pounds seems plausible mostly if a person massively improves their technique over this time. Still, I would argue that in the grappling scenario, the drawbacks would outweigh the benefits for most people.

As for pulling and pushing exercises, of course we are talking about a smaller range of improvement, especially in pull-ups, where very few people ever manage to approach or surpass double bodyweight. As long as someone isn't a lightweight or flyweight, double bodyweight or a clean one-arm pull-up puts them in fairly rare air, compareable to maybe a triple bodyweight squat. Still, my personal impression is that few people use the available options for improvements in pull-ups wisely. You meet very few people who make systematic use of partial reps (both top and bottom) and static holds systematically, for example.

I'd say the carry-over between strength endurance and strength (in both directions) is probably greater in people who have more slow-twitch muscles in the areas that are primarily targeted by the exercise. This hampers them for some endeavours (e.g. Olympic lifting, powerlifting, sprinting, jumping) but can help them in others (e.g. wrestling, climbing, rowing, girevoy sports).

 

[Period]

I would still train for strength to build the base. I used to train 1-3 pullups with hundreds of extra pounds. This allowed me to do lots of pullups (not 40 but maybe 20).

On the other hand, I managed to do over 40 pull-ups in a row at my peak, and my maximum with added weight was ca. 76 kg BW + 65 kg, after at least a year of not touching any weights. At that time, if I went for maximum added weight, I'd have to warm up for 15 minutes and rest for at least a full day afterwards, but I could do multiple sets of 35+ spread out over the day without any warm-up.
I am also not claiming there is only one way to skin the cat, however, there may be some ways that work easier for some people to achieve certain goals.

 

[Anna C]

I'd say the carry-over between strength endurance and strength (in both directions) is probably greater in people who have more slow-twitch muscles in the areas that are primarily targeted by the exercise. This hampers them for some endeavours (e.g. Olympic lifting, powerlifting, sprinting, jumping) but can help them in others (e.g. wrestling, climbing, rowing, girevoy sports).

Interesting point, and sounds logical!

 

[Anna C]

That is a quite significant difference, if we assume a grappling sport as the "main course" and strength training on the side as indicated in the original scenario. There are also potentially some other "problems" from the viewpoint of a grappler - if someone drops all the training they have been doing and switches to a strength-only program, they will have a hard time not to gain significant weight - if we are talking about three months, somebody would probably pack on about 20 pounds if they are squatting heavy and regularly. In the meantime, their aerobic and anaerobic conditioning will suffer, and their technique surely won't improve as well.

An increase of your 1 RM by 60 pounds over 3 months is definitely respectable; I would argue that 50-100 pounds at most would be realistic, 150 pounds seems plausible mostly if a person massively improves their technique over this time. Still, I would argue that in the grappling scenario, the drawbacks would outweigh the benefits for most people.

I agree with you here, but I didn't think this was part of the original scenario for this thread.... (although it was @BJJ Shawn who asked, and that was definitely the theme of his recent thread Other/Mixed - Is strong really important for combat sports?)

 

[Period]

I think there's a couple things that go into that. First is the loadability of the squat (or barbell moves). If you look at training for the 225lb bench rep test, folks do train it like we're talking with the squat - increase your 1RM, and then come back and "convert" that max strength into strength-endurance. It works, and it works well. (This is often dependent on how strong they are though - if they're benching 400lbs, they take a different approach than if they're benching 275lbs. It is also dependent on time frame.)

Second, I think it depends where you are with your strength. If you're trying to get 40 reps with LCCJ @ 32kg, but can't do a single rep with the 28kg, we're talking a vastly different story than if we're capable of doing 20 reps and are looking at doubling that. If I can jerk a 40kg kettlebell for a single, but only do a 36kg for a single and a 32kg for a double, we can see where my weakness is and we can craft a plan.

We have dials of volume and intensity. The kettlebell volume knob has very fine tune adjustments but the intensity knob has very coarse adjustments; this effects how we choose to train - often emphasizing volume. The barbell volume knob has the same fine tune adjustments, but now our intensity knob has mediumly-fine adjustments as well - we have another variable we can play with easier than with kettlebells.

Incidentally, you do see both tracks with kettlebells. Look at the snatch test - one method of preparing for it is the "do more snatches at your test bell." Another method is to get really good at snatching a bell size or two higher than your test bell - then when you do test at the smaller bell, it feels so light as to be almost effortless. I think both have been used to successfully pass the snatch test, but I think you also have to be aware of what is the limiting factor for that individual.

(I think the cyclic nature also comes into play, but I'm not certain how much that effects things.)

Like with a lot of things, there probably isn't a right way, and maybe not even a best way.

These are all valid points. I can't shake the impression though that approaches tend to be very much influenced by the mothodology of certain sports, or more specifically, the methodology of certain dominant schools of though in certain sports. Taking the bench press example, the most influentual methodology in Powerlifting in the US might arguably be Westside Barbell. Therefore, if you are a football player looking to improve your Combine results including the 225 lbs bench, you'll most likely use Westside or a variation thereof (5/3/1, De Franco etc). By doing so, you would probably get some of the best technical advice to improve your bench, along with a time-proven program to improve your max.
Girevoy sport on the other hand is a different example. I don't think any Girevik in Russia will look at Olympic lifting to improve his jerk, nor will he likely go crazy with oversized bells - he may include them every now and then, but the bulk of his training will likely be done with his competition bells. I'd argue that the approach I have suggested - using partners of different weight classes - would give you an effect more similar to this, because weight classes are usually 6-12 kg apart, meaning you would have jumps not too dissimilar to the weight jumps in classic kettlebells.
I should also add that there is one more reason for the preference of human weights in grappling: as my coach likes to say, your job as a grappler is to manipulate and lift human bodies, so you should use every opportunity to familiarize yourself with them.

 

[Period]

I agree with you here, but I didn't think this was part of the original scenario for this thread.... (although it was @BJJ Shawn who asked, and that was definitely the theme of his recent thread Other/Mixed - Is strong really important for combat sports?)

I understood it as implicit, since he was basing his question off of a grappling strength standard I posted earlier in that thread. But you are correct, he didn't mention it explicitly.

 

[Hung]

1. Start with a weight you could do 40 reps, and slowly add weight until 1x body weight.

2. Start with 1x body weight and slowly add reps.

I will mix of both...one day for bodyweight repping and one day for the weight I can do 40 reps.
I might add some relatated exercises like belt squat or duck walk with barbell/safety bar.
Also I will consider to use the safety bar to make this more confortable.

 

[Philippe Geoffrion]

I honestly find it interesting how the exercises seem to change people's perspective a lot. If the question was "how do I get to 40 push-ups/pull-ups/reps in the long cycle with double 32kg", I assume few people would suggest working up to a single with twice the weight or a one-armed push-up/pull-up first. Why is there a tendency to view the squat differently?

Perhaps because there is load in a squat beyond your body.

 

[Philippe Geoffrion]

I’m surprised @Kenny Croxdale hasn’t chimes in with the Hatfield vs Platz squat battle but if y’all are unfamiliar, definitely an iconic squatting faceoff in the history of barbell training. Look it up, I’m too lazy to find the article.

Now to the original question. How would I train to squat my bodyweight for the reps of my age? I’m 33 and weigh 165. I’m fairly certain I can do this quite easily with my current abilities.

That being said, I noticed major squat improvements from high rep/heavy weight squatting…I’m certain it is one of the most beneficial things a strength trainee can do granted they’re…

1) Skilled at squatting
2) Healthy enough to keep decent form
3) and smart enough to know their limits) to do such grueling and potentially dangerous work.
4) have excellent recovery and low stress
5) looking to develop strength,mass and grit.

I experienced some of my best strength results when I did 5/3/1 with a “widowmaker” set of 20 following the heavy five sets. I’ve never been a squat prodigy, but I was amped the first time I did a set of 20 with 225 lbs.

It can be brutal…but I don’t feel that training should always be a walk in the park.

The ability to do a rep perfectly and s golden but do is the constitution to grind through prolonged and arduous strain. You need both.

 

[Mark Limbaga]

Adding more to this very fruitful discussion

Shoot from both barrels

How I managed to hit a 20 rep squat set of bodyweight+40lbs before
Build your 15-20 rep range
Build your 5-10 rep range

Do each on separate sessions

 

[Period]

Perhaps because there is load in a squat beyond your body.

But there is also an external load in the long cycle, and considering the load in push-ups and pull-ups as fixed is a fairly artificial concept as far as I am conderned - you can regulate your bodyweight up or down, use various amounts of kipping, a band or pulley for assistance, change the angles, use partial reps...

 

[Period]

I’m surprised @Kenny Croxdale hasn’t chimes in with the Hatfield vs Platz squat battle but if y’all are unfamiliar, definitely an iconic squatting faceoff in the history of barbell training. Look it up, I’m too lazy to find the article.

Platz vs. Hatfield is pretty much all over the internet, e.g. Was the Platz vs. Hatfield Squat-Off Legit? There is even a half-hour video featuring an oddly-young Vince McMahon:


It was definitely an interesting experiment, although in my opinion people tend to look at it a bit one-sidedly. While Hatfield was stronger (and about 25 pounds heavier), he wasn't able to match Platz' strength endurance, either. Now, one might argue back and forth who performed better in the domain of the other, whether Hatfield would have had an easier time to work up to Platz' strength endurance or vice-versa, whether Platz would have gotten Hatfield-like results if he had trained like him, or the other way around.
Generally, I'd say it comes down to this: arguably, some approaches work better for certain individuals, and make it easier to hit certain goals. Finding out what works for you and what works best for what application is half the fun in training as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Period]

Adding more to this very fruitful discussion

Shoot from both barrels

How I managed to hit a 20 rep squat set of bodyweight+40lbs before
Build your 15-20 rep range
Build your 5-10 rep range

Do each on separate sessions

That can definitely work, whether you approach it in separate sessions or in separate cycles.

 

[Period]

To add some more context: as far as I know, the various national teams in the various grappling sports tend to view strength standards (there is usually a bunch of them, both general and sport-specific ones) and strength testing mostly as an add-on rather than anything. As far as I am aware, noboby ever got kicked off the team for not meeting the standards if they were successful otherwise, so it's more something that people are encouraged to work towards. You may also have people surpassing a given standard by a long shot. Squats for reps - using a barbell with 110% of body weight - were also employed at least at some point to test the US Greco wrestling team. As you can see in the video below (at 4:55), one guy managed to squeeze out 80 reps. This of course would also raise the question how such standards should be viewed - I'd argue most guys would perceive the goal as "squatting a medium weight for a whole lotta reps" as well as "bodyweight on the bar should be a medium weight".

 

[Anna C]

To add some more context: as far as I know, the various national teams in the various grappling sports tend to view strength standards (there is usually a bunch of them, both general and sport-specific ones) and strength testing mostly as an add-on rather than anything. As far as I am aware, noboby ever got kicked off the team for not meeting the standards if they were successful otherwise, so it's more something that people are encouraged to work towards. You may also have people surpassing a given standard by a long shot. Squats for reps - using a barbell with 110% of body weight - were also employed at least at some point to test the US Greco wrestling team. As you can see in the video below (at 4:55), one guy managed to squeeze out 80 reps. This of course would also raise the question how such standards should be viewed - I'd argue most guys would perceive the goal as "squatting a medium weight for a whole lotta reps".

This speaks to one of my favorite topics -- Assessment. And that is why I'm generally a proponent of "strength standards".

Where I don't think they're particularly helpful to communicate "You should be able to do this", I do think they are very useful for two other things. #1 To communicate "You can train to be able to do this", and #2 To assess where you are relative to the standard, so that a training program can be targeted to achieve #1, if it is something that serves your overall goals and objectives. And then, progress towards #1 can be objectively measured to know if the training program is effective.

 

[Philippe Geoffrion]

But there is also an external load in the long cycle, and considering the load in push-ups and pull-ups as fixed is a fairly artificial concept as far as I am conderned - you can regulate your bodyweight up or down, use various amounts of kipping, a band or pulley for assistance, change the angles, use partial reps...

I wouldn’t say fixed, but the dynamics of a barbell placed on a spine contributes to a greater overall stress on structure the structure. Having to brace over an extended period of time, as is the case with high rep barbell squats (note we’re talking about back squats and not loads like a goblet, sandbag, vest…) with a mass that essentially wants to crumble your torso.

A torso will not be compressed in a pull-up or weighted push-up to the extent of the squat. Pullups offer a deconpressive component, as the feet are freed from the earth allowing the spine to freely lengthen.

In the push-up case, gravity always acts in the same direction. Down. The loading would be around the shoulder area, and although tension must be applied through the legs and torso, the overall demand on the body is less than a squat (with the bar on the back) where the load travels from the base of the neck all the way to the feet.

The load of this barbell should also exceed any external load for a push-up or pull-up by a fair amount. However, someone who can knock out pushups or Pullups with people of equal bodyweight hanging from or sitting on them has certainly developed some extraordinary strength, no doubt. There are folks, like gymnasts, break dancers, rock climbers, arm wrestlers, who exhibit excessive upper body strength comparatively to the lower body, namely because their chosen activity dictates so.

I think of Kung Fu Hustle, suddenly. An old comedy, martial arts satire where one of the villagers who basically hauls bags of concrete on his back by squatting them after an assistant loads them, displays exceptional kicking power while the tailor excels in upper body dexterity with smooth and precise movements. Side note ended

Back to the main point…

A person who weighs 165 and squats 405 should theoretically squat 165 for reps easier then one who squats 315. An extreme example, but this is not always the case. Likewise we see sprinters who run 200 m in near double the time of world record 100 m times. You’d think they’d also be 100 m champions but this is also not the case.

The individual is always the main factor. Then comes the task they wish to excel at. Then comes finding the best way to get there.

For me, a plan is a start to a goal. The plan can be perfect, and still fail you. But that doesn’t mean the goal is unreachable. It just requires adjustments. This is true of training and everyday scenarios.

One gets closer to what one wants by doing and learning more than planning a plot that will never play itself out.

Now I must return to my mystic quest. Hopefully I’ve offered some meaningful insights.

 

[Period]

I wouldn’t say fixed, but the dynamics of a barbell placed on a spine contributes to a greater overall stress on structure the structure. Having to brace over an extended period of time, as is the case with high rep barbell squats (note we’re talking about back squats and not loads like a goblet, sandbag, vest…) with a mass that essentially wants to crumble your torso.

A torso will not be compressed in a pull-up or weighted push-up to the extent of the squat. Pullups offer a deconpressive component, as the feet are freed from the earth allowing the spine to freely lengthen.

In the push-up case, gravity always acts in the same direction. Down. The loading would be around the shoulder area, and although tension must be applied through the legs and torso, the overall demand on the body is less than a squat (with the bar on the back) where the load travels from the base of the neck all the way to the feet.

The load of this barbell should also exceed any external load for a push-up or pull-up by a fair amount. However, someone who can knock out pushups or Pullups with people of equal bodyweight hanging from or sitting on them has certainly developed some extraordinary strength, no doubt. There are folks, like gymnasts, break dancers, rock climbers, arm wrestlers, who exhibit excessive upper body strength comparatively to the lower body, namely because their chosen activity dictates so.

I think of Kung Fu Hustle, suddenly. An old comedy, martial arts satire where one of the villagers who basically hauls bags of concrete on his back by squatting them after an assistant loads them, displays exceptional kicking power while the tailor excels in upper body dexterity with smooth and precise movements. Side note ended

Back to the main point…

A person who weighs 165 and squats 405 should theoretically squat 165 for reps easier then one who squats 315. An extreme example, but this is not always the case. Likewise we see sprinters who run 200 m in near double the time of world record 100 m times. You’d think they’d also be 100 m champions but this is also not the case.

The individual is always the main factor. Then comes the task they wish to excel at. Then comes finding the best way to get there.

For me, a plan is a start to a goal. The plan can be perfect, and still fail you. But that doesn’t mean the goal is unreachable. It just requires adjustments. This is true of training and everyday scenarios.

One gets closer to what one wants by doing and learning more than planning a plot that will never play itself out.

Now I must return to my mystic quest. Hopefully I’ve offered some meaningful insights.

Thank you for your analysis, although I think I am fairly well aware of the effects of squats, push-ups and pull-ups since I have done tens of thousands of each. I also spent most of my youth competing in track. Speaking of running – middle distance runners will do some sprinting in training, but it will not make up the bulk of their work. Only sprinters sprint most of the time.

Well, maybe not the initial post but definitely the idea behind the first post was squatting a person of the same weight class 40 times in a fireman’s carry, which gives a somewhat different feel from a barbell, as the weight is distributed over the entire back. It also means you will be pulling down and in on the arm and leg of the person you are squatting, and have your elbows in close by your sides. The different position would be another argument to just train specifically for what you’re trying to improve, but that’s just me. Also, dealing with compression and forced breathing for a longer time would be an argument for doing sets with higher reps in my book, because that is something you need to get accustomed to as well. Which may be the reason why girevoy athletes don't spend the bulk of their training lifting heavier weights.

As for the difference between theory and practice – in the example of Platz and Hatfield above, Hatfield “should” have won on squatting for reps with 500 lbs as well, since he out-squatted Platz by about 100 lbs. However, he didn’t – he managed to get something like 12 reps compared to Platz’ 23. With a lower weight, the difference likely would have been even bigger. I also wouldn’t expect the guy from the example above (80 squats with bodyweight on the bar) to necessarily be able to squat triple or quadruple bodyweight, just like I wouldn’t be expecting an Oly Lifter or Powerlifter to squat bodyweight for 80 reps based on their much higher maxes.

I shall now leave you to your mystic quest and get back to my not-so-mystic quest of helping grapplers to be stronger on the mat.