ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:02 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:23 pm 
Offline
Veteren Member
Veteren Member

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:12 pm
Posts: 2406
robertscott wrote:
I think deadlifts should be done with low reps, considering the amount of weight used
What about using a lighter weight? I do high-sh volume Deads on some Heavy Squat days

robertscott wrote:
and the difficulty to keep form good when you start to fatigue.
My form sucks on all exercises when I fatigue. Of course, sometimes that is more dangerous

robertscott wrote:
But as for the back, which was what the OP was asking about, then I don't think that low reps should be used at any stage of development. Backs love volume! And seriously, are you going to work up to a heavy set of 5 on dumbell rows?
Backs love getting stronger too, like a chest and leg. Yes, higher volume add strength but not the same. Across threads we have concluded that backs, chest, legs, all need volume and low reps. It's getting ludacris. FWIW, I do low reps dead, pulls downs, and rows, and high rep, deads, pulls downs, rows, delts rows, and face pulls.

robertscott wrote:
The only exception I can think for this is weighted chins, I can definitely see the value (for athletes, not so much folk that jsut want mass for the sake of mass)
This seems arbitrary.

:cool:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:52 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Posts: 7503
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea
robertscott wrote:
haha, we use knackered in Scotland too.

As I understand it, it comes from horses. When your horse is old and on its way out, it's "knackered" so you send it to the "knacker's yard" which is what we call the abattoir.

Not a very nice expression now I think about it.

Yeah, that's what he explained. The "really tired" part, not the "knacker's yard" part. I sure sounded like "nekkid".

_________________
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:29 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm
Posts: 4424
Oscar_Actuary wrote:
What about using a lighter weight? I do high-sh volume Deads on some Heavy Squat days


your form shouldn't break down particularly using lighter weight, but I think that Romanian deads would be a better choice for high rep stuff.

Oscar Actuary wrote:
My form sucks on all exercises when I fatigue. Of course, sometimes that is more dangerous


you kind of answered this for me. Fatiguing on deadlifts'll make you round your back and your discs shoot out across the room. Failing on the bench the spotter just takes it.

Oscar Actuary wrote:
Backs love getting stronger too, like a chest and leg. Yes, higher volume add strength but not the same. Across threads we have concluded that backs, chest, legs, all need volume and low reps. It's getting ludacris. FWIW, I do low reps dead, pulls downs, and rows, and high rep, deads, pulls downs, rows, delts rows, and face pulls.


if you increase your 10RM, you've gotten stronger. I really don't see why this is so hard to grasp. If you increase your weight or reps on any exercise, you've gotten stronger! Stength is not limited to 5 reps or less. Sheesh!

And when did we conclude that all these bodyparts "need" low reps? I didn't get the memo. I don't think that quads need low volume to GROW, but if you want to increase your max on squats then yes, I can see the benefit (although powerlifter style squats are MUCH more hip/hasmtring...). Backs, on the other hand, I still don't see the need for low reps.

If I were you Ozzy I would seriously consider getting rid of the low rep pulldowns...

Oscar Actuary wrote:
This seems arbitrary.

:cool:


I don't think so. Imagine you were a wrestler or a rock climber, you would need to increase your vertical pull without necessarily building huge amounts of muscle. For the average guy looking for mass, I would still say that sets of 8 - 12 would be the best.

Remember that muscle mass is still the #1 indicator of health, not to mention how sweet you'll look in a string vest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:47 am 
Offline
Veteren Member
Veteren Member

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:12 pm
Posts: 2406
I understand getting stronger at 10 RM is getting stronger. But as you note with the low rep weighted chins, there is a difference between strength of 3 RM vs 12 RM.
How hard is that to grasp, after all you typed it but then act like I'm the one not getting it?

I can't do pull ups so I do heavish pull downs, not below 6 reps
Some sets are 15 reps.

Fatigue on Bench means bad form not always fail.

kpj suggested we dont just do high volume back work, but also work in the higher intensity ranges too. Plus, it's common sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:08 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm
Posts: 4424
Oscar_Actuary wrote:
I understand getting stronger at 10 RM is getting stronger. But as you note with the low rep weighted chins, there is a difference between strength of 3 RM vs 12 RM.
How hard is that to grasp, after all you typed it but then act like I'm the one not getting it?


then why did you say backs like to get stronger?

I'm not sure if there's just a miscommunication going on, or if you don't understand the example. I mentioned weighted chins for athletes because for certain sports strength:bodyweight ratio es muy importante. This is the only benefit I see of training vertical pulls in the so called "strength" range.

Oscar_Actuary wrote:
I can't do pull ups so I do heavish pull downs, not below 6 reps
Some sets are 15 reps.


ok, I thought you were trying for like a 3rm of pulldowns, I understand now.

Oscar_Actuary wrote:
Fatigue on Bench means bad form not always fail.


semantics

Oscar_Actuary wrote:
kpj suggested we dont just do high volume back work, but also work in the higher intensity ranges too. Plus, it's common sense.


proof by authority fallacy? Also, common sense is very subjective

<3


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:34 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Posts: 7503
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea
Why exclusively one range or the other for ANY body part or region? Bob, you often say something like "backs love volume", but don't they love intensity, too? People often train DL low-rep only, but doesn't your PC benefit from volume? Is there any muscle or body part that benefits from one vol-intensity range and not another? I'm not saying that you have to train all ranges all the time, but that there are times that any given body part can benefit from one or the other. For a priority lift, I'm usually doing both, but for other lifts, one or the other.

_________________
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:01 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm
Posts: 4424
Jungledoc wrote:
Why exclusively one range or the other for ANY body part or region? Bob, you often say something like "backs love volume", but don't they love intensity, too? People often train DL low-rep only, but doesn't your PC benefit from volume? Is there any muscle or body part that benefits from one vol-intensity range and not another? I'm not saying that you have to train all ranges all the time, but that there are times that any given body part can benefit from one or the other. For a priority lift, I'm usually doing both, but for other lifts, one or the other.


I actually do believe that certain body parts favour different rep ranges. I believe backs (all the carrying stuff muscles really) prefer higher rep ranges, whereas pushing muscles prefer a little less. Quads love high reps (REALLY high), glutes and hams prefer low reps. Shoulders prefer high.

It's to do with muscle fiber make up and motor units. I read a really interesting article on it somewhere, I think it was by Chad Waterbury, that really resonated with me because it mirrored what I've found through my own training. I'll try and find it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:36 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
Chad Waterbury would do things like a large amount of 3 rep sets. So when he talks volume it can mean that.

I find low rep dumbbell rows to be as good as anything else. I don't see most body parts as needing more or less reps. There are a few exercises that are like that. I was speaking more in general though. I have also found that not everyone has the same response to training. Optimal training varies from person to person.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:34 am 
Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:25 pm
Posts: 232
Location: Toronto
Ironman wrote:
Chad Waterbury would do things like a large amount of 3 rep sets.


I remember that from his Big Boy Basics program. Eight sets of 3, and three sets of 8.

This is a good discussion, and an area I could really stand to learn a lot more about.

_________________
don't you know there ain't no devil
that's just god when he's drunk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:34 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm
Posts: 4424
Ironman wrote:
Chad Waterbury would do things like a large amount of 3 rep sets. So when he talks volume it can mean that.

I find low rep dumbbell rows to be as good as anything else. I don't see most body parts as needing more or less reps. There are a few exercises that are like that. I was speaking more in general though. I have also found that not everyone has the same response to training. Optimal training varies from person to person.


ya, but he also does things like 100 reps for other stuff. I even saw the other day that for shoulder development he recommends 5 minutes of shadow-boxing daily, which I don't think I'll be trying anytime soon. I like Waterbury, but I find him a bit like Poliquin in the respect that some of the stuff he recommends is so leftfield that I wouldn't try it. I'll see if I can find the article, he goes into depth about which body parts favour certain rep ranges.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:14 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm
Posts: 4424
hmmm I've been looking but can't find the article. It doesn't look like it was Waterbury after all. I'll keep trying


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:11 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Posts: 7503
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea
That sounds like something Poloquin might write.

_________________
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:00 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6418
Location: Halifax, NS
robertscott wrote:
...I actually do believe that certain body parts favour different rep ranges. ...


I've been thinking about this in the back of mind since you said it. In my opinion, it's really not so much the nunber of reps that matter, it's the load as a percentage of your max. For a typical person, optimal hypertrophy comes from working in the 80-85% of 1RM range. I think this would be generally universal across the body for that individual's training state. It may go up or down at different stages, but it should be relatively constant for different movements at a fixed point in time. The difference in rep ranges for different body parts comes from the muscle fibre differences in each muscle which are different between body parts. My shoulders will fatique much faster than my legs so an 85% load might last 5 reps for shoulders but last 20 reps for legs. If you just go 8 reps for every body part, some will be worked harder than others. If I do 8 reps on shoulders, the early reps will be too easy and the last will be burning. 8 reps on leg presses will be hard from the first rep but still not fatiqued at the end.

_________________
Stu Ward
_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:09 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm
Posts: 4424
i think that's a very interesting point Stu


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Kenny Croxdale and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group