Responding much better to higher intensities?

[dbp]

I'm about to approach the big 4-0, and thus have had close to 20 years experience in the gym in some form or another. Levels of dedication have varied wildly, but suffice to say I've experimented and tried a lot of different programs across all sorts of rep ranges.

One thing that frustrates me is that I can't help but look back at my training history and notice a consistent pattern. I seem to always have my best strength and physique gains when grinding heavy-ish stuff. 5s, 6s, maybe 8s.

And it's not because it's a preference. If anything, I'd love to be able to shift to 10s, 12s, 15s, pauses, slow eccentrics. Emphasis on strict technique. All ways of decreasing load on the bar while trying to get a stimulus.

But whenever I try and do that, a few things happen. I stall at low numbers and really struggle to add weight to the bar. My muscle mass suffers, and generally nothing good happens.

As soon as I start grinding on 5s and 6s with more loose (but still good) technique, it's like I can drag that out for much longer. I get more jacked, stronger, it always works better. Even my muscular endurance on bodyweight stuff improves dramatically. If I try to build up to 15 pull ups at bodyweight, I'll hit 10 and stall forever. If I switch to 5s and add some weight, suddenly I can grind that up for weeks and weeks, and my bodyweight numbers skyrocket. As much as I loathe doing it, something like Texas Method seems to actually work well for me.

I've wondered if this has anything to do with my makeup of being more endurance oriented. I have a shit SVJ, I'm much better at reps than maxes, and I generally have much better baseline cardio than I do strength.

Anyone else like this?

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

I'm about to approach the big 4-0, and thus have had close to 20 years experience in the gym in some form or another. Levels of dedication have varied wildly, but suffice to say I've experimented and tried a lot of different programs across all sorts of rep ranges.

20 years of consistency is very impressive. Respect.

One thing that frustrates me is that I can't help but look back at my training history and notice a consistent pattern. I seem to always have my best strength and physique gains when grinding heavy-ish stuff. 5s, 6s, maybe 8s.

So you have found a type of training stimulus that yields consistent, long term progress for both size and strength and you're frustrated ? I don't understand. Shouldn't you be elated ? Also, maybe it's just semantics but I wouldn't consider 5s 6s and 8s "heavy". Heavy is 1s,2s and 3s, in my view. Also, I do not think your response is atypical (to the contrary). If anything, most programs will feature mostly 5s,6s and 8s at least for base building. If you want to peak, then you'd have to go to 1s, 2s and 3s.

And it's not because it's a preference. If anything, I'd love to be able to shift to 10s, 12s, 15s, pauses, slow eccentrics. Emphasis on strict technique. All ways of decreasing load on the bar while trying to get a stimulus.

But whenever I try and do that, a few things happen. I stall at low numbers and really struggle to add weight to the bar. My muscle mass suffers, and generally nothing good happens.

I think the youtube zeitgeist of super lightweight, super strict technique, pause, slow eccentrics is a caricature of training. It's the same (in reverse) as the super hardcore, cheat on every rep, bang the stack training that was en vogue during the Branch Warren/Johnny Jackson era (and has been rediscovered by young Sam Sulek enthusiasts). Give it a few more years and the pendulum will swing the other direction. Sure you need "good enough" technique, but you also need to put some actual weight on your body. The balance between the two is important. If you have perfect deadlifting technique but you can only do 3 plates, then you're not going to be muscular, you're just going to be small.

As soon as I start grinding on 5s and 6s with more loose (but still good) technique, it's like I can drag that out for much longer. I get more jacked, stronger, it always works better. Even my muscular endurance on bodyweight stuff improves dramatically. If I try to build up to 15 pull ups at bodyweight, I'll hit 10 and stall forever. If I switch to 5s and add some weight, suddenly I can grind that up for weeks and weeks, and my bodyweight numbers skyrocket. As much as I loathe doing it, something like Texas Method seems to actually work well for me.

I've wondered if this has anything to do with my makeup of being more endurance oriented. I have a shit SVJ, I'm much better at reps than maxes, and I generally have much better baseline cardio than I do strength.

As I said, most reasonable programs (at least for compound movements) seem to center around 5-10 reps. So it's not like you're forced to choose the Texas Method. Any program from a reputable coach should fit the bill. Also, the reason why you stall could just be because the stimulus is stale. You can't just do the same sets and reps forever and expect progress. Once again, most reasonable programs will expose you to a variety of rep ranges and intensity in order to counter this.

Anyone else like this?

I think most people are like you.

[EricK]

I had good success with SS-style fahves for a long time. I don't think I would ever be confused with a body builder, but people would ask me about lifting at work without prior knowledge of my experience, so I assume just based on my appearance. I don't think people around here would suggest that one won't make progress relying heavily on "heavy" sets of 5, especially for a novice or someone coming back to lifting after a layoff.

The problem is if your only tool is to add weight to an already grindy set while decreasing the total number of sets you do weekly, you're just not going to make progress indefinitely. Most people don't even get the easy gains, and of those who do, most will fail to find ways to continue progress after that.

[KarlM]

This question is further complicated by some muscle groups potentially responding better to different rep ranges and intensities. My biceps started growing again when I started training them close to failure in the 12-20 rep range. Same story with side delts. When I shifted the rep range to 20s, and when I figured out how to "catch the weight in the muscle" I got some gains. This doesn't seem to be true for my chest - heavy-ish weight that I try to move fast for lower rep sets seems to drive up my bench numbers the best. Set's of 10+ and regular training with sets at RPE 8+ consistently jack up my shoulder.

I also think the concept of stale training or stale rep ranges is overblown. I think it's way more about realistic expectations in terms of strength acquisition. If you add weight very slowly over mesocycles, I think you can stick with the same program for way longer than the conventional wisdom would have you believe. For example, if you base your training off of a training max, you can come up with a conservative progression scheme that does whatever for, say, 9 weeks, then you add 5 lbs to your TM and repeat. That stuff works but you have to be unreasonably patient lol. And if it isn't working, then you sprinkle in just a tiny bit more volume and wait a long time to see if that was enough to get things moving again.

[mgil]

OP, similar amount of years in training history.

You’re setting equivalent goals with high rep sets and 5s. That won’t work. With high rep stuff you’re chasing stuff like adding sets or reps more than weight.

DUPs are a good workaround or you can mix 5s and BB stuff in the same session (smartly) and hit goals.

[cole]

Assuming you can complete 8 reps of something means that its probably not heavy. 5 maybe. Heavy is going to something close to your 1RM, usually a thing you can do for 1-3 reps. I think rep ranges 5-8 are conducive to a good hypertrophy stimulus and so im not surprised you get good muscualr gains from those rep ranges.

While I dont think there is anything wrong with doing sets of 15 or 20, I wouldnt expect as much muscle growth from that since its more endurance at that point.

visit https://www.data-drivenstrength.com/ for more scientific reasons behind what drivers hypertrophy vs what drives strength. My statements are just anecdote.

[alphagamma]

I'm about to approach the big 4-0, and thus have had close to 20 years experience in the gym in some form or another. Levels of dedication have varied wildly, but suffice to say I've experimented and tried a lot of different programs across all sorts of rep ranges.

One thing that frustrates me is that I can't help but look back at my training history and notice a consistent pattern. I seem to always have my best strength and physique gains when grinding heavy-ish stuff. 5s, 6s, maybe 8s.

And it's not because it's a preference. If anything, I'd love to be able to shift to 10s, 12s, 15s, pauses, slow eccentrics. Emphasis on strict technique. All ways of decreasing load on the bar while trying to get a stimulus.

But whenever I try and do that, a few things happen. I stall at low numbers and really struggle to add weight to the bar. My muscle mass suffers, and generally nothing good happens.

As soon as I start grinding on 5s and 6s with more loose (but still good) technique, it's like I can drag that out for much longer. I get more jacked, stronger, it always works better. Even my muscular endurance on bodyweight stuff improves dramatically. If I try to build up to 15 pull ups at bodyweight, I'll hit 10 and stall forever. If I switch to 5s and add some weight, suddenly I can grind that up for weeks and weeks, and my bodyweight numbers skyrocket. As much as I loathe doing it, something like Texas Method seems to actually work well for me.

I've wondered if this has anything to do with my makeup of being more endurance oriented. I have a shit SVJ, I'm much better at reps than maxes, and I generally have much better baseline cardio than I do strength.

Anyone else like this?

I have a terrible SVJ and I've had the same experience as you. I think we are what some people call fatigue resistant and we tend to need higher fatigue/higher RPE sets to progress on our lifts. I find that the Russian Squat Program (I use it for bench as well) worked really really well for me and is better than the TM.

In any case, I don't think anyone actually said that you are "supposed" to do 10s,12s and 15s. The current trend is to do reps 1-8, but with RPEs <7-8, which is perhaps similar to what you've been doing? 10+ reps are generally used in a hypertrophy block where strength increases are not really expected.

[dbp]

I think the youtube zeitgeist of super lightweight, super strict technique, pause, slow eccentrics is a caricature of training. It's the same (in reverse) as the super hardcore, cheat on every rep, bang the stack training that was en vogue during the Branch Warren/Johnny Jackson era (and has been rediscovered by young Sam Sulek enthusiasts). Give it a few more years and the pendulum will swing the other direction. Sure you need "good enough" technique, but you also need to put some actual weight on your body. The balance between the two is important. If you have perfect deadlifting technique but you can only do 3 plates, then you're not going to be muscular, you're just going to be small.

Yes, I am definitely agreeing with it being a caricature, it just never seems to produce much of anything in me. Perhaps it works better for the really strong, where their super light, strict, slow reps are still with heavy weights by most people's standards. I would rather the hardcore cheat every rep if I had to pick between the two, but yes I do think a balance is in order.

This question is further complicated by some muscle groups potentially responding better to different rep ranges and intensities. My biceps started growing again when I started training them close to failure in the 12-20 rep range. Same story with side delts. When I shifted the rep range to 20s, and when I figured out how to "catch the weight in the muscle" I got some gains. This doesn't seem to be true for my chest - heavy-ish weight that I try to move fast for lower rep sets seems to drive up my bench numbers the best. Set's of 10+ and regular training with sets at RPE 8+ consistently jack up my shoulder.

I also think the concept of stale training or stale rep ranges is overblown. I think it's way more about realistic expectations in terms of strength acquisition. If you add weight very slowly over mesocycles, I think you can stick with the same program for way longer than the conventional wisdom would have you believe. For example, if you base your training off of a training max, you can come up with a conservative progression scheme that does whatever for, say, 9 weeks, then you add 5 lbs to your TM and repeat. That stuff works but you have to be unreasonably patient lol. And if it isn't working, then you sprinkle in just a tiny bit more volume and wait a long time to see if that was enough to get things moving again.

I've been finding better success on heavier, lower reps even with the muscle groups you'd expect to benefit from controlled lighter weights. Curls, skill crushers, side delts, traps.

I have a terrible SVJ and I've had the same experience as you. I think we are what some people call fatigue resistant and we tend to need higher fatigue/higher RPE sets to progress on our lifts. I find that the Russian Squat Program (I use it for bench as well) worked really really well for me and is better than the TM.

In any case, I don't think anyone actually said that you are "supposed" to do 10s,12s and 15s. The current trend is to do reps 1-8, but with RPEs <7-8, which is perhaps similar to what you've been doing? 10+ reps are generally used in a hypertrophy block where strength increases are not really expected.

Yeah that tracks for me. All of my best runs of gains have included high fatigue/RPE sets. Lots of volume with lower RPEs seems to do nothing at all. I thought maybe I'd have to shift away from that as I got older, but I think I have no choice but to stick with it.

[DCR]

This question is further complicated by some muscle groups potentially responding better to different rep ranges and intensities. My biceps started growing again when I started training them close to failure in the 12-20 rep range. Same story with side delts. When I shifted the rep range to 20s, and when I figured out how to "catch the weight in the muscle" I got some gains. This doesn't seem to be true for my chest - heavy-ish weight that I try to move fast for lower rep sets seems to drive up my bench numbers the best. Set's of 10+ and regular training with sets at RPE 8+ consistently jack up my shoulder.

I also think the concept of stale training or stale rep ranges is overblown. I think it's way more about realistic expectations in terms of strength acquisition. If you add weight very slowly over mesocycles, I think you can stick with the same program for way longer than the conventional wisdom would have you believe. For example, if you base your training off of a training max, you can come up with a conservative progression scheme that does whatever for, say, 9 weeks, then you add 5 lbs to your TM and repeat. That stuff works but you have to be unreasonably patient lol. And if it isn't working, then you sprinkle in just a tiny bit more volume and wait a long time to see if that was enough to get things moving again.

I've been finding better success on heavier, lower reps even with the muscle groups you'd expect to benefit from controlled lighter weights. Curls, skill crushers, side delts, traps.

Same. Generally, 6-10 reps is my sweet spot and always has been, regardless of movement. That said, lately I've found two uses for sets in the 11-15 range, specifically:

1. As warm up sets. Working up in 5s or whatnot doesn't work for me anymore. I need to hit some higher rep warm up sets or I'm ice cold at the top.

2. When I'm crushed but want or feel the need to get more work in. For example, I've been peaking a squat progression over the past few weeks and after each session want to lie down and sleep on the gym floor. Trying to do, say, leg curls, in my usual preferred rep range after that just doesn't work. In that instance, sets of 15 to pump more blood in and get some work, even if not heavy work, is better than nothing.

I have a terrible SVJ and I've had the same experience as you. I think we are what some people call fatigue resistant and we tend to need higher fatigue/higher RPE sets to progress on our lifts. I find that the Russian Squat Program (I use it for bench as well) worked really really well for me and is better than the TM.

In any case, I don't think anyone actually said that you are "supposed" to do 10s,12s and 15s. The current trend is to do reps 1-8, but with RPEs <7-8, which is perhaps similar to what you've been doing? 10+ reps are generally used in a hypertrophy block where strength increases are not really expected.

Yeah that tracks for me. All of my best runs of gains have included high fatigue/RPE sets. Lots of volume with lower RPEs seems to do nothing at all. I thought maybe I'd have to shift away from that as I got older, but I think I have no choice but to stick with it.

Also same.

[Hardartery]

One thing that frustrates me is that I can't help but look back at my training history and notice a consistent pattern. I seem to always have my best strength and physique gains when grinding heavy-ish stuff. 5s, 6s, maybe 8s.

And it's not because it's a preference. If anything, I'd love to be able to shift to 10s, 12s, 15s, pauses, slow eccentrics. Emphasis on strict technique. All ways of decreasing load on the bar while trying to get a stimulus.

As soon as I start grinding on 5s and 6s with more loose (but still good) technique, it's like I can drag that out for much longer. I get more jacked, stronger, it always works better. Even my muscular endurance on bodyweight stuff improves dramatically. If I try to build up to 15 pull ups at bodyweight, I'll hit 10 and stall forever. If I switch to 5s and add some weight, suddenly I can grind that up for weeks and weeks, and my bodyweight numbers skyrocket. As much as I loathe doing it, something like Texas Method seems to actually work well for me.

I've wondered if this has anything to do with my makeup of being more endurance oriented. I have a shit SVJ, I'm much better at reps than maxes, and I generally have much better baseline cardio than I do strength.

Your hypothesis is 180 degrees out, you are not better at endurance, as evidenced by better response to less reps. Your fibre make-up probably skews more towards fast twitch fibre types, which are going to respond better to higher stimulus and lower reps. You are identifying your measuring stick for progress as strength based, and that is obviously going to show improvement with strength focused training as opposed to measuring gains via hypertrophy gains which really render rep counting or concern with absolute weight as generally irrelevant.

To explain better. If you are hypertrophy/physique focused then you are chasing a look or tape measure number and you get there by pushing to just short of absolute failure or absolute failure if a muscle in a given session and then giving the muscles enough calories to rebuild in reaction to the stimulus. It really doesn't matter if it was 10 reps or 30 reps, the only ones that actually count are the last few but you have to perform the others to get to the ones that count.

On the other hand, tracking your reps and weight used and chasing progressive increase is a different form of stimulus requirement and is going to respond based on some form of progressive overload and general training plan that extends well beyond killing it in the gym today. Periodization comes into play here as it allows you to ramp up intensity while dropping volume/reps and then resetting at a new lower intensity to ramp up again, allowing you to achieve systemic recovery and adaptation between the periods where you do the grindy stuff.

Lastly, being over 40 just means you likely have to deal with tapering test levels and significantly lower HGH levels than you used to have which means being smarter about training and programming because you just plain do not have the natural recovery that you used to have. Just a fact of life. You also have diminishing endurance and cardio vascular ability in a general sense after about 35, so that makes the high reps tougher too.

[dbp]

Your hypothesis is 180 degrees out, you are not better at endurance, as evidenced by better response to less reps. Your fibre make-up probably skews more towards fast twitch fibre types, which are going to respond better to higher stimulus and lower reps. You are identifying your measuring stick for progress as strength based, and that is obviously going to show improvement with strength focused training as opposed to measuring gains via hypertrophy gains which really render rep counting or concern with absolute weight as generally irrelevant.

My understanding of it was that if I max poorly based on my 3rm, 5rm, 10rm predictions (which I do), then I was more slow twitch fibre'd. A fast twitch fibre guy would exceed standard predictions for maxes relative to his 3,5rm.

To explain better. If you are hypertrophy/physique focused then you are chasing a look or tape measure number and you get there by pushing to just short of absolute failure or absolute failure if a muscle in a given session and then giving the muscles enough calories to rebuild in reaction to the stimulus. It really doesn't matter if it was 10 reps or 30 reps, the only ones that actually count are the last few but you have to perform the others to get to the ones that count.

But this is where I get lost too, because even going by mirror and tape measure, my best physique periods are achieved by the same thing. Heavy 5s, 6s, some 8s. In fact my biggest arms to date were measured during a period where I wasn't doing any direct arm work at all. Just hammering compounds.

10s,12s,15s, even taken to failure, have produced worse gains for my physique as well as my strength.

[cole]

But this is where I get lost too, because even going by mirror and tape measure, my best physique periods are achieved by the same thing. Heavy 5s, 6s, some 8s. In fact my biggest arms to date were measured during a period where I wasn't doing any direct arm work at all. Just hammering compounds.

10s,12s,15s, even taken to failure, have produced worse gains for my physique as well as my strength.

This hobby we all do is very individualized. Seems you are a step ahead of most with your ability to observe the data and make sense of it. Many just spin their wheels their whole life or simply just dont think about it. Keep doing what works for you.

[Hardartery]

Your hypothesis is 180 degrees out, you are not better at endurance, as evidenced by better response to less reps. Your fibre make-up probably skews more towards fast twitch fibre types, which are going to respond better to higher stimulus and lower reps. You are identifying your measuring stick for progress as strength based, and that is obviously going to show improvement with strength focused training as opposed to measuring gains via hypertrophy gains which really render rep counting or concern with absolute weight as generally irrelevant.

My understanding of it was that if I max poorly based on my 3rm, 5rm, 10rm predictions (which I do), then I was more slow twitch fibre'd. A fast twitch fibre guy would exceed standard predictions for maxes relative to his 3,5rm.

To explain better. If you are hypertrophy/physique focused then you are chasing a look or tape measure number and you get there by pushing to just short of absolute failure or absolute failure if a muscle in a given session and then giving the muscles enough calories to rebuild in reaction to the stimulus. It really doesn't matter if it was 10 reps or 30 reps, the only ones that actually count are the last few but you have to perform the others to get to the ones that count.

But this is where I get lost too, because even going by mirror and tape measure, my best physique periods are achieved by the same thing. Heavy 5s, 6s, some 8s. In fact my biggest arms to date were measured during a period where I wasn't doing any direct arm work at all. Just hammering compounds.

10s,12s,15s, even taken to failure, have produced worse gains for my physique as well as my strength.

Your poor response to volume and failure would indicate that you are in fact not achieving muscle failure with that approach, you are just running out of gas. A very fast twitch problem. You would probably crush the 1 RM estimate curve the other way after a block of 2-5 reps sets to establish neural connections. You would also get bigger via the increased cross fibre connections from the work, even if it would be a largely temporary gain that disappears on a higher rep block. 1 RM calculators largely suck and are wildly inaccurate depending on where you are in the overall training architecture. I get the idea that lower weight and higher reps should be easier on the body, but all it ever got me was different forms of tendinitis. Even now at 51 it pisses my body off instead of appeasing it.
High intensity stuff is going to make you look bigger. You get inflammation, longer duration pump, more cross-sectional size from the increased neural density and lower calorie expenditure overall which allows for more growth.

[dw]

This question is further complicated by some muscle groups potentially responding better to different rep ranges and intensities. My biceps started growing again when I started training them close to failure in the 12-20 rep range. Same story with side delts. When I shifted the rep range to 20s, and when I figured out how to "catch the weight in the muscle" I got some gains. This doesn't seem to be true for my chest - heavy-ish weight that I try to move fast for lower rep sets seems to drive up my bench numbers the best. Set's of 10+ and regular training with sets at RPE 8+ consistently jack up my shoulder.

I also think the concept of stale training or stale rep ranges is overblown. I think it's way more about realistic expectations in terms of strength acquisition. If you add weight very slowly over mesocycles, I think you can stick with the same program for way longer than the conventional wisdom would have you believe. For example, if you base your training off of a training max, you can come up with a conservative progression scheme that does whatever for, say, 9 weeks, then you add 5 lbs to your TM and repeat. That stuff works but you have to be unreasonably patient lol. And if it isn't working, then you sprinkle in just a tiny bit more volume and wait a long time to see if that was enough to get things moving again.

I agree with the bolded.

I actually don't agree at all with the BBM notion based on the repeated bout effect that changing things up is inherently beneficial.

I think if you seem to notice progress this way it's either that you are emphasizing a different muscle group or different part of the same muscle group which was less developed (which is fine) or just that you're mistaking strength and technique gains in the new movement for actual hypertrophy gains.

One of the very many problems with SS programming is that the volume and the rep ranges are so low that even if they were an adequate stimulus, you would quickly reach a point where you have no way of knowing because it takes some time to increase your RPE 11 squat by 5 whole pounds.

Whereas if you're doing more sets with more reps and an AMRAP at the end, for example, you can eek out an extra rep say once a week for probably years.

[Bolder]

I'm about to approach the big 4-0, and thus have had close to 20 years experience in the gym in some form or another. Levels of dedication have varied wildly, but suffice to say I've experimented and tried a lot of different programs across all sorts of rep ranges.

One thing that frustrates me is that I can't help but look back at my training history and notice a consistent pattern. I seem to always have my best strength and physique gains when grinding heavy-ish stuff. 5s, 6s, maybe 8s.

And it's not because it's a preference. If anything, I'd love to be able to shift to 10s, 12s, 15s, pauses, slow eccentrics. Emphasis on strict technique. All ways of decreasing load on the bar while trying to get a stimulus.

But whenever I try and do that, a few things happen. I stall at low numbers and really struggle to add weight to the bar. My muscle mass suffers, and generally nothing good happens.

As soon as I start grinding on 5s and 6s with more loose (but still good) technique, it's like I can drag that out for much longer. I get more jacked, stronger, it always works better. Even my muscular endurance on bodyweight stuff improves dramatically. If I try to build up to 15 pull ups at bodyweight, I'll hit 10 and stall forever. If I switch to 5s and add some weight, suddenly I can grind that up for weeks and weeks, and my bodyweight numbers skyrocket. As much as I loathe doing it, something like Texas Method seems to actually work well for me.

I've wondered if this has anything to do with my makeup of being more endurance oriented. I have a shit SVJ, I'm much better at reps than maxes, and I generally have much better baseline cardio than I do strength.

Anyone else like this?

Yes, I always do heavy sets of 1-5 reps grindy heavy weight with hardly any reps left in the tank, which always gives me the most gains (especially for bench press). My squats and deadlifts can get away with lower RPE training, but still, they respond better to the grindy heavy weights with hardly any reps left in the tank. I spend most of the time training between the 3 to 5 rep range.

I also find that I tend to get fatigued quite easily when I do higher volume training with lots of rep work.

I'm about to approach the big 4-0, and thus have had close to 20 years experience in the gym in some form or another. Levels of dedication have varied wildly, but suffice to say I've experimented and tried a lot of different programs across all sorts of rep ranges.

One thing that frustrates me is that I can't help but look back at my training history and notice a consistent pattern. I seem to always have my best strength and physique gains when grinding heavy-ish stuff. 5s, 6s, maybe 8s.

And it's not because it's a preference. If anything, I'd love to be able to shift to 10s, 12s, 15s, pauses, slow eccentrics. Emphasis on strict technique. All ways of decreasing load on the bar while trying to get a stimulus.

But whenever I try and do that, a few things happen. I stall at low numbers and really struggle to add weight to the bar. My muscle mass suffers, and generally nothing good happens.

As soon as I start grinding on 5s and 6s with more loose (but still good) technique, it's like I can drag that out for much longer. I get more jacked, stronger, it always works better. Even my muscular endurance on bodyweight stuff improves dramatically. If I try to build up to 15 pull ups at bodyweight, I'll hit 10 and stall forever. If I switch to 5s and add some weight, suddenly I can grind that up for weeks and weeks, and my bodyweight numbers skyrocket. As much as I loathe doing it, something like Texas Method seems to actually work well for me.

I've wondered if this has anything to do with my makeup of being more endurance oriented. I have a shit SVJ, I'm much better at reps than maxes, and I generally have much better baseline cardio than I do strength.

Anyone else like this?

I have a terrible SVJ and I've had the same experience as you. I think we are what some people call fatigue resistant and we tend to need higher fatigue/higher RPE sets to progress on our lifts. I find that the Russian Squat Program (I use it for bench as well) worked really really well for me and is better than the TM.

In any case, I don't think anyone actually said that you are "supposed" to do 10s,12s and 15s. The current trend is to do reps 1-8, but with RPEs <7-8, which is perhaps similar to what you've been doing? 10+ reps are generally used in a hypertrophy block where strength increases are not really expected.

Forcing load progression in the bench press has been helpful for me in the past. I'm not sure if the Russian squat program is like that, but I have run programs adjacent to TM (and had a bit of success with it, but the secondary day was an AMRAP day).