all posts post new thread

Bodyweight Intensity vs Volume for each particular lift

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

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?
 
Hello,

@305pelusa
I noticed that I need more volume for "little muscles" such as arms and shoulders to get significant progress. This is true for pull ups, push ups and dips / presses / HSPU.

However, I need far less volume for the "big moves" such as pistols or swings.

From my very modest strength experience, I tend to think that the more big muscle chain I use in one move (such as pistosl), the closer to my 1RM I have to be (so less volume) to progress. However, for muscle chains with smaller muscles (such as pull ups), I need to get a little more volume to progress.

I am not expert in weighlifting and associated programs, but most of them use pretty low reps for big muscle chains (squats, DL) to build strength : Easy Strength, 5/3/1, Justa's singles, even S&S (for GUs part), etc...

Maybe there is a significant part of how you recover and how your muscle are build ? I mean some people are "naturally" stronger than others, for the same weight, whereas some others are naturally more "endurant" ?

I will pay close attention to this thread. Sure it will be fascinating :)

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
I find the phenomena you're noticing is movement dependent in many cases (not all). For some exercises it is a more linear resistance to output, but some movements the point of max resistance is at the very beginning of the lift.

I know, how could the max resistance NOT be at the start of the movement? But some movements have a real spike at the bottom and it drops off more rapidly than others, pistols are a great example of this. It takes a great deal of effort to move that first 4" and gets a lot easier once in motion.

Movements that do not disadvantage your mechanical leverage at the bottom so much, will allow for a much more linear progression.

When it comes to ones that induce a big disadvantage to start, you need total unit recruitment % to be very high just to get moving, so training lower volume/higher intensity makes sense to improve your output. You're really training for the first 20-30% of the total ROM. Movements like dips where the power output is more gradual and peak resistance is at maybe 20-30 % into the ROM, allow for longer buildup of unit activation and respond better to volume (?).

Consider - when you're out of gas on pistols you just don't move at all. As you run out of gas on dips you can always get some clearance off the pegs before stalling unless you've gone to complete failure.
 
@North Coast Miller : That's an excellent way of putting that, and I agree with it completely. That kind of logic is sort of the lines I was thinking. Interestingly, the Pull-up I have found seems to be rather "normal". It isn't lopsided towards either one of those categories. For me, it follows most "calculators" fairly well. I attribute this to the Pull-up having a hard bottom, top and middle position really. As you said, it's somewhat linear. While Pistol/Press might be brutally hard at the beginning and cake after, and the dip easy at the bottom (stretch?) but hard close to lock-out, the Pull-up seems difficult throughout. Perhaps the Pull-up requires moderate volume and moderate intensity then!

@Pet: I personally find discrepancies even in the same muscles. Pushing wise, the Press and Dip seem to behave differently. However, what you say about the size makes sense to me. I don't do many other leg exercises, but instinct tells me they would most likely behave like the first category. Umhhhh...
 
Hello,

We also can do this comment to a move like the chin up : the begining is far harder. Indeed, you start from a dead hang position. Most part of the effort is produced to put your arm parallel to the ground. Then, when you pass this angle, the move becomes far easier.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
Very neat observation!

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).

This could actually be a very simple, straightforward method to individualize training to people who respond differently.

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.

Do you think the other reps are taking advantage of the stretch reflex?

I got an almost bodyweight barbell military press using a program from Dinosaur Training that was quite similar to Justa singles and was very low volume.

When I trained dips higher weight came easy, but with bodyweight I could only manage a few more reps than weighted.

It has been said that the military press responds best to a high volume and bench press progress can be made with low volume. I actually built a decent bench press quickly with a bodybuilding volume type program. It reached a point then neither high volume nor low volume gave me much more progress.
 
Do you think the other reps are taking advantage of the stretch reflex?
Yes, absolutely.

I got an almost bodyweight barbell military press using a program from Dinosaur Training that was quite similar to Justa singles and was very low volume.
This would not surprise me. It's exactly what my Press is like. Working with less volume and pushing the weight up (training with singles would be more conductive to heavier weights than sets of 5) seems to be what I need to do as well.

When I trained dips higher weight came easy, but with bodyweight I could only manage a few more reps than weighted.
Once again, this is the same idea I have found as well. Adding weight doesn't seem to cut the reps significantly. Or if you like the converse... Cutting the weight doesn't seem to let you get that many more reps!

It has been said that the military press responds best to a high volume and bench press progress can be made with low volume. I actually built a decent bench press quickly with a bodybuilding volume type program. It reached a point then neither high volume nor low volume gave me much more progress.

D-Rock, this is exactly why this has been a revelation to me. I have also always heard that the press requires a lot of volume. But I find even when I can do lots of reps at a weight, it doesn't seem to translate into the heavier weights I wanted.

Obviously I'm not saying this to be the case for everyone. And certainly not trying to degrade any pressing program, like ROP. Rather, trying to encourage people to figure this out. I haven't done anything with this information yet, but I foresee small changes in my training in the months to come :)
 
@305pelusa, yes, good observations on your part, IMHO. The differences will be by both the lift and the person. I recall - I think it was at the first US StrongFirst Barbell Instructor cert, that Pavel was sketching out a lifting plan for two very strong people in the room, one of whom was much more of an endurance machine than the other - the latter person could lift much more at higher percentages than the former, so he took that into account when designing a program for each of them.
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.
I must disagree with this. The ROP's stated purpose is to get your to a 1/2 bw press for a single. The bell sizes will vary, and high volume does not necessarily equal perfect technique - there are too many variables here to say what will happen at the end of someone's ROP, which is why there is test day.

As you say, everyone's different.

-S-
 
Hello,

Pavel was sketching out a lifting plan for two very strong people in the room, one of whom was much more of an endurance machine than the other - the latter person could lift much more at higher percentages than the former, so he took that into account when designing a program for each of them
Do you remember (more or less) the differences between the two designed programs ?

Indeed, if the goal was the same for both people, maybe it would be interesting to know what both types of people (strong and endurance) "have to do", taking into account that everyone is different

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
I must disagree with this. The ROP's stated purpose is to get your to a 1/2 bw press for a single. The bell sizes will vary, and high volume does not necessarily equal perfect technique - there are too many variables here to say what will happen at the end of someone's ROP, which is why there is test day.
Sorry, maybe I didn't exactly explain it correctly.

The jump between 24 and 32 kgs is a large one. To bridge that gap, Pavel designed the ROP to have a very high volume of presses (up to 75 in one day). If after achieving that high volume you can't transition, then we can say the purpose of the high volume was defeated. Because the purpose of the high volume was to in fact, allow for such a transition in the first place.
For people with a press that behaves like mine, such high volume would not have served its initial purpose. You won't get to transition to the 32 kg one so why bother? Might as well build up to, say, 50 reps and transition to the 28 kg instead.

That's sort of how I see it.

Pavel was sketching out a lifting plan for two very strong people in the room, one of whom was much more of an endurance machine than the other - the latter person could lift much more at higher percentages than the former, so he took that into account when designing a program for each of them.

This is so cool to hear Steve! This extra dimension is something I have never even thought of before. Thank you for sharing the anecdote with me. I would love to see an article in the future in SF maybe talking a bit about this subject.
 
The endurance person had more volume overall, and a higher average intensity - more lifts closer to 1RM. The other person did less volume and less very heavy lifting in training but, when it came to test 1RM, both were the same or nearly so.

-S-
 
If after achieving that high volume you can't transition, then we can say the purpose of the high volume was defeated. Because the purpose of the high volume was to in fact, allow for such a transition in the first place.
I don't mean to turn this into a debate, but if the program was completed and the objectives weren't achieved, isn't it possible that the program wasn't followed in some important way as well? I'm not saying this is the case with you, but you do mention hearing of lots of folks unable to make that transition, and I think pressing technique has to be considered one of the variables.

It's a non-issue for me in my own training because 32 kg is my 1/2 bw press and I got it after a 24 kg ROP - twice, in fact.

We should also say, however, that this forum is full of good suggestions for tweaking the ROP. The one I consistently have found the most valuable is using an intermediate weight, a 28 kg in the case of your example, for single and doubles as the ROP progresses. This does mean, of course, that one can't simply press the 32 kg without buying a 28 kg if you're following my advice, but there are alternatives, too, e.g., doing yielding presses with the 32 as part of your ROP.

I worry we're descending into minutae here - I do see your points and they are valid.

-S-
 
Hello,

The jump between 24 and 32 kgs is a large one.
I agree. Some folks are perfectly ok with big jumps. However, some other can absolutely not consider doing jump superior to 4kg. This is my case for example. It goes that way for the presses, and also for GUs in S&S.

The endurance person had more volume overall, and a higher average intensity - more lifts closer to 1RM. The other person did less volume and less very heavy lifting in training but, when it came to test 1RM, both were the same or nearly so.
So is it ok to say that ROP is better "conceived" for endurance people (due to the volume), than for strong people ?

That being said, must an endurance person preferentially go for program with high volume ? And must a strong person preferentially go for a program with few rep with heavy weights ?

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
I don't mean to turn this into a debate, but if the program was completed and the objectives weren't achieved, isn't it possible that the program wasn't followed in some important way as well? I'm not saying this is the case with you, but you do mention hearing of lots of folks unable to make that transition, and I think pressing technique has to be considered one of the variables.
OHH yes yes, I completely agree. I had not totally understood what you had meant. But yes, absolutely if you aren't using the technique from ETK correctly, or taking the correct rest periods as recommended, and so on, then there's no debate here at all. You simply didn't do it correctly.

We are in total agreement here Steve.
 
The endurance person had more volume overall, and a higher average intensity - more lifts closer to 1RM. The other person did less volume and less very heavy lifting in training but, when it came to test 1RM, both were the same or nearly so.

-S-

This is very interesting. I thought the person with the higher volume would end up with a lower average intensity. And the person with the lower volume would use heavier weights to make up for it.

I guess I'm not following the logic of Pavel here too much :s
 
That being said, must an endurance person preferentially go for program with high volume ? And must a strong person preferentially go for a program with few rep with heavy weights ?

Kind regards,

Pet'

IMHO most programs that are not specific (and even ones that are) should cycle both of these factors to some extent. In life one uses both for day to day and both strategies are proven to work.
 
This is very interesting. I thought the person with the higher volume would end up with a lower average intensity. And the person with the lower volume would use heavier weights to make up for it.
It really is all personal. One of these people could do fairly standard training and blast out a 1RM, while the other's 1RM wasn't as far above his training weights, but he could tolerate a lot of volume at a high level of intensity. This does, as you say, go against the principles, but those principles have to be applied to the same person in order to compare them. If I went up in volume, I'd go down in intensity, but all that relative to what was normal for me.

And there are a million other factors here, too, of course. As but one example, I did my DL training cycle in the Fall based on a max weight I hadn't pulled in 10 years, and hadn't gotten close to in a year and a half. I guesstimated, based on knowing that I like intensity a little on the high side, but not too much. I respond well to a lot of work over 70% and don't receive much benefit from going lighter, but I also burn out above about 85% many times, so I plan accordingly.

Most important for me, I decided not to pull a 1RM at the meet. I decided to pull about a 95% effort, and I liked that so much, that's what I'm going to do for my next meet, too. In the midst of a busy life, this is my compromise. I lifted 20 lbs. more than six months prior, I'm hoping to best it at a meet in June, but if I'm making my 95% effort go up, I'm getting stronger. I'm probably just going to add a few pounds to the bar and do another DDD cycle, and if I get another few pounds more at the meet, I'll be very happy. In fact, if I keep lifting the same or more as I get older, I'm pretty happy. My goal in June, 2017, will be to match what I did in 2015, and then if I feel good, try for more in the Fall of 2017, which would tie or beat my lifetime best set a decade ago.

If I get to a point where I can take it easy for a few days after a meet, I might go at it harder, but I make a living in the arts, and I pretty much work 7 days a week in order to make ends meet. I go to sleep early on Saturday nights to be well prepared to play the organ and lead the choir in church on Sundays, and meets are often on Saturdays and I need to keep that in mind. If I don't play in church the next day, I don't get paid because the church has to pay a substitute organist and my contract only includes a few days off, most of which I take to attend StrongFirst or Flexible Steel events.

So, the ramble is just to make an example of how, at some point, you really do have to know not only your own body, but your own training, what gets you hurt and what doesn't, what kind of training wears you down and what kind makes you feel better, etc. If you don't question your dedication to the process and to the goal, and I don't, then you can trust your gut about what to do and what not to do in training and in competition.

@Rif, anything you would care to add here?

-S-
 
@Steve Freides there is a big difference between being able to handle a large volume of sub maximal weights and being able to produce 100%+ maximum force for a single rep. Many different factors but this is the reason that 500 lb deadlift for a touch and go triple does not produce a 550 lb lift-none of the lifts put 550 lbs of force on the bar. or being able to do tons of work at 80% doesn't produce a new PR year after year

If strength is a skill than a 100% absolute max rep is really a skill.
At 100% single every little aspect is huge; if one thing is off a bit- no lift.

Of course there's a difference between a sub max one rep max and a true one rep max :) Meaning, one can 'take a single' that's not a true 100% .

There has to be a balance, and it's highly individual, between volume and intensity in one's training and overall yearly cycle.
 
This does, as you say, go against the principles, but those principles have to be applied to the same person in order to compare them. If I went up in volume, I'd go down in intensity, but all that relative to what was normal for me.

Well, sure. But think of the program as the individual itself. The program (the one Pavel was designing I mean) has a certain volume, average intensity and frequency. If a lifter would not thrive on such volume, then it wouldn't make sense to do the exact same program, with less volume. Because the frequency and intensity were picked to work with that volume in the first place.

So if I decrease the volume in a program, then it follows I'd have to increase frequency or intensity somewhat to obtain a similar training effect.

That's all I meant.

There has to be a balance, and it's highly individual, between volume and intensity in one's training and overall yearly cycle.

I think this is ultimately what I'm getting at. Saying there's a "balance" is incredibly vague. I'm looking to quantify it slightly by saying which of the two variables (volume or intensity) should be manipulated mostly, for a particular lift.

Assuming we're interested in strength, then the idea is that some lifts will respond better to sets of 5, while others will respond better to doubles for instance.

Maybe it sounds obvious, it just wasn't to me. I have been very guilty of grabbing Squat/DL/Bench programs, and using them for Pressing/Dipping/Pistols. I now realize this isn't as foolproof as I thought.
 
@305pelusa interesting we have had the same experiences!

Still not sure what to make of my bench press.

Obviously I'm not saying this to be the case for everyone.

That's why what you noticed is so neat, as it's a rule of thumb that a person can use to help individualize their training to how they respond! Just a part of getting to know your body. I'm going to pay more attention to this, thank you.

And again, very good observation. Way to step back and look at what was happening. As discussed, I made the same observation. But I merely got frustrated that things didn't make sense (and usually tried to force it to make sense by working even harder haha). You actually came up with something from your observation!

@Steve Freides I enjoyed your little ramble. Goes to show what all affects training and how training can affect your life.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom