Bodyweight When to end a set?

[Steve Freides]

@305pelusa: I have noted your objection to mentioning my age.

-S-

 

[Oscar]

In the last few months since I've had a HR monitor, I have been able to notice a correlation between how quickly my HR drops after a set and when to stop to avoid ill effects. Generally, 1-2 set after the shift in recovery time is the max.

This sounds an interesting correlation. Didn't fully understood what you meant, can you expand?

 

[Ryan Toshner]

I think it's fine if you keep your rep speed fast to train for max reps.

What I don't understand is the recommendation to do low reps in order to build up higher reps. As Ryan says, he doesn't go above 8 reps in a set, to try to push his max Pull-ups. I bet he could do 15 in a row, all fast, but he's choosing to end prematurely, even before slowing down.

He's arguing that doing higher reps isn't the most efficient way to build up your ability to do high reps. And that lower rep sets are a more efficient way. I'm not sure I follow.

Overall volume can still be relatively high... 5 sets of 12 is the same number of reps as 10 sets of 6. The first method is significantly more challenging and is more likely to lead to burnout (for many people) if done regularly. The second method is relatively easy (assuming that you can do 15+ reps) but should still increase your RM. It can also probably be done more regularly without leading to excessive cumulative fatigue, tendonitis, etc.

As @Steve Freides mentioned, everyone is different. Some people are fine with higher-rep plans. And to bump up a RM (specifically pull-ups) to 25+ usually requires some higher-rep sets... but not always and for sure not frequently.

 

[305pelusa]

Overall volume can still be relatively high... 5 sets of 12 is the same number of reps as 10 sets of 6. The first method is significantly more challenging and is more likely to lead to burnout (for many people) if done regularly. The second method is relatively easy (assuming that you can do 15+ reps) but should still increase your RM.

Ok, I think you have my argument wrong.

I'm not saying low reps are an issue because there's low total volume. My issue with low reps is that, in order to have the same effect as higher reps, you have to have more total volume. 5 x 12 vs 10 x 6 is silly to compare. Obviously the first one is much, much harder. More likely to create overtraining? Yes. More likely to improve your Pull-ups? Also yes.

A better comparison might be 3 x 12 vs 12 x 6. The former has twice the intensity per set, while the latter twice the volume. They also seem to me about similar in difficulty.

Now, since those are similarly difficult and lead to a similar training effect, we should pick that which is less dangerous. Right?

I'd argue 3 x 12 is much better. It takes a quarter of the time. Less likely for an overuse injury, as your elbows do half of the flexions. And frankly, I'd argue 12 x 6 is more likely to lead to burnout. It's literally twice the work and stimulation on the CNS.

I guess I'm just skeptical because whenever I've read about building up strength endurance, I've always thought of doing higher rep work, maybe 70-80% of RM. I don't see how sets of 40% are sufficiently specific unless you do an absolute absurd amount of them.

 

[Carl]

For me, fewer sets of more reps is more enjoyable and seems more specific to my goals so I'd tend to agree.

I do like GTG but essentially this is lots of single sets (practice) through the day. I'm not a fan of too many sets in a short period. It's easy to lose focus and with pull ups also seems to start to invite wear and tear (for me at least). Both are the polar opposite of what I wish to achieve with my training.

Many ways to get the job done which is great because we can all find something that works for us individually.

Ok, I think you have my argument wrong.

I'm not saying low reps are an issue because there's low total volume. My issue with low reps is that, in order to have the same effect as higher reps, you have to have more total volume. 5 x 12 vs 10 x 6 is silly to compare. Obviously the first one is much, much harder. More likely to create overtraining? Yes. More likely to improve your Pull-ups? Also yes.

A better comparison might be 3 x 12 vs 12 x 6. The former has twice the intensity per set, while the latter twice the volume. They also seem to me about similar in difficulty.

Now, since those are similarly difficult and lead to a similar training effect, we should pick that which is less dangerous. Right?

I'd argue 3 x 12 is much better. It takes a quarter of the time. Less likely for an overuse injury, as your elbows do half of the flexions. And frankly, I'd argue 12 x 6 is more likely to lead to burnout. It's literally twice the work and stimulation on the CNS.

I guess I'm just skeptical because whenever I've read about building up strength endurance, I've always thought of doing higher rep work, maybe 70-80% of RM. I don't see how sets of 40% are sufficiently specific unless you do an absolute absurd amount of them.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Personally I like both strategies - more sets, fewer reps, higher load/more difficulty, more rest between sets
&
fewer sets, more reps, 70-80% approx max.

The biggest single factor that determines my selections most often is time. Since every set has a recovery period associated with it, I can get more volume in less time by reducing my set count. I've also become extremely habituated to one minute on - one and a half to two minute off set cycles. I wouldn't have known this as a fact, but for some of the workouts I've recorded and then broken down the exercises by set, the pacing is very consistent even though that aspect is largely unplanned.

This means I do have to periodize a bit and plan my lower rep work specifically.

When it comes to bodyweight I tend not to make distinctions as much, as every movement comes with its own limitations in terms of how many reps I can get, and this largely determines the set count, especially if I don't know how to make multiple variations with differing intensity. While it isn't the best to mingle strategies in the same workout, with BW work its tough to get around it.

 

[Ryan Toshner]

Ok, I think you have my argument wrong.

I understood what you meant.

I'm not saying low reps are an issue because there's low total volume. My issue with low reps is that, in order to have the same effect as higher reps, you have to have more total volume. 5 x 12 vs 10 x 6 is silly to compare. Obviously the first one is much, much harder. More likely to create overtraining? Yes. More likely to improve your Pull-ups? Also yes.

I agree that 5x12 is more likely to create overtraining. I disagree that it's more likely to improve your pull-ups... partly because it's likely to lead to overtraining, and partly because the total reps are the same. As @Steve Freides said, people respond somewhat differently, so perhaps we should just table this part of the discussion as you might respond better to 5x12 while I might respond better to 10x6.

A better comparison might be 3 x 12 vs 12 x 6.

The former has twice the intensity per set, while the latter twice the volume. They also seem to me about similar in difficulty.

Now, since those are similarly difficult and lead to a similar training effect, we should pick that which is less dangerous. Right?

I'd argue 3 x 12 is much better. It takes a quarter of the time. Less likely for an overuse injury, as your elbows do half of the flexions. And frankly, I'd argue 12 x 6 is more likely to lead to burnout. It's literally twice the work and stimulation on the CNS.

I'd be willing to bet that 12x6 takes maybe 2x longer (not 4x) than 3x12 for most people, maybe less. 12 reps is 80% (assuming a 15RM) and would require much longer rest to recover. 12x6 is twice the volume, but recovering from 40% effort takes much less time. Doing 10x6 is slightly less than double the volume but could probably be completed in less than twice the time... and density is another training factor to consider (intensity, volume, density). Faster recovery means shorter required rest which means increased density which means more reps in a given time with (arguably) less cumulative fatigue.

Also, my example was 10x6, so 60 reps. But either way, 72 reps is really not that much (again, assuming a 15RM) for a trained athlete. I wouldn't necessarily do it 3x/week (other sessions might be 2-3x6 and 3-5x7), but once/week wouldn't be that difficult.

I guess I'm just skeptical because whenever I've read about building up strength endurance, I've always thought of doing higher rep work, maybe 70-80% of RM. I don't see how sets of 40% are sufficiently specific unless you do an absolute absurd amount of them.

As Pavel likes to say... "I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I'm right." Reiterating what Steve said, people do respond differently. Maybe you need to do 3x12. Maybe it's worked for you. That's great! You've found what works for you. But, low-rep work has worked for me. So don't discount it just because it's counter to what you've seen before.

 

[305pelusa]

@Ryan Toshner : I hear your points and I agree with what you're saying. Let me just say one last thing.

Ultimately, I don't think as black or white as you do. It's not that something either "works" or doesn't. It's about what works better. You built up to 25 Pull-ups (that's what you got this past TSC) by using low reps, and that's good. The question you shouldn't ask is "does this work?". It should be "is this what works best?". Be critical of your own results.

For two years I only did One-arm Chin ups (for sets of 1-3), even building up to weighted OACUs. And I can do 20 Pull-ups in a row. It's so tempting to say "whoah low rep heavy strength training carry-over is so good, why ever do low reps?". So don't tell me I discount it. For years, I gave similar advice.

It wasn't until my friends started doing high rep Fighter Pull-up work (yeah, that program where you essentially do an all-out set daily) that they ate my numbers. 30 Pull-ups (chin to bar, like the TSC) isn't out of the norm for them. Thirty is almost unheard of in the TSC where, I assume most train in a similar low-rep fashion because they have some SF influence. For my cousin, it's his first Fighter Pull-up set.

As Pavel likes to say... "I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I'm right."

This is a relativistic fallacy. Your argument since the beginning was that high reps aren't the best way to improve the ability to do high reps. My argument was that they were. If you say you're right, you're in turn saying I'm wrong. We can certainly agree to disagree though.

I still think they work better for specificity, but you have infinitely more experience than me training others, so your knowledge of overtraining is much better. I accept that and that's why I agree with your points. I just wanted to make that point high reps absolutely build rep maxes... they aren't just to feel good. SF even makes use of it. Fighter Pull-up is an example. Here's another:
How to Build Up to 1 Pistol – Then 100 Consecutive Pistols

Cheers Ryan. Hope to see you compete in the next TSC and represent!

 

[Ryan Toshner]

@305pelusa , those who know me (particularly my gf) would laugh hysterically at the statement of my thinking in black and white (or in my gf's case, shake her head and roll her eyes). I actually think in so much gray that I'm not sure black and white even exist. But I've been traveling and have had a lot on my plate, so to be fair, I didn't put as much time into crafting these responses as I should/could have and can both understand your points and see where some disagreement stems... I have a little more time at the moment, so let me add some context. (On a related note, this would be a much better conversation as there are a lot of nuances that could be more easily discussed in-person. I'm not sure where you are, but if you're ever in the Milwaukee, WI area, you should stop by TNT to chat!)

Let's tackle the "you're wrong, I'm right" comment first (which was said slightly tongue-in-cheek... and I'm disappointed that you missed my mischievous grin... lol). I think there's an important distinction that will add some weight to both of our arguments (pun intended)...

In a deterministic situation (known inputs lead to guaranteed known outputs), you'd be completely correct in saying that one of us has to be wrong if the other is right. You say 2 + 2 = 4. I say it's 3. You're right. I'm wrong. Case closed.

On the other hand, in a probabalistic situation (known inputs lead to probable outputs but with no guarantee due to the variety of other inputs that could affect the outcome), we could actually both be right. Your solution might be right for some people. Mine might be right for others. And both of our solutions might be wrong for someone else. In this pull-up example, factors could include age, genetics, athletic background, training age, relative distance to one's genetic potential, etc.

So, really, neither of us is entirely wrong or right. Or, rather, "it depends on <fill in the blank>" would determine which of us is more likely right. (I just realized this is also a great example of my not thinking in black and white...)

Anyway... on to the fighter pull-up program. I've done it before. And, in fact, some of my classes are doing it right now (with some modifications to reduce the potential for overtraining). It's an effective program. It has components of both high intensity and high volume. But I'll also point out that, as far as intensity goes, a small portion of the sets done each day are actually at a high intensity.

Someone with a 5RM might do 5,4,3,2,1 on the first day. Someone with a 25RM might do 20,17,14,11,8. (Or perhaps 24,20,16,12,8. But 25,24,23,22,21 isn't feasible... unless you have a two hours to do them and nothing else to do between sets.) In either case, the majority of the sets are done at 80% or less... And the majority of sets are also done at 60-ish% or less. That obviously changes by day 5 when the first person does 5,5,4,3,2 (and we can extrapolate the second person's #s)... but theoretically they're already stronger than they were on day 1, so the intensity is probably still a bit less than 100,100,80,60,40%.

IMPORTANT:
Having said all of that, you are definitely right that, if your goal is to completely max out your potential for doing as many reps as possible, you will have to spend some time doing high-rep sets. Maybe that means going from 39 pull-ups to 41 pull-ups. But for most people who can't yet do 20 (or 15), high volume & low- to moderate-intensity is perhaps a better option (i.e. less likely to overtrain, equally or close to equally effective plus or minus, more time-efficient for a given total volume, etc).

I made an assumption that @Carl wasn't doing 20-rep sets, hence my initial answer. (You know what they say when we assume... it makes an a** out of u and me... so I should've known better and asked other questions.)

To close (on a somewhat-related note), I'm training for the Beast Tamer, so we'll definitely see at the fall TSC. The past two TSCs I actually did fewer pull-ups than my initial comment perhaps implied. Three TSCs ago (when I pulled 540), I had just finished 8 weeks of Power to the People 2.0 followed by 8 weeks of Surovetsky, and I think I'm now just recovering from the overtraining (I'm half-joking)... And, interestingly enough, my pull-up results at that TSC (28 at a heavier body weight than I've been at the last two TSCs) came from the lat lock-down from doing so many deadlifts (because I didn't do many pull-ups during training that time either).

Anyway, @Carl , sorry for hijacking your thread... but I hope you at least have enough info to mull over for the next decade or so.

And @305pelusa , I meant what I said about stopping by to chat if you're ever in MKE... Also, awesome on the OACUs.

 

[Carl]

No need to apologise. Even if this has taken a left turn somewhat from my original question on rep speed I appreciate the insights and different perspectives. You're both far ahead of me in strength in numbers for pull ups so whatever you're doing clearly works for you.

Many ways clearly work as you get examples of long term success on low volume, intensity based work (Clarence Bass, Steve Maxwell of late) and higher volume/practice advocates such as StrongFirst methods.

I want to be at this for the long haul so I look to people that have been there and done it, which is just one reason I love Pavel's body of work.

Thanks for the inputs all. Now, back to those pull ups for me!

@305pelusa , those who know me (particularly my gf) would laugh hysterically at the statement of my thinking in black and white (or in my gf's case, shake her head and roll her eyes). I actually think in so much gray that I'm not sure black and white even exist. But I've been traveling and have had a lot on my plate, so to be fair, I didn't put as much time into crafting these responses as I should/could have and can both understand your points and see where some disagreement stems... I have a little more time at the moment, so let me add some context. (On a related note, this would be a much better conversation as there are a lot of nuances that could be more easily discussed in-person. I'm not sure where you are, but if you're ever in the Milwaukee, WI area, you should stop by TNT to chat!)

Let's tackle the "you're wrong, I'm right" comment first (which was said slightly tongue-in-cheek... and I'm disappointed that you missed my mischievous grin... lol). I think there's an important distinction that will add some weight to both of our arguments (pun intended)...

In a deterministic situation (known inputs lead to guaranteed known outputs), you'd be completely correct in saying that one of us has to be wrong if the other is right. You say 2 + 2 = 4. I say it's 3. You're right. I'm wrong. Case closed.

On the other hand, in a probabalistic situation (known inputs lead to probable outputs but with no guarantee due to the variety of other inputs that could affect the outcome), we could actually both be right. Your solution might be right for some people. Mine might be right for others. And both of our solutions might be wrong for someone else. In this pull-up example, factors could include age, genetics, athletic background, training age, relative distance to one's genetic potential, etc.

So, really, neither of us is entirely wrong or right. Or, rather, "it depends on <fill in the blank>" would determine which of us is more likely right. (I just realized this is also a great example of my not thinking in black and white...)

Anyway... on to the fighter pull-up program. I've done it before. And, in fact, some of my classes are doing it right now (with some modifications to reduce the potential for overtraining). It's an effective program. It has components of both high intensity and high volume. But I'll also point out that, as far as intensity goes, a small portion of the sets done each day are actually at a high intensity.

Someone with a 5RM might do 5,4,3,2,1 on the first day. Someone with a 25RM might do 20,17,14,11,8. (Or perhaps 24,20,16,12,8. But 25,24,23,22,21 isn't feasible... unless you have a two hours to do them and nothing else to do between sets.) In either case, the majority of the sets are done at 80% or less... And the majority of sets are also done at 60-ish% or less. That obviously changes by day 5 when the first person does 5,5,4,3,2 (and we can extrapolate the second person's #s)... but theoretically they're already stronger than they were on day 1, so the intensity is probably still a bit less than 100,100,80,60,40%.

IMPORTANT:
Having said all of that, you are definitely right that, if your goal is to completely max out your potential for doing as many reps as possible, you will have to spend some time doing high-rep sets. Maybe that means going from 39 pull-ups to 41 pull-ups. But for most people who can't yet do 20 (or 15), high volume & low- to moderate-intensity is perhaps a better option (i.e. less likely to overtrain, equally or close to equally effective plus or minus, more time-efficient for a given total volume, etc).

I made an assumption that @Carl wasn't doing 20-rep sets, hence my initial answer. (You know what they say when we assume... it makes an a** out of u and me... so I should've known better and asked other questions.)

To close (on a somewhat-related note), I'm training for the Beast Tamer, so we'll definitely see at the fall TSC. The past two TSCs I actually did fewer pull-ups than my initial comment perhaps implied. Three TSCs ago (when I pulled 540), I had just finished 8 weeks of Power to the People 2.0 followed by 8 weeks of Surovetsky, and I think I'm now just recovering from the overtraining (I'm half-joking)... And, interestingly enough, my pull-up results at that TSC (28 at a heavier body weight than I've been at the last two TSCs) came from the lat lock-down from doing so many deadlifts (because I didn't do many pull-ups during training that time either).

Anyway, @Carl , sorry for hijacking your thread... but I hope you at least have enough info to mull over for the next decade or so.

And @305pelusa , I meant what I said about stopping by to chat if you're ever in MKE... Also, awesome on the OACUs.

 

[305pelusa]

Even if this has taken a left turn somewhat from my original question on rep speed I appreciate the insights and different perspectives.

On that original note, I will very soon start a new program that actually makes use of rep speed for my strength sets (and simply uses higher reps and grinds for the hypertrophy work). So it'd be good to stay in contact to note each other's results. Do you have a Log here?

 

[Steve Freides]

As Pavel likes to say... "I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I'm right."

This is a relativistic fallacy. Your argument since the beginning was that high reps aren't the best way to improve the ability to do high reps. My argument was that they were. If you say you're right, you're in turn saying I'm wrong. We can certainly agree to disagree though.

@305pelusa, I must disagree on several counts and vehemently.

That we don't say you're wrong isn't a fallacy of any sort; it's part of our code of conduct here. Not intended as a statement of fact, it is, frankly, somewhere between a strong recommendation and a requirement for participation on this forum.

We believe that strength is _the_ foundational physical attribute and that endurance is best - best! - built on a foundation of strength. That doesn't mean we don't recognize other ways to build endurance or strength-endurance, but it does mean that our system values strength as the most basic physical attribute, regardless of specific athletic goals (in the case we're discussing, high-rep pullups), for any healthy individual able to make their own decisions. (Those who aren't healthy should address those issues before embarking on a strength training program.)

"Best" should not be taken to mean the most expeditious route to a particular athletic end, nor should it be taken to mean the only way to achieve maximum athletic performance. We aim to build strong people, and then people who can, should their chosen profession or sport require it, the ability to endure their strength.

And speaking as a trainee myself, I cannot imagine ever wanting to do 30 pullups because anything more than 5 is cardio, anyway. Anything more than 3, really, but I'll cut you some slack here.

-S-

 

[Deleted member 5559]

This sounds an interesting correlation. Didn't fully understood what you meant, can you expand?

If I were running an 800m every 5 minutes; my HR would likely drop back to a common rate by the end of that 5min. However, after about 4-5, my rate won't recover all the way back down to what it did the first 4-5. Any more than 1 or 2 after those 4-5 is too much.

I've seen this with snatches and swings also. I've only done it with density sets (X reps every Y interval) and will usually get to a common HR by the start of the next set until a point - that's when I know I've drained the tank and more than 1-2 sets beyond that is when I can't recover adequately.

 

[North Coast Miller]

If I were running an 800m every 5 minutes; my HR would likely drop back to a common rate by the end of that 5min. However, after about 4-5, my rate won't recover all the way back down to what it did the first 4-5. Any more than 1 or 2 after those 4-5 is too much.

I've seen this with snatches and swings also. I've only done it with density sets (X reps every Y interval) and will usually get to a common HR by the start of the next set until a point - that's when I know I've drained the tank and more than 1-2 sets beyond that is when I can't recover adequately.

Interesting observations.

Doing a fairly intense glycolytic workout I found I could still get my HR down to the same baseline I was using at the start of a session, but after about 30 minutes it just didn't matter - the HR became uncoupled from my perceived recovery and that's when I knew the tank was dry.

 

[305pelusa]

Sorry for derailing the thread once more but I noticed something.

And speaking as a trainee myself, I cannot imagine ever wanting to do 30 pullups because anything more than 5 is cardio, anyway. Anything more than 3, really, but I'll cut you some slack here.

I'll be the first to prioritize strength over endurance. Most fitness out there does not do it, but weight training circles do. And that's why I'm here.

However, be honest with me. Don't you think Strongfirst has swung just a liiiitle bit too much the strength, low rep way? It didn't use to be this way and I know you remember the old Party ways.

We joke a lot about in this forum about Xfit or Tough Mudders or Spartan Race. But it used to be that KB practitioners were so conditioned, they could destroy those events AND also lift heavy KBs. Endurance AND strength were both relevant. We joke about people in those events overtraining and killing themselves to train. In the past, I remember people participating in those sports, BEATING them, by just doing their high rep KB ballistic work.

It doesn't bother me at all because I do my own thing. But your comment (which I know was half kidding) about anything over 5 being cardio would've been ridiculed by the Party 10 years ago.
Comparing the RKC book to S&S is like two worlds apart.
I'm not saying it's a good/bad shift. Not looking for proof that this is better. I'm just genuinely curious if you have noticed this also? Or purely memory bias haha?

 

[Steve Freides]

@305pelusa, my comment about anything over 5's being cardio - to the best of my knowledge it's long-standing powerlifting 'wisdom' and not something recent. It's also not something I attribute directly to StrongFirst. And I really don't agree with it, either - anything over 3 reps is cardio. 5 is too many.



Our practitioners still regularly compete in endurance and strength-endurance events and do just fine, so far as I know.

Strength isn't the _only_ physical attribute, but it's the _foundational_ physical attribute upon which others depend.

I spent several decades of my life competing - just on an amateur level - at endurance events. My list includes the Philly half-marathon, more foot races than I can count (I think I competed about once a month for the decade or so I lived in NYC), and a lot of bike riding, including a solo century on a fixed gear.

Like you, I do my own thing now, which happens to be more focused on strength than many StrongFirst programs, so don't take my personal training example as being representative. It's what I do because it's what works for me. My personal preference is to train at what might be called the opposing ends of the strength continuum - I try to improve my 1RM barbell deadlift, and I try to walk relaxedly. Personally, I don't feel the need to spend a lot of time in places between those things, but when I do, my choices are the kettlebell swing and snatch.

-S-

 

[pet']

Hello,

To a certain extent, I think both strength and endurance are worth practicing.

Maximal strength can be considered as an "endurance" base because when you train lighter (or related to bodyweight, with easier leverage), you use a lower percentage of your maximal strength, so you can go for higher reps.

However, when you mostly train with high reps and low rest between sets, most of the time, you can add some reps but the TUT remain more or less the same. Then, regarding to the training time, you lift slightly more, within the same timeframe. IMO, this means you get stronger.

For instance, you set a timer on 5 minutes and do a maximal number of pull ups. You get X pull ups. The next session, you set the timer on 5 minutes again and get Y pull ups. If Y > X, you are getting stronger and probably get more endurance too. Nonetheless, I admit that this is not necessarily the best method to improve maximal strength.

Depending on the goal once may have, there are different strategies to consider.

Kind regards,

Pet'

 

[Carl]

No doubt, many ways work and there's more than one way to the top of any mountain!

When we take a macro view of all training approaches, we might see that the best of the best have more similarities than differences (i.e. overload, progression, repeatable etc).

Hello,

To a certain extent, I think both strength and endurance are worth practicing.

Maximal strength can be considered as an "endurance" base because when you train lighter (or related to bodyweight, with easier leverage), you use a lower percentage of your maximal strength, so you can go for higher reps.

However, when you mostly train with high reps and low rest between sets, most of the time, you can add some reps but the TUT remain more or less the same. Then, regarding to the training time, you lift slightly more, within the same timeframe. IMO, this means you get stronger.

For instance, you set a timer on 5 minutes and do a maximal number of pull ups. You get X pull ups. The next session, you set the timer on 5 minutes again and get Y pull ups. If Y > X, you are getting stronger and probably get more endurance too. Nonetheless, I admit that this is not necessarily the best method to improve maximal strength.

Depending on the goal once may have, there are different strategies to consider.

Kind regards,

Pet'

 

[305pelusa]

@305pelusa, my comment about anything over 5's being cardio - to the best of my knowledge it's long-standing powerlifting 'wisdom' and not something recent. It's also not something I attribute directly to StrongFirst. And I really don't agree with it, either - anything over 3 reps is cardio. 5 is too many.

Where did you learn that? I can't think of a single Powerlifting method that does not make use of Bodybuilding work in their accessory, with reps well over 5 reps. In fact, American PLing methods are notorious for their large amounts of accessory, higher rep work (The Cube method, Lillibridge method, 5/3/1, Carter's Base Building, Westside, etc). Most American PLers would laugh at the notion that they're doing cardio when hitting the 8 rep range, seeing as how much of their volume comes from that.

Haha come on Steve. If anything higher than 5 reps is cardio, then the Smolov and Sheiko's routines are excellent cardio programs! It's crazy to think that way.

 

[Oscar]

I've also read somewhere that powerlifters joke about anything over 5 being cardio, not sure where. I still find it funny