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.
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