Page 1 of 1

New Workout

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 11:03 am
by bgill
I have set up the following work out with a undulating rep scheme. I am curious as to what people think of both the balance in the program and the set rep parameters. I have only been lifting about a year so am still a relative beginner. The workout is full body three days a week. My goals are to add some mass with accompanying strength gains and endurance.

Back Squat
Romanian dead lift
A1 Dips
A2 Pull-ups
A1 Flat bench
A2 Horizontal rows
A1 external rotations
A2 rope pull to neck

Set rep scheme:
Mon 5 x 5 60 second rest
Wed 3 x 8 - 12 90 second rest
Friday 2 x 15 - 20 120 second rest

I only approach failure on the last rep of the last set. I probably will bump the volume/weight as I progress. I will deload somewhat for a week every 3rd or 4th week depending on how I feel.

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 11:36 am
by MattZ
I would do more rest between heavy (low rep) sets and less rest between light (higher rep) sets

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 11:46 am
by Guest
With regard to rest, I sometimes fine the high rep days harder than the low rep days as far as fatigue goes. Is that unusual?

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 12:04 pm
by Ryan A
I am not so sure the point of undulating peridization is to change the rep schemes every workout.

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 12:21 pm
by bgill
Again, I am new to this and may not be using the correct terminology, but from the reading I have done, it is my understanding that with undulating periodization you are training for various qualities, i.e. strength, hytrophy and endurance during a given week. The varying rep schemes keep you from repeating the same workout during the week forcing the body to adapt faster.

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 12:49 pm
by TimD
I have heard of this type of variation, but usually used twice a week vice 3 X, something like 5-6 reps one session, 10-15 on the next, sort of a heavy light system I also agree with the others, 5X5 is usually done with longer rest periods, due to the added intensities, whereas the higher rep days, say 15's usually take a lot les time to recover from due to the fact they put a lot less stress on the nervous system

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 1:06 pm
by Mog16
I used a set-up like this for a month or so and found it worked wonders for cutting but didn't do a whole lot for adding mass so I changed to a set up like this: chest/back heavy, shoulder/bi/tri heavy, leg/oly heavy, off day, chest/back/shoulder light, Legs/bi/tri light. I think this has been fairly effective to continue to cut a bit but I'm adding mass too. (Side note, it probably be better to move the days around so I'm not doing 3 heavy days in a row (rest the CNS?).

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 1:19 pm
by Guest
Reversing the rest periods makes sense. I guess I could change the full body to a upper lower body split, working each twice a week and use two rep ranges.

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 1:34 pm
by Ironman
It looks like he is talking about Alwyn Cosgrove's new plan. It was in that article in the "check this out" thread. I was not sure if you do the same rest and sets and just raise the weight when you do lower reps, or if you keep the weight constant, reduce the rest and increase the sets. It looks like bgill chose the second method. I would think either way would work.

The rep range is high on the last one. If you are doing failure it should really be 12 to 15. Of course I don't think this is suppose to be to failure. If I was doing a failure program I would do 10-12, 7-9, 4-6. I think the new plan with the 3 full body's (which is a lot like HST) is suppose to be 12, 8 and 5. It looked like HST with varied reps.

I really think either
5X5 60
3X8 90
2X12 120
all at 75%
2X5 120 90%
2X8 120 85%
2X12 120 75%
(These would be with chest/back bi/tri supersets)

would be the best. All percentages are approximations of course. I think the option with the varied weight is a little better.

Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 1:59 pm
by bgill
The weight would vary (lower rep higher weight). The rest periods probably do need to be reversed. I would not take this to failure. This set up was heavily influenced by Alwyn Cosgroves's ideas and I probably should have said that up front.