Post Novice? Turn Up The Volume.

[mgil]

Of course. But by the same token, how relevant is Sheiko's stuff for me? Or you? Or whoever?

Sheiko's stuff is probably relevant to huge proportions of this forum population right here. This forum is mostly populated by late intermediates/advanced lifters interested in the ideas of programming. I find discussions about obscure, weird programming optimization that tend to feature Hanley in the middle of them far more interesting than discussions about reasonable novice programming that tend to feature you in the middle of them. Your repeated insistence that these things aren't that relevant for non-competitors don't actually apply here, cause this is a population of strength nerds who discuss these ideas for fun, even if we're not deadly serious about competing.

Don't worry perman, non-competitors don't need to squat over 100kg.

That said, this thread took a sad turn. Below is my attempt to steer it again:

Considering that volume is the main driver of hypertrophy and hypertrophy is the main driver of strength, why most of the programs and templates we see out there stay within the 4-6 range for most of the main lifts volume? I'll consider the 1@8 "overwarmup" so we can exclude Hanley's neuromuscular voodoo in this discussion.

Theory 1: Reps over 6 tap too much into other energy systems, reducing carryover to 1RM and producing too much unwanted byproducts (lactate?) in the muscles;

Theory 2: What drives adaptation is tonnage? Maybe this is the shittiest theory?

Theory 3: The 1@8 is not enough to keep the neuromuscular system up to par, so we need to accumulate volume in the skill/neuro range, without going too heavy too often and risking injury.

Theory 4: Fatigue. 8 reps get me gassed. 7 reps get me gassed. It's easier for compound movements get crappy formwise with high reps, and that invites injury.

Place your bets/votes/arguments. I don't want to hear about novices in the "Post-novice" thread, but this is not my Q&A...

It's the rate of recruitment of NMUs.

4-6 reps @8 recruits a lot of them (enough weight to be non-ballistic) and in phase. Sets of 8+ will recruit lots of them, but not in phase. Recruitment in phase drives strength, which increases weight moved as efficiently as possible, which leads to the further recruitment of NMUs.

Out of your theories, number 3 is the best fit.

With that being said, there is a mental aspect to lifting as well as work capacity. Doing sets of 8 at RPE 8 makes sets of 4 @ RPE 8 "feel easier". Rotating rep ranges seems to be a good key in keeping lifters honest with RPE, at least on the smaller sets. Getting RPE right on sets of 8+ is really hard. Using the percentages there seems far more useful.

Baker likes cycling 8/5/2 for that reason. Each rep range has a domain of influence and they all overlap.

[Hanley]

@Murelli

I don't think it's helpful/useful to think of "sets" and "reps". I think it's more useful to think of "single-session-tonnage accumulated at a given % e1rm".

3x10 at 72% e1rm might be very hard to recover from. Each of those sets is near-ish @10 and you are -- indeed -- damaging muscle on the reps-done-in-fatigue.

So, don't fucking do 3x10 @72%. Do 6setsX5reps at 72% (or 10setsx3reps at 72%). By moderating the intraset fatigue, you reduce muscle damage, but still accumulate the tonnage. I'm confident that one can recover from 6x5@72% in 48 hours ('cause I've done it about - oh - several hundred times [density blocks]). I'm convinced there's very little valuable "training effect" in reps done @9-10 with waaay submax loads [my hunch is that @9-10 with loads below 75% actually corrupt shit like peak-force MU twitch coorination/patterns and rates..but that's voodoo].

[Hanley]

4-6 reps @8 recruits a lot of them (enough weight to be non-ballistic) and in phase. Sets of 8+ will recruit lots of them, but not in phase. Recruitment in phase drives strength, which increases weight moved as efficiently as possible, which leads to the further recruitment of NMUs.

Oh. I like this. Gilballs said it all fancy.

[Allentown]

I'm convinced there's very little valuable "training effect" in reps done @9-10 with waaay submax loads [my hunch is that @9-10 with loads below 75% actually corrupt shit like peak-force MU twitch coorination/patterns and rates..but that's voodoo].

This seems plausible. I've done A LOT of @9-10 with 7+ reps, particularly with squat & bench. Coincidentally, I am terrible at 1RM.

[omaniphil]

4-6 reps @8 recruits a lot of them (enough weight to be non-ballistic) and in phase. Sets of 8+ will recruit lots of them, but not in phase. Recruitment in phase drives strength, which increases weight moved as efficiently as possible, which leads to the further recruitment of NMUs.

I find that argument compelling, and it tracks with what @Hanley says about extended hypertrophy blocks screwing up his explosivity. Do you know of any literature that supports this? Stuff like this, if supported by evidence, would be a great bedrock on which to come up with a theory of programming.

[mgil]

4-6 reps @8 recruits a lot of them (enough weight to be non-ballistic) and in phase. Sets of 8+ will recruit lots of them, but not in phase. Recruitment in phase drives strength, which increases weight moved as efficiently as possible, which leads to the further recruitment of NMUs.

I find that argument compelling, and it tracks with what @Hanley says about extended hypertrophy blocks screwing up his explosivity. Do you know of any literature that supports this? Stuff like this, if supported by evidence, would be a great bedrock on which to come up with a theory of programming.

I've got nothing but my own experience, picking @Hanley's brain, reading @Manveer's log and thinking about how Mike T has been successful.

[damufunman]

4-6 reps @8 recruits a lot of them (enough weight to be non-ballistic) and in phase. Sets of 8+ will recruit lots of them, but not in phase. Recruitment in phase drives strength, which increases weight moved as efficiently as possible, which leads to the further recruitment of NMUs.

I find that argument compelling, and it tracks with what @Hanley says about extended hypertrophy blocks screwing up his explosivity. Do you know of any literature that supports this? Stuff like this, if supported by evidence, would be a great bedrock on which to come up with a theory of programming.

Glad I read all the way down, I'm also curious if @mgil could point to some research on this, as I'm interested if this has been verified. Also thinking about a hypertrophy block I could squeeze in for the next month or three.

[Hanley]

4-6 reps @8 recruits a lot of them (enough weight to be non-ballistic) and in phase. Sets of 8+ will recruit lots of them, but not in phase. Recruitment in phase drives strength, which increases weight moved as efficiently as possible, which leads to the further recruitment of NMUs.

I find that argument compelling, and it tracks with what @Hanley says about extended hypertrophy blocks screwing up his explosivity. Do you know of any literature that supports this? Stuff like this, if supported by evidence, would be a great bedrock on which to come up with a theory of programming.

Glad I read all the way down, I'm also curious if @mgil could point to some research on this, as I'm interested if this has been verified. Also thinking about a hypertrophy block I could squeeze in for the next month or three.

You'd probably want to look at work done by Paavo Komi.

Here's a collection he edited:

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitl ... 59117.html

[omaniphil]

You'd probably want to look at work done by Paavo Komi.

Here's a collection he edited:

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitl ... 59117.html

This chapter of that book looks promising. There may be others in there too.

[Hanley]

You'd probably want to look at work done by Paavo Komi.

Here's a collection he edited:

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitl ... 59117.html

This chapter of that book looks promising. There may be others in there too.

I read it a while ago. The research is old-ish, but fascinating.

Maybe @PatrickDB knows of some recent research?

[OCG]

You'd probably want to look at work done by Paavo Komi.

Here's a collection he edited:

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitl ... 59117.html

This chapter of that book looks promising. There may be others in there too.

Anyone got a source that isn't $300?

[mgil]

You'd probably want to look at work done by Paavo Komi.

Here's a collection he edited:

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitl ... 59117.html

This chapter of that book looks promising. There may be others in there too.

Anyone got a source that isn't $300?

Just search the title with "free pdf" at the end of the search string and choose the most reputable site you find...

I gotta wonder why a 20+ year old text is $200 for a .pdf download. That's silly.

[omaniphil]

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

edit - the link worked earlier. Maybe it was time limited or something. Mgil's recommendation to google the title and free pdf should still stand though.

[iamsmu]

You'd probably want to look at work done by Paavo Komi.

Here's a collection he edited:

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitl ... 59117.html

This chapter of that book looks promising. There may be others in there too.

I just downloaded that chapter from my library. I haven't read it yet. If you want it, im me an email address. (It has a watermark at the bottom, so I can't post a link to it.)

[topfen]

You can find it on lib gen. I tried the 5mb download with the ID 481033 and the quality is great.

[mgil]

Good example of recoverable volume in my log tonight. RPE keeps me out of trouble.

[KyleSchuant]

find discussions about obscure, weird programming optimization that tend to feature Hanley in the middle of them far more interesting than discussions about reasonable novice programming that tend to feature you in the middle of them.

Me, too. This is why I ask: how do we judge who to listen to? And I also would buy a book from Mike T.

[chrisd]

4-6 reps @8 recruits a lot of them (enough weight to be non-ballistic) and in phase. Sets of 8+ will recruit lots of them, but not in phase. Recruitment in phase drives strength, which increases weight moved as efficiently as possible, which leads to the further recruitment of NMUs.

I find that argument compelling, and it tracks with what @Hanley says about extended hypertrophy blocks screwing up his explosivity. Do you know of any literature that supports this? Stuff like this, if supported by evidence, would be a great bedrock on which to come up with a theory of programming.

Anecdotal n=1. I used to do a hypertrophy programme . After 18 months, I had the showy muscles I wanted (and couldn't deadlift or squat much weight, isolation) and moved like a sloth on mogadon.

[KyleSchuant]

What was the programme?

[Hamburgerfan]

but I thought it was interesting when he basically said long term isn't really what they're going for.

Here's Hambrick, from the SS forum. The argument seems to be that it's a mindset thing, and that chasing PR's a little longer helps with buy-in. Which seems reasonable. And strikes a very different tone than the podcast.

Most of my clients want to peak. I want to peak. I want to know what I'm capable of. I enjoy that part of the process. We have PR days at my little gym, everyone works towards a goal, shows up on a Saturday, cheers the others on, sets a PR, and eats barbecue. Hitting those PR's is an important reward for most trainees. I have some that don't care about that. Those just slug it out and train super hard week in, week out. They probably have better results. They are also rare among my trainees.

As for the high volume being hard. Sure it is. All of this stuff we do is hard. Sufficiently high intensity and high volume is a necessary programming tool. Long-term, it's about all we have to keep an athlete moving. I just don't have a dude straight out of LP pile the volume on. We do a little TM variant as long as that'll work, maybe an HLM variant as long as that'll work. Those things don't work long.

The TM and HLM variants are simple, plenty hard, and effective for a time. That's good enough for me for as long as it works. I won't BS you. They don't work long.

Eventually, everyone who doesn't quit gets a nice dose of volume to keep moving, they have to.

But, after TM (which admittedly doesn't work long) then what?

Work-capacity using heavy-ish loads takes a long-motherf'n time to develop. TM-bro doesn't have work capacity. TM-Brah is fucked going forward.

TM-Brah has gained some horrid amount of body fat to lean mass while peaking, so is very likely well over 20% bf. TM-brah is fucked going forward.

The 3-4 months after TM will absolutely suck.

TM-Brah, now a big white doughball, realizes that his 245 bench and 500 dead are actually not that great. He looks vaguely pear-ish. And he has tit-buds. His wife won't suck his cock anymore.

Despair sets in.

TM-brah sees all of existence as one massive sadistic joke. He's sees an eternity of loss and suffering.

The nearest Arby's is 60 miles away.

TM-Brah can't go on, but he goes on -- now, a disgusting Tea-Bag Buddha, good only for producing copious literal shits and the occasional ranty internet post with lots of references to logical fallacies.

And -- somewhere on Saturn -- an electrical storm of incomprehensible magnitude rages on.

I remember my first 3-4 months after TM. I was bored with training and wanted to try something new. I joined a PL gym and decided just to show up and do whatever they did. At the time it was a bastardized conjugal routine with a lot of extra powerbuilding work. Not exactly how I would structure my training today, but it really opened my eyes to how out of shape and unaccustomed to doing work in the gym I was. I remember doing dumbbell benches after my main work and struggling like hell with the 45s. Never went back to TM.