If you guys had to pick one rep range to develop pure max strength which would it be? Westside guys say 1-3 while others say 4-5.
Best rep range to develop pure max strength
-
-
Participant
-
Participant
I believe 3-5reps is great for developing strength for sprinters, anything less then 3 would be too much strain on the CNS.
-
Participant
ok, who voted 2 and 5 and why.
-
KeymasterI like using multiple sets of doubles at 85-95%. It's not so intense it buries the CNS and it allows for a fairly large volume to be done if you use a maximal % buffer.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
I like using multiple sets of doubles at 85-95%. It's not so intense it buries the CNS and it allows for a fairly large volume to be done if you use a maximal % buffer.
do you think 4-6 range is better for beginners and int?
its funny when you look at some of the old powerlifting cycles 4-6reps was for strength and 1-3reps was for power.
-
Participant
I voted 2 because it doesn't kill your CNS as singles do plus it fits nicely within your pure ATP-CP energy tank.
Sounds good.
-
Keymaster
4422 @ 90 – 95%
Is that 2 sets of 4 at 90% and then 2 sets of 2 @ 95%?
That would be quite challenging. I normally only attempt multiples sets of singles with 95% outside of testing scenarios.ELITETRACK Founder
-
Keymaster
That makes sense. So in terms of 1RM that's probably 2 x 4 @ 82.5; 2 x 2 @ 90%. I do something very similar to that and also think it works really well for max strength development.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Member
I think you can stay on 5 reps the longest (most weeks) with high intensity (effort) without peaking too fast or getting stale (while still gaining lots of strength).
-
Participant
I think you can stay on 5 reps the longest (most weeks) with high intensity (effort) without peaking too fast or getting stale (while still gaining lots of strength).
i think lower level athletes can gain strength off 5 reps but more advance need 1-3.
-
Member
Barto,
It depends what you call absolute strength. I used to bring the reps down from 8s to 6s, to 5s, then 4s, 3, and 2s over 10-12 weeks (For powerlifting, basically Ed Coan's rep scheme). I consider the 6s-4s strength building, it might last 7 weeks.UT,
It worked for me after 10 years of comps. Ed Coan did it his entire career.
You might be surprised. You have already done some weeks of 12s-10s-8s, maybe give some 5s a try before you move into 1-3 rep ranges? -
Participant
Barto,
It depends what you call absolute strength. I used to bring the reps down from 8s to 6s, to 5s, then 4s, 3, and 2s over 10-12 weeks (For powerlifting, basically Ed Coan's rep scheme). I consider the 6s-4s strength building, it might last 7 weeks.UT,
It worked for me after 10 years of comps. Ed Coan did it his entire career.
You might be surprised. You have already done some weeks of 12s-10s-8s, maybe give some 5s a try before you move into 1-3 rep ranges?You see quite a few sprinter's strength programs laid out as linear periodization. Ben Johnson's looked to be similar, SMTC looked to be that way, HSI from what I have seen looks to be linear as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if Pfaff followed linear periodization for strength training as well.
All simple strength programs to obtain a general quality for sprinters.
-
Participant
Barto,
It depends what you call absolute strength. I used to bring the reps down from 8s to 6s, to 5s, then 4s, 3, and 2s over 10-12 weeks (For powerlifting, basically Ed Coan's rep scheme). I consider the 6s-4s strength building, it might last 7 weeks.UT,
It worked for me after 10 years of comps. Ed Coan did it his entire career.
You might be surprised. You have already done some weeks of 12s-10s-8s, maybe give some 5s a try before you move into 1-3 rep ranges?yeh i was thinking about hitting 4-6reps for a couple weeks, still not sure yet, i know my body respond to 1-3reps for max strength really well bc sets of 5-6 feels like 8's to me
-
Member
I would try tough sets of 5 that turn into 4s after a couple of weeks. Don't plan the reps, just add the weight, after a couple of weeks you will only get 4.
It also depends on the lift. I like the 5s for SQ, DL and BP, but I always do 3s on heavy bent-rows from the floor.
I also stick with lower reps on more technical lifts like snatches, clean pulls etc. -
Participant
I would try tough sets of 5 that turn into 4s after a couple of weeks. Don't plan the reps, just add the weight, after a couple of weeks you will only get 4.
It also depends on the lift. I like the 5s for SQ, DL and BP, but I always do 3s on heavy bent-rows from the floor.
I also stick with lower reps on more technical lifts like snatches, clean pulls etc.your fiber makeup is probably different also, i have always been strong at 1-3 and as the reps increase my strength decrease, you probably have higher % of int fibers.
-
Participant
I would try tough sets of 5 that turn into 4s after a couple of weeks. Don't plan the reps, just add the weight, after a couple of weeks you will only get 4.
It also depends on the lift. I like the 5s for SQ, DL and BP, but I always do 3s on heavy bent-rows from the floor.
I also stick with lower reps on more technical lifts like snatches, clean pulls etc.is this what your talking about?
5x6x75
5x6x77
4x5x79
4x5x82
3x4x85
3x4x87
3x3x89
3x3x91
3x3x93
also you said the 4-5reps were the strength building phase, so what was the purpose of the lower reps (1-3)?
-
Member
No, the scheme I'm talking about only uses 1-2 TOUGH sets. I've had guys with a variety of fiber compositions do well with 5s.
1-3 reps for the SQ, DL and PB puts the final peak on the lift (for comp) and practices the control and handling of max weights.
For other exercises (eg bent rows) 3 reps are the best for strength. I guess I'm saying that the best rep scheme for strength isn't fixed (like the poll question) but depends on the exercise.
-
Participant
No, the scheme I'm talking about only uses 1-2 TOUGH sets. I've had guys with a variety of fiber compositions do well with 5s.
1-3 reps for the SQ, DL and PB puts the final peak on the lift (for comp) and practices the control and handling of max weights.
For other exercises (eg bent rows) 3 reps are the best for strength. I guess I'm saying that the best rep scheme for strength isn't fixed (like the poll question) but depends on the exercise.
exactly thats my point its not fixed some people can get strong arse hell from 5's some cant. im talking about something like this:
4×3
5×2
5×1 not to failure
3×3 unload
or
4-5×3
4-5×2
4-5×1
or
4×5
4×3
4×1
-
Member
The first one looks best to me.
Sometimes if the planned workout is something like 2×6, but a guy looks stale during the warmup, I'll switch in 5×2 explosive and fairly light. Usually the next week they are back on track…
-
Participant
The first one looks best to me.
Sometimes if the planned workout is something like 2×6, but a guy looks stale during the warmup, I'll switch in 5×2 explosive and fairly light. Usually the next week they are back on track…
so do u think dropping from 3×6 to 4×3 is a big drop?
-
Member
I'd say it is definitely a sudden shift in strategy, but it may be exactly what you want. Your numbers will go up fast for a few weeks…
-
Participant
I'd say it is definitely a sudden shift in strategy, but it may be exactly what you want. Your numbers will go up fast for a few weeks…
im gonna repeat the above cycle twice and the second time the goal will be to try and beat the previous weights. i like the cycle bc its low volume an my body seem to be loving the low volume stuff so far. i have spoken to other coaches and athletes on this forum who seem to had succes with the cycle below, the second week just have too much volume for me esp for squats.
3x5x80
3x5x80 3x4x85
3×90 2×95 1×97 3×92 2×97 1×102
3x3x80 -
Keymaster
Barto,
It depends what you call absolute strength. I used to bring the reps down from 8s to 6s, to 5s, then 4s, 3, and 2s over 10-12 weeks (For powerlifting, basically Ed Coan's rep scheme). I consider the 6s-4s strength building, it might last 7 weeks.UT,
It worked for me after 10 years of comps. Ed Coan did it his entire career.
You might be surprised. You have already done some weeks of 12s-10s-8s, maybe give some 5s a try before you move into 1-3 rep ranges?I powerlifted for a couple years and had a ton of success with the Ed Coan setup. It's extremely simple to follow. I personally wouldn't use it in my training setups for sprinters though as it goes a while without a down week and the higher rep work could potentially promote unwanted hypertrophy that could be detrimental to sprint performance if not controlled by speed endurance work, diet, etc.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
Mike,
What if you reduced the number of weeks of hyp work and added a unload week in the Ed Coan program. Do you feel that would be a good scheme for a sprinter?
-
Participant
[quote author="Richard_703" date="1190130257"]
Barto,
It depends what you call absolute strength. I used to bring the reps down from 8s to 6s, to 5s, then 4s, 3, and 2s over 10-12 weeks (For powerlifting, basically Ed Coan's rep scheme). I consider the 6s-4s strength building, it might last 7 weeks.UT,
It worked for me after 10 years of comps. Ed Coan did it his entire career.
You might be surprised. You have already done some weeks of 12s-10s-8s, maybe give some 5s a try before you move into 1-3 rep ranges?I powerlifted for a couple years and had a ton of success with the Ed Coan setup. It's extremely simple to follow. I personally wouldn't use it in my training setups for sprinters though as it goes a while without a down week and the higher rep work could potentially promote unwanted hypertrophy that could be detrimental to sprint performance if not controlled by speed endurance work, diet, etc.
[/quote]i looked into the ed coan system i think it would work bc the volume is very low, your only doing 2 work sets which may help avoid some of your problems.
-
Keymaster
I don't have any doubt the Coan setup works (I've used it). It wouldn't be my preferred method for speed-power athletes though for the reasons I stated. I prefer to do more work at higher loads or speeds. Higher reps are in opposition to both of these.
ELITETRACK Founder
-
Participant
I don't have any doubt the Coan setup works (I've used it). It wouldn't be my preferred method for speed-power athletes though for the reasons I stated. I prefer to do more work at higher loads or speeds. Higher reps are in opposition to both of these.
I think some of your higher volume strength workouts are great but i think lower volume workouts are better in developing max strength.
-
Member
Just like it says in Mike's Blog on volume and intensity, there is only so much to go around.
I always do the best (for strength) with high int, but low vol.
-
Participant
I prefer to use 5 reps usually and stay between 80%-85%..to develop power and max strength ..5 reps his better for size and a bigger muscle is a stronger muscle..low reps and going over 90% as its place but i do prefer 5 reps
To develop both, 5 reps is a good number. Many peopel have built both power and size with the 5 x 5. We prefer to split the focus into two days. We have two seperate days for both upper and lower body. Strength days, reps stay low, going from 5 x 5 in week 1 to 4 x 2 in week 4. The strength day is actually done using contrast/complex training which includes jump squats and box jumps. The second day is for hypertrophy, with reps starting at 3 x 10 in week 1, 4 x 8 in week 2, 5 x 6 in week 3, and 5 x 8 in week 4.
-
ParticipantI dont like anything above 3 for max strength…quality suffers a lot when you go beyond 3 reps in my opinion…You still want to be TRYING to lift the weight fast…5 reps is too fatigueing for that…
-
Participant
I like to start with 8 on most movements, progressive overload until it stops increasing. Then next week use your 8rm and only do 5 reps, progressive overload until you stop increasing your 5rm, keep same weight, do the same with 3 reps. A lot of times when doing this I end up hitting my previous 1rm for a triple. An increase in reps represents a strength increase as well as an increase in weight…
Most pulls I keep to 5 reps and below though. 8 rep deadlifts/cleans/snatches dont really make sense to me for some reason
-
Participant
I like to start with 8 on most movements, progressive overload until it stops increasing. Then next week use your 8rm and only do 5 reps, progressive overload until you stop increasing your 5rm, keep same weight, do the same with 3 reps. A lot of times when doing this I end up hitting my previous 1rm for a triple. An increase in reps represents a strength increase as well as an increase in weight…
Most pulls I keep to 5 reps and below though. 8 rep deadlifts/cleans/snatches dont really make sense to me for some reason
i am doing something similar..i start off using 90%-95% of 5rm increase the weight by 5lbs every week until i only get 4 reps ..its working really good i should be able to rep my old max by 5 in two weeks..when i stall on 5 reps keep the same weight for next week going 3 reps add 5 pounds every week ..for Oly lifts i usually like to do between 1-3 reps and start of light and add 5 pounds every week until i find its getting very heavy decrease weight by 10% and build up again
-
Participant
If you are doing a form of progressive overload the number of reps are not going to matter nearly as much (or at all, within reason) as the programming and planning. Take two twins and get one to do 315×10 and the other to do 405×1 and their max strength and strength endurance won’t be that incredibly different (and probably non-existent after a few weeks of training). You can get really strong using sets in the 8-10 rep range so long as you continue to challenge yourself.
-
Participant
I heard that body builders usually do 1-3 for pure muscle building, but they are not as strong of people their size should be because of this. I believe 3-4 however was the best way to gain strength
-
Participant
Great thread… Can’t believe I missed it until now.
I’m making really good gains with low reps (mostly 2’s and 3’s right now) but lots of sets.
But I think much depends on where the athlete is at. My ideal for most athletes (at most developmental stages) is to do the following every week:
Either increase load (maintaining same sets and reps – ie – a 5×5 model – or 4×4 or 5×4 or whatever) until you hit a wall and can’t hit all sets with that load.
Then…
Increase volume (maintaining resistance, but adding a rep or 2 per set until you can’t keep adding reps).
THEN – repeat. I’ve seen this model work extremely well for those who are unfamiliar with weight training, as well as those who are experts.
Set and Rep scheme for max strength in my opinion is the period when you are doing 3-5 reps with multiple sets – but then mixing in variants of the lift (IE – hang cleans or 1/4 squats with much higher load).
-
Participant
I heard that body builders usually do 1-3 for pure muscle building, but they are not as strong of people their size should be because of this. I believe 3-4 however was the best way to gain strength
You have this backwards. Bodybuilders rarely do anything less than 5 reps unless they are trying to develop strength. More strength, heavier weights, more potential for growth. The reason that bodybuilders are not as strong as powerlifters, even if they are much more massive, is because they train for hypertrophy in the 6-10 rep/set range. Even if they go to failure and use higher volumes, the strength gains are not as great because they rarely do sets with 3 reps or less. The CNS is not challenged in the same way, among other things.
In recent years, bodybuilders have been catching onto this and moved to powerbuilding, which has two training goals…size AND strength. The additional strength is gained from doing sets in the 2-5 reps/set range which will improve strength much faster, and farther, than the higher rep sets. The additional strength allows them to use heavier weights on their higher rep sets leading to more mass.
This is why I would disagree with Davan’s twin theory. I believe that if both twins train equally hard, the twin using a rep scheme with higher reps per set will be bigger, but weaker, than the twin using the lower rep scheme. My evidence would be to compare elite bodybuilders with elite powerlifters of the same weight class. When comparing by weightclass, bodybuilders, who use predominantly a high (6-10 reps/set) rep scheme, are much more massive, while powerlifters, who predominantly use a lower (1-5 reps per set) rep scheme, are much stronger.
-
Participant
if the twin is bigger than the other he will become stronger quickly if he moved down to lower reps..bodybuilders are not weak i think that is a myth..here is a video of a bodybuilder squatting weighs about 220-230..obviously there are not as strong as powerlifters as they compete for max strength
-
Participant
I tend to agree with Star but with a twist.
The best rep range depends on what you are looking for. For track athletes, you want strength, but not the bulk of the body builder. Therefore, you see many programs sticking with 5 reps on down from the onset.
If you really want to be stronger, the size of the muscle is a contributing factor. So a program of mixed rep schemes of both low (1-5) and high (6-10). As a gross generalization, bigger muscles tend to be stronger muscles, so you would want to work both.
-
Participant
[quote author="ScottMiele" date="1248934651"]I heard that body builders usually do 1-3 for pure muscle building, but they are not as strong of people their size should be because of this. I believe 3-4 however was the best way to gain strength
You have this backwards. Bodybuilders rarely do anything less than 5 reps unless they are trying to develop strength. More strength, heavier weights, more potential for growth. The reason that bodybuilders are not as strong as powerlifters, even if they are much more massive, is because they train for hypertrophy in the 6-10 rep/set range. Even if they go to failure and use higher volumes, the strength gains are not as great because they rarely do sets with 3 reps or less. The CNS is not challenged in the same way, among other things.
In recent years, bodybuilders have been catching onto this and moved to powerbuilding, which has two training goals…size AND strength. The additional strength is gained from doing sets in the 2-5 reps/set range which will improve strength much faster, and farther, than the higher rep sets. The additional strength allows them to use heavier weights on their higher rep sets leading to more mass.
This is why I would disagree with Davan’s twin theory. I believe that if both twins train equally hard, the twin using a rep scheme with higher reps per set will be bigger, but weaker, than the twin using the lower rep scheme. My evidence would be to compare elite bodybuilders with elite powerlifters of the same weight class. When comparing by weightclass, bodybuilders, who use predominantly a high (6-10 reps/set) rep scheme, are much more massive, while powerlifters, who predominantly use a lower (1-5 reps per set) rep scheme, are much stronger.[/quote]
Even when taken to the absolute extreme, if we took natural bodybuilders and compared them to natural, RAW powerlifters using normal stances (so everything is equal), the strength differences would not be much at all. When you factor in the amount of drugs and training gear they use and the fact that powerlifters, even those who compete raw, are willing to squat and bench wide enough to destroy their shoulder and hip girdles… well it makes it a different story to say the least. Make it all the same and let’s see the strength differences.
It goes without saying that Coleman and some others could be quite competitive in the absolute highest levels of powerlifting right out of bodybuilding despite the vast majority of their training being in the 10+ rep range.
-
Participant
I will virtually never gain size doing sets of 1-3 reps…
The only way i think it might be possible is if you do lots of set of 1-3 rps with like 30 seconds recovery…
-
Participant
I tend to agree with Star but with a twist.
The best rep range depends on what you are looking for. For track athletes, you want strength, but not the bulk of the body builder. Therefore, you see many programs sticking with 5 reps on down from the onset.
If you really want to be stronger, the size of the muscle is a contributing factor. So a program of mixed rep schemes of both low (1-5) and high (6-10). As a gross generalization, bigger muscles tend to be stronger muscles, so you would want to work both.
Actually there is no twist, I agree fully with what you’ve written. As I’ve mentioned before, we use a variety of rep schemes (2-5 for max strength, and 6-10 for hypertrophy). This is the basis of powerbuilding, which is what most bodybuilders are moving to. Actually, bodybuilding and powerlifting are merging, as bodybuilders include low rep sets to gain strength, and powerlifters include higher reps sets to hypertrophy, which aids their strength development.
Bottom line however, and this has been my mantra in every post about optimizing strength training…you MUST include low rep sets at very high >85% intensity to optimize strength development. I would agree that it might also be necessary to include higher rep sets as well, to capitalize on the benefits of increased hypertrophy, among other things.
However, my original point still stands…low rep sets (1-5) do more for strength development, higher rep sets (6-10) do more for hypertrophy. I will also add that intensity needs to be as high as possible to optimize either strength or hypertrophy.
-
Participant
Star,
How are you defining max strength? Generally people use a 1RM or similar type test to determine this… if that is your determinant of max strength then is it any wonder that practicing that specific skill (high % lifts) would have the best carryover to doing that particular skill (high % lifts)?
In the short term lifting with heavy singles and doubles is probably gonna be your best bet for improving 1RM of a given exercise. In the long run its not really going to matter if you do 1s, 5s, 10s, etc… improving your strength is all about progressive overload. The best method for improving max strength is the one that suits your program and schedule and allows you to make the most progress in terms of adding weight over the long haul.
-
Participant
Star,
How are you defining max strength? Generally people use a 1RM or similar type test to determine this… if that is your determinant of max strength then is it any wonder that practicing that specific skill (high % lifts) would have the best carryover to doing that particular skill (high % lifts)?
Yes, 1RM. Its not any wonder to me, but to many others it seems to be. There are many that feel lifting in the 70-85% of 1RM works best, or at a minimum, at least as good.
In the short term lifting with heavy singles and doubles is probably gonna be your best bet for improving 1RM of a given exercise.
I agree.
In the long run its not really going to matter if you do 1s, 5s, 10s, etc… improving your strength is all about progressive overload. The best method for improving max strength is the one that suits your program and schedule and allows you to make the most progress in terms of adding weight over the long haul.
I disagree. I have no doubt that a person lifting only singles/doubles, will over time, improve strength faster/farther than an individual doing 10rep sets, even to failure. The 10 rep guy will be bigger, but not as strong. As discussed above, optimum progress would probably be made by including both low (<5) and high (6-10) rep schemes.
Progressive overload is necessary for continued strength as well as continued hypertrophy, but the rep ranges and intensities will determine the training outcome.
-
Participant
This is an interesting discussion, and flows right into discussions on adaption and periodization. In reality, if a lifter chose only one rep scheme (whether it was low or high) and never varied, he would adapt and plateau. For discussion, I’ll attach a 4-week cycle that hits both max strength, hypertrophy, as well as power. When needed, Week 1 can be a deload by reducing volume. Also, for simplicity, I’ll only do the upper body workouts.
Week 1
Workout A Strength
5rep scheme ME/Power (Complex/Contrast Workout)
Workout B Hypertrophy
10rep schemeWeek 2
Workout A Strength
4rep scheme ME/Power (Complex/Contrast Workout)
Workout B Hypertrophy
8rep schemeWeek 3
Workout A Strength
3rep scheme ME/Power (Complex/Contrast Workout)
Workout B Hypertrophy
8rep schemeWeek 4
Workout A Strength
2rep scheme ME/Power (Complex/Contrast Workout)
Workout B Hypertrophy
6rep schemeThis four week block can be repeated ad nauseum, and very little adaption/plateauing will occur. Both strength, power, and hypertrophy will improve and works well for football players, bodybuilders, and powerlifters, although bodybuilders may not want the power work. Its not meant to be a workout for very advanced lifters, who may need to consider block periodization/summated microcycles, and would have to be modified for track athletes etc.
-
Participant
Welp I’m not surprised, we got a powerlifter promoting powerlifting programs yet again when the discussion is about strength training in the context of non-powerlifting athletes.
I’m still waiting to hear the numbers of raw (and at the very least drug tested) powerlifters using normal stances (meaning non-extreme squat and bench positions) in comparison with natural bodybuilders. The numbers I have seen from national level natural bodybuilders are quite impressive even when consisting of very little “maximum strength” work and work predominantly 5 reps and over.
Of course, Charlie has already pointed numerous times that his athletes never squatted above their 6RM and generally much below. Looks like it hurt them ;).
-
Participant
[quote author="TomMartin" date="1248913287"]I like to start with 8 on most movements, progressive overload until it stops increasing. Then next week use your 8rm and only do 5 reps, progressive overload until you stop increasing your 5rm, keep same weight, do the same with 3 reps. A lot of times when doing this I end up hitting my previous 1rm for a triple. An increase in reps represents a strength increase as well as an increase in weight…
Most pulls I keep to 5 reps and below though. 8 rep deadlifts/cleans/snatches dont really make sense to me for some reason
i am doing something similar..i start off using 90%-95% of 5rm increase the weight by 5lbs every week until i only get 4 reps ..its working really good i should be able to rep my old max by 5 in two weeks..when i stall on 5 reps keep the same weight for next week going 3 reps add 5 pounds every week ..for Oly lifts i usually like to do between 1-3 reps and start of light and add 5 pounds every week until i find its getting very heavy decrease weight by 10% and build up again[/quote]
how many sets do you do for this set up
-
Participant
This is an interesting discussion, and flows right into discussions on adaption and periodization. In reality, if a lifter chose only one rep scheme (whether it was low or high) and never varied, he would adapt and plateau. For discussion, I’ll attach a 4-week cycle that hits both max strength, hypertrophy, as well as power. When needed, Week 1 can be a deload by reducing volume. Also, for simplicity, I’ll only do the upper body workouts.
Week 1
Workout A Strength
5rep scheme ME/Power (Complex/Contrast Workout)
Workout B Hypertrophy
10rep schemeWeek 2
Workout A Strength
4rep scheme ME/Power (Complex/Contrast Workout)
Workout B Hypertrophy
8rep schemeWeek 3
Workout A Strength
3rep scheme ME/Power (Complex/Contrast Workout)
Workout B Hypertrophy
8rep schemeWeek 4
Workout A Strength
2rep scheme ME/Power (Complex/Contrast Workout)
Workout B Hypertrophy
6rep schemeThis four week block can be repeated ad nauseum, and very little adaption/plateauing will occur. Both strength, power, and hypertrophy will improve and works well for football players, bodybuilders, and powerlifters, although bodybuilders may not want the power work. Its not meant to be a workout for very advanced lifters, who may need to consider block periodization/summated microcycles, and would have to be modified for track athletes etc.
how would you modify that for a sprinter (100-400m)
-
Participant
[quote author="dan1990" date="1248915244"][quote author="TomMartin" date="1248913287"]I like to start with 8 on most movements, progressive overload until it stops increasing. Then next week use your 8rm and only do 5 reps, progressive overload until you stop increasing your 5rm, keep same weight, do the same with 3 reps. A lot of times when doing this I end up hitting my previous 1rm for a triple. An increase in reps represents a strength increase as well as an increase in weight…
Most pulls I keep to 5 reps and below though. 8 rep deadlifts/cleans/snatches dont really make sense to me for some reason
i am doing something similar..i start off using 90%-95% of 5rm increase the weight by 5lbs every week until i only get 4 reps ..its working really good i should be able to rep my old max by 5 in two weeks..when i stall on 5 reps keep the same weight for next week going 3 reps add 5 pounds every week ..for Oly lifts i usually like to do between 1-3 reps and start of light and add 5 pounds every week until i find its getting very heavy decrease weight by 10% and build up again[/quote]
how many sets do you do for this set up[/quote]
5 sets eg: target weight is 120kg
5x60kg
5x75kg
5x90kg
5x105kg
5x120kg
works very well for me at developing power and max strength then i do Bulgarian split squats 3×6-10 using heavy weight..Powercleans i go 4×3 using usually 75% -90% adding 2.5kg a week or session when weight gets very heavy(i am just abot getting the lift i drop it back 10% build up again) -
Participant
Welp I’m not surprised, we got a powerlifter promoting powerlifting programs yet again when the discussion is about strength training in the context of non-powerlifting athletes.
I’m still waiting to hear the numbers of raw (and at the very least drug tested) powerlifters using normal stances (meaning non-extreme squat and bench positions) in comparison with natural bodybuilders. The numbers I have seen from national level natural bodybuilders are quite impressive even when consisting of very little “maximum strength” work and work predominantly 5 reps and over.
Of course, Charlie has already pointed numerous times that his athletes never squatted above their 6RM and generally much below. Looks like it hurt them ;).
Mr. naysayer strikes again. Did you get those numbers out of Flex or Muscle and Fitness? Why don’t you post your own training plan. You’re quick to critique, but never willing to actually put something out there for the forum to discuss.
And its just flat baloney to say that historically, bodybuilders have been as strong as powerlifters. Its just garbage. As I’ve written several times, the line is blurred in recent years as few bodybuilders fail to do strength work, and few powerlfters fail to do hypertrophy work. And to say that chemicals have anything to do with it is ridiculous. PED use is just as, if not more, rampant in bodybuilding as it is in powerlifting.
But stop wining and put your own plan up for the group to compare.
-
Participant
how would you modify that for a sprinter (100-400m)
It would depend on several things…
– what stage of training? (GPP, SPP, Offseason)
– what the primary goals were (strength, hypertrophy, power)
– number of days available to weight train
– other issues specific to the individualSprinters obviously don’t need as much hypertrophy as a football player, and I’m not an expert on what specific weight training works best for a sprinter. There is actually an old thread that has been resurrected on CF.com about whether or not hypertrophy training might actually be more beneficial than strength training for sprinters.
And let me make it clear for the whiners, I’m not saying this is the program I would suggest for a sprinter. But sprinters are ‘special cases’. If they want to optimize hypertrophy, they should look towards bodybuilding. If they want to optimize strength, they should look towards powerlifting. If the want to optimize power, the should look towards Olympic lifters or consider other explosive movements.
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1249004285"]Welp I’m not surprised, we got a powerlifter promoting powerlifting programs yet again when the discussion is about strength training in the context of non-powerlifting athletes.
I’m still waiting to hear the numbers of raw (and at the very least drug tested) powerlifters using normal stances (meaning non-extreme squat and bench positions) in comparison with natural bodybuilders. The numbers I have seen from national level natural bodybuilders are quite impressive even when consisting of very little “maximum strength” work and work predominantly 5 reps and over.
Of course, Charlie has already pointed numerous times that his athletes never squatted above their 6RM and generally much below. Looks like it hurt them ;).
Mr. naysayer strikes again. Did you get those numbers out of Flex or Muscle and Fitness? Why don’t you post your own training plan. You’re quick to critique, but never willing to actually put something out there for the forum to discuss.[/quote] There are actually numerous natural bodybuilders who have very accessible training logs and video logs if you are interested. Some of them have posted around.
I’ve posted my training thoughts numerous times. I’m also adding here that I don’t believe using under 5 reps (in the context of using heavy weights @ those lower reps) is absolutely necessary or even necessarily best for training the strength of non-powerlifting athletes.
And its just flat baloney to say that historically, bodybuilders have been as strong as powerlifters. Its just garbage. As I’ve written several times, the line is blurred in recent years as few bodybuilders fail to do strength work, and few powerlfters fail to do hypertrophy work. And to say that chemicals have anything to do with it is ridiculous. PED use is just as, if not more, rampant in bodybuilding as it is in powerlifting.
But stop wining and put your own plan up for the group to compare.
That is why I said look at natural athletes in both sports. Drugs will vary which will exacerbate the issue of looking at just strength or just size. Certain hormonal and neurotrophic factors will have greater effects on strength and some on size. If we look at natural athletes in both sports, things can be a lot more clear since there is no specialization in that area. Further, I have asked for numbers of natural powerlifters (drug tested) lifting raw with normal stances and positions (not ultrawide out of monolifts with suits and belts, etc.) to compare with natural bodybuilders.
-
Participant
Davan said
I’m also adding here that I don’t believe using under 5 reps (in the context of using heavy weights @ those lower reps) is absolutely necessary or even necessarily best for training the strength of non-powerlifting athletes.
Davan, I agree with this. I don’t know what’s best for sprinters…I think that’s an open question. But this thread wasn’t just about sprinters. Not knowing the answer to “what’s best for a sprinter”, people want to know what’s best in general. You’ve taken this approach several times to the point that you’ve defended the assertion that 70%1RM training is as good or better than >85% even in Olympic lifting and strength building in general. I’m not saying that sprinters should lift like a powerlifter. But if the question is put forth, “What rep range is best to develop max strength” I’m going to answer, and defend my answer, not based on any particular bias. The next question is “Would this kind of training be best for strength when intergrated into a sprinter’s training?” That’s a different question altogether.
You need to be able to discuss question without having to put them into YOUR context. If you were a football player, your bias would be completely different. If you ran marathons, it would be different still. You think I have a powerlifting bias, but I don’t…I answer these questions in the context in which they were asked. You first have to attempt to understand the optimum training method without a specific context (hypertrophy for hypertrophies sake, strength for strength’s sake, power for power’s sake,). THEN and only then, can you begin to understand how such methods would impact (positively or negatively) training within a specific context or application (sprinting, football, iceskating, marathon running).
And there really is not much debate among top weightlifters and scientists…if the training goal is to optimally increase 1RM, you MUST include, at least to some extent, loads in the 1RM-5RM unless you are relatively new to this kind of training. Longer term, and for more advanced lifters, ignoring this rep range completely will limit progress in this regard.
-
Participant
Star, you yet again misrepresent my opinion. I am always speaking in the context of a non-weightlifting/powerlifting athlete–in the context of someone who has a sport that does not involve lifting the maximum weight they can for one repetition in a given movement. In that context, I think certain individuals and certain program designs can develop sufficient and optimal strength using loads 80% and less and never testing close to their maximum capabilities. It isn’t dissimilar from speed training where I think people can develop plenty of speed for most sports using sprints 40m and less. Could sprints of longer distances help at times? Maybe, maybe not, but anything more than that would be relevant more to how the program is designed than actual distances.
And no, you cannot just look at the context hypertrophy for hypertrophy’s sake (and etc.). The problem with that line of thinking is that there is not extreme specialization within certain areas. So much specialization that when adapted to another approach, it may not be relevant at all. Take the program of Usain Bolt and see how well some 240lb linebackers do developing their speed.
And you are again stuck on 1RM. Why not 2RM or 10RM? Are you seriously telling me that if I was in a program using reps entirely in the 6-10 range, that implemented progressive overload as well as waving intensities/volumes/densities within the given rep range, that my strength would be dramatically lower than in a program that focused on 1-3s? Come on man, we have plenty of evidence of people who rarely did heavy 1s/2s/3s and developed insane levels of strength, while I can look at any WSFSB program and see tons of people who have minimal strength and have done lots of 1s/2s/3s.
-
Participant
Davan said
Star, you yet again misrepresent my opinion. I am always speaking in the context of a non-weightlifting/powerlifting athlete–in the context of someone who has a sport that does not involve lifting the maximum weight they can for one repetition in a given movement.
EXACTLY!!! But everyone else in this thread is discussing the best rep range to improve strength, PERIOD. YOU ALWAYS try to change the context to conform to your bias. If you want to discuss what works best in YOUR training, post it up in a new thread and we’ll all give you an opinion, which may or may not look anything like the plan I posted earlier.
Davan said
And no, you cannot just look at the context hypertrophy for hypertrophy’s sake (and etc.). The problem with that line of thinking is that there is not extreme specialization within certain areas.
WRONG!!! If your only goal is hypertrophy (bodybuilding), then that IS the only thing you need to concern yourself with. What combinatin of rep ranges and other training modalities work best to optimize hypertrophy. You don’t care about strength UNLESS strength helps you optimize hypertrophy. You don’t care about power UNLESS power helps you optimize hypertrophy. Hypertrophy for hypertrophies sake, period.
For most athletets, there are multiple training goals, and for those athletes other things must be considered. That doesn’t change the general case of what works best for what. Athletes must make compromises that force them to use a less optimal trading modality such that it allows them to progress, or at least doesn’t limit, other more important goals; but that doesn’t mean what they’re doing is BEST…it is the comprimised situation that works BEST FOR THAT ATHLETE. Big difference.
Davan said
And you are again stuck on 1RM. Why not 2RM or 10RM?
I didn’t invent the 1RM as the basis for testing strength. It has been the benchmark in both science and athletics for decades.
Are you seriously telling me that if I was in a program using reps entirely in the 6-10 range, that implemented progressive overload as well as waving intensities/volumes/densities within the given rep range, that my strength would be dramatically lower than in a program that focused on 1-3s? Come on man, we have plenty of evidence of people who rarely did heavy 1s/2s/3s and developed insane levels of strength, while I can look at any WSFSB program and see tons of people who have minimal strength and have done lots of 1s/2s/3s.
Define rarely. If they’re lifting heavy 10% of the time, that could make a big impact. but if you’re saying exclusively (and you said ‘entirely’ so I’m assuming you mean almost never) then YES, I am telling you that and so would most Russain and Bulgarian sports scientists, most Olympic weightlifting coaches, and most if not all elite powerlifters. YOU MUST include at least some higher intensity (>85%) reps to OPTIMIZE strength development. I don’t know the magic number…maybe as little as 5% of total reps. My thoughts are that at least 10-15% of all reps should be >85%, maybe even more. The most successful string of Olympic lifting Gold medals went to the Bulgarians, and as we have discussed on this board, they lifted almost exclusively in the >85% range.
Again, I’m not saying all, or even most lifts in 1-3 rep range, but at least some. Your anecdotal evidence of strong people who NEVER lift heavy is not evidence at all when compared to the experience of Eastern Bloc sports scientist, elite weightlifters, and elite powerlifters.
And once again, you have totally shut down discussion on a thread that many people found interesting and engaging.
Can someone please start a poll for me? Here is the question…
Two identical twins train for 10 years. Both train hard. All things are equal except that twin A includes 10-15% of total reps in the >85% intensity range, while twin B trains exclusively in the 60-80% intensity range, never venturing above 80% intensity. After 10 years, which twin will be stronger?
-
Participant
Two identical twins train for 10 years. Both train hard. All things are equal except that twin A includes 10-15% of total reps in the >85% intensity range, while twin B trains exclusively in the 60-80% intensity range, never venturing above 80% intensity. After 10 years, which twin will be stronger?
Too many variables, what else are they doing?
-
Participant
Davan said[quote]Star, you yet again misrepresent my opinion. I am always speaking in the context of a non-weightlifting/powerlifting athlete–in the context of someone who has a sport that does not involve lifting the maximum weight they can for one repetition in a given movement.
EXACTLY!!! But everyone else in this thread is discussing the best rep range to improve strength, PERIOD. YOU ALWAYS try to change the context to conform to your bias. If you want to discuss what works best in YOUR training, post it up in a new thread and we’ll all give you an opinion, which may or may not look anything like the plan I posted earlier.[/quote] I am not trying to change the context. This site is elitetrack.com, not elitefts.com.
Davan said[quote]And no, you cannot just look at the context hypertrophy for hypertrophy’s sake (and etc.). The problem with that line of thinking is that there is not extreme specialization within certain areas.
WRONG!!! If your only goal is hypertrophy (bodybuilding), then that IS the only thing you need to concern yourself with. What combinatin of rep ranges and other training modalities work best to optimize hypertrophy. You don’t care about strength UNLESS strength helps you optimize hypertrophy. You don’t care about power UNLESS power helps you optimize hypertrophy. Hypertrophy for hypertrophies sake, period.[/quote] Did you read what I wrote? I said that when we are talking about a supplemental characteristic–in this case strength for an athlete not competing in a strength sport–you cannot look solely or even necessarily predominantly at how athletes who only train those traits organize their training. There are general features, but the specifics are too different to go too far beyond that.
For most athletets, there are multiple training goals, and for those athletes other things must be considered. That doesn’t change the general case of what works best for what. Athletes must make compromises that force them to use a less optimal trading modality such that it allows them to progress, or at least doesn’t limit, other more important goals; but that doesn’t mean what they’re doing is BEST…it is the comprimised situation that works BEST FOR THAT ATHLETE. Big difference.
I have yet again said multiple times that we are talking about strength training in the context of a non-strength sport athlete. In that situation, I will say what is optimal and BEST for training strength in those athletes is inherently different from that in powerlifting/weightlifting/etc. athletes.
Davan said[quote]And you are again stuck on 1RM. Why not 2RM or 10RM?
I didn’t invent the 1RM as the basis for testing strength. It has been the benchmark in both science and athletics for decades.
Are you seriously telling me that if I was in a program using reps entirely in the 6-10 range, that implemented progressive overload as well as waving intensities/volumes/densities within the given rep range, that my strength would be dramatically lower than in a program that focused on 1-3s? Come on man, we have plenty of evidence of people who rarely did heavy 1s/2s/3s and developed insane levels of strength, while I can look at any WSFSB program and see tons of people who have minimal strength and have done lots of 1s/2s/3s.
Define rarely. If they’re lifting heavy 10% of the time, that could make a big impact. but if you’re saying exclusively (and you said ‘entirely’ so I’m assuming you mean almost never) then YES, I am telling you that and so would most Russain and Bulgarian sports scientists, most Olympic weightlifting coaches, and most if not all elite powerlifters. YOU MUST include at least some higher intensity (>85%) reps to OPTIMIZE strength development. I don’t know the magic number…maybe as little as 5% of total reps. My thoughts are that at least 10-15% of all reps should be >85%, maybe even more. The most successful string of Olympic lifting Gold medals went to the Bulgarians, and as we have discussed on this board, they lifted almost exclusively in the >85% range.
Again, I’m not saying all, or even most lifts in 1-3 rep range, but at least some. Your anecdotal evidence of strong people who NEVER lift heavy is not evidence at all when compared to the experience of Eastern Bloc sports scientist, elite weightlifters, and elite powerlifters.
[/quote]
I asked you to post the dramatic differences in two natural athletes–one training specifically for bodybuilding and one for strength. You haven’t done that. I contend that the difference will not be that great. If you somehow controlled for which muscles were developed (since bodybuilders will spend more time on pecs versus triceps, quads versus glutes, etc.) then there may be even smaller differences.And once again, you have totally shut down discussion on a thread that many people found interesting and engaging.
Can someone please start a poll for me? Here is the question…
Two identical twins train for 10 years. Both train hard. All things are equal except that twin A includes 10-15% of total reps in the >85% intensity range, while twin B trains exclusively in the 60-80% intensity range, never venturing above 80% intensity. After 10 years, which twin will be stronger?
Too many other variables–what else are they doing? And 10-15% of the reps is a LOT of their training. I think you could have as good of results with even less. Under 5% quite easily, in fact.
-
Participant
As for strength of bodybuilders compared with strength athletes, I’m not saying they’re all comparatively weak, that would be ignorant. But there are guys at my gym into bodybuilding, 50-100lbs heavier than I am, and I outlift them on my light back off sessions. 230-280 lbs of muscle is serious bodybuilding, I’d imagine any serious strength athlete would be outlifting them.
There are of course anomolies, people who bodybuild who are exceptionally strong pound for pound. But I’ve never personally met or witnessed one. I’ve met plenty with sub standard pound for pound strength though.
For every Ronnie Coleman deadlifting 800lbs with straps at 300lbs, theres a few the likes of Ed Coan deadlifting the same kind of weight with his bare hands at 181 lbs. Make it a fair comparison bodyweight wise and 800 isn’t even impressive anymore.
-
Participant
But how many reps are talking about?
Coleman reps sets of 12+ of 800lbs…Telling me his 1rm isn’ well over 1000?
-
Participant
I presume you mean this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLo4XAtamUM
he wouldn’t even get 800 in competition seems as he has to use straps. 1000lbs raw and 800 in straps is worlds apart. There’s good reason why only one man has ever deadlifted over 1000lbs. It’s not Ronnie and most likely never will be (not to discredit him, he’s extremely strong, but it just doesn’t compare when there are guys 100lbs lighter lifting the same or more)
Andy Bolton, world record 1008lbs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5groVHlMkRE.
Shameless self promotion lol, myself with 630lbs at 180lbs bw
https://elitetrack.com/?ACT=25&fid=34&aid=334_bw5zNX3lcnAYkUM0NzD9&board_id=1
-
Participant
Ok take that suit of Bolton and how heavy can he lift? 600?
-
Participant
As for strength of bodybuilders compared with strength athletes, I’m not saying they’re all comparatively weak, that would be ignorant. But there are guys at my gym into bodybuilding, 50-100lbs heavier than I am, and I outlift them on my light back off sessions. 230-280 lbs of muscle is serious bodybuilding, I’d imagine any serious strength athlete would be outlifting them.
I am using natural bodybuilders and natural powerlifters as an example so we don’t get silly here. There is nearly nobody competing at 230lbs in bodybuilding that is natural, period. If you include things that make it so that progressive overload is not completely necessary and you can simply adjust hormonal factors… it changes the situation significantly to say the least. I am also talking about natural strength athletes using normal stances and the like. I’ll wait to hear about the drug tested powerlifting meets.
There are of course anomolies, people who bodybuild who are exceptionally strong pound for pound. But I’ve never personally met or witnessed one. I’ve met plenty with sub standard pound for pound strength though.
For every Ronnie Coleman deadlifting 800lbs with straps at 300lbs, theres a few the likes of Ed Coan deadlifting the same kind of weight with his bare hands at 181 lbs. Make it a fair comparison bodyweight wise and 800 isn’t even impressive anymore.
Columbu was predominantly a bodybuilder and quite strong in the 180s. Not Ed Coan, but pretty damn good.
Things have changed in bodybuilding in recent years (according to numerous former bodybuilders who are open about their illegal activities) for a variety of reasons that don’t have relevance to natural athletes. If athletes are using grams of hormones and insulin and all sorts of other things to stimulate hypertrophy, your training/programming becomes a lot less important.
-
Participant
lol don’t be ridiculous. By that logic if I threw a suit on I’d be lifting 1000 lbs. Deadlift is the only lift that doesn’t get the benefit from a suit because there is no eccentric loading. You’ll find with bench press shirts and squat suits (I personally think these are ridiculous, but thats how the sport is now) that the lifter can’t even touch the bar to his chest or make depth unless he is using a heavy enough weight to over come the elasticity of the equipment. No such luxury with deadlift as you have to pefform the eccentric part of the movement before you even touch the bar. If the suit was adding 400 lbs I’d probably be more impressed with his ability to reach the bar than the actual lift. I’m not denying that the suit does add SOME weight, but it’s nowhere near the extent that a squat suit or bench shirt inflates the lbs. This is why the deadlift world record is actually the lowest of the 3! Several people have benched more than the world record deadlift! It’s ridiculous.
Any raw lifter knows that a below parallel squat is a weaker movement than a deadlift. For Boltons deadlift to be in proportion to his squat (geared) it would probably be around 1400lbs. The equipment just doesnt help the deadlift to anywhere near the same extent.
But in case you don’t buy any of that (and you probably wouldn’t unless you’d tried the equipment for yourself), Ed Coan’s world record when he was 181 lb was just 2 or 3 lbs short of 800. This is a RAW world record, no suit, no straps, just a belt. Nobodoy can deny that the 120 lb weight advantage ALONE makes Ronnie’s lift less impressive.
Bolton also squatted 500 and pulled 600 without a suit the first time he ever attempted the lifts. I’ve personally seen him handling weights up to 1050 lbs with no equipment in training. Oh and not to mention he’s the current RAW world record holder with 948 lbs… that alone should be enough to reassure most people that suits don’t add to a deadlift. There’s loads squatting over 1000 in suits, but only one deadlifting that.
-
Participant
Two identical twins train for 10 years. Both train hard. All things are equal except that twin A includes 10-15% of total reps in the >85% intensity range, while twin B trains exclusively in the 60-80% intensity range, never venturing above 80% intensity. After 10 years, which twin will be stronger?
Too many variables, what else are they doing?
Everything is exactly the same. Genes, eating habits, sleep cycles, EVERYTHING. Only one variable, twin A includes 10-15% of total reps in the >85% intensity range, while twin B trains exclusively in the 60-80% intensity range, never venturing above 80% intensity.
-
Participant
By the way, why are you using Coan as your example here? He is a perfect example of what can be done in a program that predominantly uses lifts well under 90% of 1RM for the majority of the training year. If you talk about % of reps, well over 90% (perhaps 95%) of the reps are significantly under 90% of his WR.
-
Participant
lol don’t be ridiculous. By that logic if I threw a suit on I’d be lifting 1000 lbs. Deadlift is the only lift that doesn’t get the benefit from a suit because there is no eccentric loading. You’ll find with bench press shirts and squat suits (I personally think these are ridiculous, but thats how the sport is now) that the lifter can’t even touch the bar to his chest or make depth unless he is using a heavy enough weight to over come the elasticity of the equipment. No such luxury with deadlift as you have to pefform the eccentric part of the movement before you even touch the bar. If the suit was adding 400 lbs I’d probably be more impressed with his ability to reach the bar than the actual lift. I’m not denying that the suit does add SOME weight, but it’s nowhere near the extent that a squat suit or bench shirt inflates the lbs. This is why the deadlift world record is actually the lowest of the 3! Several people have benched more than the world record deadlift! It’s ridiculous.
Any raw lifter knows that a below parallel squat is a weaker movement than a deadlift. For Boltons deadlift to be in proportion to his squat (geared) it would probably be around 1400lbs. The equipment just doesnt help the deadlift to anywhere near the same extent.
But in case you don’t buy any of that (and you probably wouldn’t unless you’d tried the equipment for yourself), Ed Coan’s world record when he was 181 lb was just 2 or 3 lbs short of 800. This is a RAW world record, no suit, no straps, just a belt. Nobodoy can deny that the 120 lb weight advantage ALONE makes Ronnie’s lift less impressive.
Bolton also squatted 500 and pulled 600 without a suit the first time he ever attempted the lifts. I’ve personally seen him handling weights up to 1050 lbs with no equipment in training. Oh and not to mention he’s the current RAW world record holder with 948 lbs… that alone should be enough to reassure most people that suits don’t add to a deadlift. There’s loads squatting over 1000 in suits, but only one deadlifting that.
lol. I know i exagerated there…BUT, more than 1 high level powerlifter has told me that a suit does help the deadlift A LOT…so hmmm
-
Participant
Davan, it all boils down to this. The OP chooses the topic of discussion on any thread. The context of that topic may be specific to sprinters, marathoners, jumpers, throwers, footballers, powerlifters…whatever, or it may be a general question. The OP did not specify “for sprinters” or for anyone else. It was a general question. I know that you understand that. What you don’t seem to understand is that YOU don’t decide what context WE are talking in.
This specific thread was not “What is the best rep range to build strength for a 100m sprinter during SPP…stats to follow”. It was a general question about weightlifting. What is the…”Best rep range to develop pure max strength?” No special case context, a general question, and I stand by every word I said. I’m not saying that it is optimum ‘as is’ for any athlete. As I’ve said to you many times, including at least once in this thread, when asking that question in a specific context (sprinting, swimming, ballet) the answer changes as there are always competing training goals…something might have to be modified or even totally sacrificed.
And for those thinking there are too many variables to answer the twin poll/question, there is only one variable…the rep range that each uses. ALL other possible variables are held constant, including genetics. Its called making an assumption, and the ability to make such assumptions is key to developing any scientific hypothesis. Yes, it may be difficult, or in some cases impossible, to fully test the question without input by other variables (hence, experimental design and statistical analysis) but I am simply looking for a consensus opinion on what other posters on this forum think in terms of rep range and max strength.
-
Participant
lol okay Star, we’ll live in your world here :).
Depending on their genetics, I don’t think it is clear. You also left out a middle portion in your example there as there is a deadzone since you indicate they don’t lift over 80% when I never said that you can’t or shouldn’t ever lift over 90%, just that it isn’t absolutely necessary and plenty of people develop quite great max strength with very minimal work in that area. Plenty of elite lifters (Ed Coan being one on top of numerous others) have extremely advanced levels of strength with significantly less than 10% of their reps >90%.
-
Participant
Davan avoided the poll question by writing…
…Depending on their genetics, I don’t think it is clear.
Not clear? Are you kidding me? Depending on their genetics? Are you serious? Their genetics are identicle. Every top scientist has tested them and confirms it to be so. Stop squirming and answer the question.
You also left out a middle portion in your example there as there is a deadzone since you indicate they don’t lift over 80% when I never said that you can’t or shouldn’t ever lift over 90%…
Huh???!!?? Aren’t you the Davan that said…
Are you seriously telling me that if I was in a program using reps [b]entirely [/b]in the 6-10 range, that implemented progressive overload as well as waving intensities/volumes/densities within the given rep range, that my strength would be dramatically lower than in a program that focused on 1-3s? Come on man, we have plenty of evidence of people who [b]rarely [/b]did heavy 1s/2s/3s and developed insane levels of strength, while I can look at any WSFSB program and see tons of people who have minimal strength and have done lots of 1s/2s/3s.
Aren’t you the Davan that wrote that? Aren’t you the Davan the endlessy argues that there is no need for lifting in the >90% intensity range?
Davan continues…
[b]just that it isn’t absolutely necessary [/b]and plenty of people develop quite great max strength with [b]very minimal work in that area[/b].
There, you said it again. Yes, you can get strong lifting with lower intensity, but is it the optimal, or BEST rep range to OPTIMIZE strength development (note to Davan…read the title of the thread again)? We’re not asking if there are outliers in the data set, like Coan, we’re asking what is most likely the best or optimal method. Would many of these weightlifters, possibly even Coan, do better if they included more >85% reps? I think probably.
As far as using outliers like Coan, consider this. There are fast people who never do Max V work. Should we then say that Max V work is not necessary? Isn’t it the general consensus the sprinters should do Max V work? There are fast people who never lift weights at all. Should we then say that weightlifting isn’t necessary? Isn’t the general consensus that resistance training improves sprint performance? The general consensus is that including adequate reps in the 85% intensity range markedly improves strength development. What percentage of total reps does it need to be? Not sure, but 10-15% seems a reasonable place to start.
Manipulating Resistance Training Program Variables to Optimize Maximum Strength in Men: A Review
BENEDICT TAN
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 1999, 13(3), 289-304 q 1999 National Strength & Conditioning Associationhttps://www.edulife.com.br/dadosArtigosEducacao FisicaTreinamento DesportivoManipulating Resistance Training Program.pdf
-
Participant
Here is a quick thought – whilst pure strength may be developed using both higher reps with lower loads AND lower reps with higher load wouldn’t the ‘best’ range be the one that does it the quickest? If the context is athletics also the best way is probably the one that develops the quickest and with the least gains in size. If there is no sporting context then the ‘best’ rep range to develop pure strength is the one that does so the quickest. I would have thought pure strength would be developed the quickest and therefore the using heavier weights and lower reps.
-
Participant
By the way, why are you using Coan as your example here? He is a perfect example of what can be done in a program that predominantly uses lifts well under 90% of 1RM for the majority of the training year. If you talk about % of reps, well over 90% (perhaps 95%) of the reps are significantly under 90% of his WR.
I think you misunderstood, I’m not making an argument for which percentage range is best to work in. I myself have stated in this thread that I like to use up to 8 reps, which is around 75% for me.
MY point was basically, show me a strong bodybuilder and I’ll show you a stronger strength athlete, 100 lbs lighter.
I purposely picked the deadlift, because I feel this is the most comparable lift between the two sports, and would even go to the extent of saying that bodybuilding equipment (straps) help MORE than a deadlifting suit. From personal experience, I’ve managed to lift over 700 with straps, I felt no difference whatsoever in a suit and couldn’t lift any more than my current (at the time) max because I couldn’t hold on to the bar. I don’t feel like going and trying a suited and strapped deadlift for comparison because these 100% effots take a long time to recover from with these poundages.
I’ve no doubt at all that they probably use similar training methods and completely agree with what you’re saying. Lifting at over 95% DOES work but in the real world there are plataues. You’re much more likely to avoid these by using a wider range of percentages.
As for the drug free debate, I agree with pretty much all of that too. Without drugs, progressive overload training is the best way to accomodate hypertrophy. But progressive overload is a lot less dependant on hypertrophy, than hypertrophy is on progressive overload, meaning strength gains can be accomplished without gaining muscle.
Of course, all things being equal the athlete that bulks to 230lbs will be stronger than the athlete that chooses to stay at 180 lbs, if they both focussed on progressive overload. That’s definitely not to say that the 230 lb athlete will be comparitively stronger though, lb for lb.
And then all things not being equal, the athlete that trains for progressive overload choosing to stay at 180 lbs for *10 YEARS* will probably be STRONGER than the athlete who uses the same training strategy, and goes from 180 to 230 with just *5 YEARS* of training.
What I’ve found with bodybuilders is they eventually stop putting on weight, and then train for years and years and years without making a single strength gain, and without the desire to do so. Strength gains equate to an increased injury risk. The slightest torn muscle or nerve impingement can completely RUIN the symmetry they’ve spent the last 5 years honing in. 5 years not gaining any size OR strength, just slightly tweaking for balance and symmetry. This isn’t uncommon at all.
The above reason was in fact the end of Ronnie Coleman’s career.
-
Participant
Davan avoided the poll question by writing…[quote]…Depending on their genetics, I don’t think it is clear.
Not clear? Are you kidding me? Depending on their genetics? Are you serious? Their genetics are identicle. Every top scientist has tested them and confirms it to be so. Stop squirming and answer the question.[/quote] I am not squirming. I don’t think everybody responds the same to every program. Even if their genetics are identical–are they people that respond better to higher rep protocols or lower rep or what? It really varies, clearly, since your beloved Westside has gotten crapped on by people who do such stupid things are predominantly higher rep training.
Aren’t you the Davan that wrote that? Aren’t you the Davan the endlessy argues that there is no need for lifting in the >90% intensity range?
This shows that you simply selectively read or selectively understand what I am saying. I initially started into this because you constantly harp in multiple threads the necessity to go above 90% in strength training and the lack of utility in higher reps for strength building. I am simply saying that you can get plenty strong and often optimize strength training with higher reps and rarely going above 90%, if ever on many lifts. Ironically, you back out of this issue on CF when Charlie even agreed that none of his athletes ever went above a 6RM on squats.
Davan continues…
[quote][b]just that it isn’t absolutely necessary [/b]and plenty of people develop quite great max strength with [b]very minimal work in that area[/b].There, you said it again. Yes, you can get strong lifting with lower intensity, but is it the optimal, or BEST rep range to OPTIMIZE strength development (note to Davan…read the title of the thread again)? We’re not asking if there are outliers in the data set, like Coan, we’re asking what is most likely the best or optimal method. Would many of these weightlifters, possibly even Coan, do better if they included more >85% reps? I think probably.[/quote] I highly doubt it. More likely, they would have been injured more often and be nearly crippled. Plenty of people could do 5×5 nearly indefinitely and equal and possibly exceed programs that spend the amount of time going above 90% that you mention.
As far as using outliers like Coan, consider this. There are fast people who never do Max V work. Should we then say that Max V work is not necessary? Isn’t it the general consensus the sprinters should do Max V work? There are fast people who never lift weights at all. Should we then say that weightlifting isn’t necessary? Isn’t the general consensus that resistance training improves sprint performance? The general consensus is that including adequate reps in the 85% intensity range markedly improves strength development. What percentage of total reps does it need to be? Not sure, but 10-15% seems a reasonable place to start.
10-15% is a huge number of reps, which is where the issue comes in. I find that not only to be a lot, but actually excessive and likely detrimental for anyone not training solely for powerlifting/weightlifting/etc.
-
Participant
[quote author="davan" date="1249108960"]By the way, why are you using Coan as your example here? He is a perfect example of what can be done in a program that predominantly uses lifts well under 90% of 1RM for the majority of the training year. If you talk about % of reps, well over 90% (perhaps 95%) of the reps are significantly under 90% of his WR.
I think you misunderstood, I’m not making an argument for which percentage range is best to work in. I myself have stated in this thread that I like to use up to 8 reps, which is around 75% for me.
MY point was basically, show me a strong bodybuilder and I’ll show you a stronger strength athlete, 100 lbs lighter. [/quote] This is an amateur natural bodybuilder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUyk1lBDNUA&feature=channel_page
He weighs about 220, maybe a bit lighter be we’ll round up, in that video. I’d love to see a natural strength athlete even under 180lbs do that.
I purposely picked the deadlift, because I feel this is the most comparable lift between the two sports, and would even go to the extent of saying that bodybuilding equipment (straps) help MORE than a deadlifting suit. From personal experience, I’ve managed to lift over 700 with straps, I felt no difference whatsoever in a suit and couldn’t lift any more than my current (at the time) max because I couldn’t hold on to the bar. I don’t feel like going and trying a suited and strapped deadlift for comparison because these 100% effots take a long time to recover from with these poundages.
I’ve no doubt at all that they probably use similar training methods and completely agree with what you’re saying. Lifting at over 95% DOES work but in the real world there are plataues. You’re much more likely to avoid these by using a wider range of percentages.
As for the drug free debate, I agree with pretty much all of that too. Without drugs, progressive overload training is the best way to accomodate hypertrophy. But progressive overload is a lot less dependant on hypertrophy, than hypertrophy is on progressive overload, meaning strength gains can be accomplished without gaining muscle.
Of course, all things being equal the athlete that bulks to 230lbs will be stronger than the athlete that chooses to stay at 180 lbs, if they both focussed on progressive overload. That’s definitely not to say that the 230 lb athlete will be comparitively stronger though, lb for lb.
And then all things not being equal, the athlete that trains for progressive overload choosing to stay at 180 lbs for *10 YEARS* will probably be STRONGER than the athlete who uses the same training strategy, and goes from 180 to 230 with just *5 YEARS* of training.
What I’ve found with bodybuilders is they eventually stop putting on weight, and then train for years and years and years without making a single strength gain, and without the desire to do so. Strength gains equate to an increased injury risk. The slightest torn muscle or nerve impingement can completely RUIN the symmetry they’ve spent the last 5 years honing in. 5 years not gaining any size OR strength, just slightly tweaking for balance and symmetry. This isn’t uncommon at all.
The above reason was in fact the end of Ronnie Coleman’s career.
Ronnie is quite old and a walking pharmacy. I think this is quite an oversimplification that is going on, but I’ll leave it at that.
Plus, if we want to get into the stronger lb for lb debate, you need to factor in height, proportions, AND the exercises considered since bodybuilders will spend more time developing pecs, biceps, and quadriceps than most strength athletes (while spending comparatively less time on glutes, triceps, etc.).
-
Participant
..since your beloved Westside…[/QUOTE]I guess you counldn’t tell…my setup is not at all Westside. Do you see any DE days? We don’t have any. We have a strictly hypertrophy day, they don’t. Our setup is much more a traditional Heavy-Light setup with a hypertrophy emphasis on the lighter day.
[quote]…I initially started into this because you constantly harp in multiple threads the necessity to go above 90% in strength training and the lack of utility in higher reps for strength building. I am simply saying that you can get plenty strong and often optimize strength training with higher reps and rarely going above 90%…
Wrong. Our exchanges usually start when you chime in with a smart a$$ comment and assertions that 70% of 1RM is all that’s needed.
Ironically, you back out of this issue on CF when Charlie even agreed that none of his athletes ever went above a 6RM on squats.
What’s ironic about it…I like that site and I don’t want to get banned like you did….TWICE!!!. And I NEVER see you get involved in ANY topics on CF. Why is that? Oh yeah, because you’ve been BANNED form CF….TWICE!!!!!
10-15% is a huge number of reps, which is where the issue comes in. I find that not only to be a lot, but actually excessive and likely detrimental for anyone not training solely for powerlifting/weightlifting/etc.
It is not excessive…the Bulgarians did a much greater percentage of >85% loads and were the best in the world. Its only a huge number if your total volume is high. In low volume plans, its a very small number. Still incredibly important, but not a lot of reps. AND AGAIN, with the context change. This thread is about THE BEST WAY TO IMPROVE MAX STRENGTH, PERIOD. I’ve already said, several times, if athletes have competing training goals, some things will have to be compromised.
What’s ironic is that I’ve ony had contentious debates on a few threads on this forum. You were involved in ALL of those. I do notice you having problems with a number of people on here, and obviously on CF, since you’ve BEEN BANNED…..TWICE!!!!
ONCE AGAIN, I’m done with debating you, because you can’t stay on point, bring no credible science or experience to the table, primarily because you don’t understand science and have very little personal experience. Have nice day.
-
Participant
Thing I think has been missed throughout here, is that different athletes have different working capacity.
For instance, I’ve seen some who can easily do 5×5 at 90% (with sufficient recovery) but others I’ve trained with would struggle to do that with 80%. For me, I can easily work at 85%+ for most of my working sets all year long, while others should be much lower.
I’d think that the greater one’s % of slow twitch fibers, the higher % of 1RM one can use for working weight.
Thoughts?
-
Participant
Thing I think has been missed throughout here, is that different athletes have different working capacity.
For instance, I’ve seen some who can easily do 5×5 at 90% (with sufficient recovery) but others I’ve trained with would struggle to do that with 80%. For me, I can easily work at 85%+ for most of my working sets all year long, while others should be much lower.
I’d think that the greater one’s % of slow twitch fibers, the higher % of 1RM one can use for working weight…
Thoughts?
maybe i am not really sure may come down also to strength endurance..if somebody is used to using higher reps 6-8 vs somebody who likes to use 1-3 the person who uses higher reps will be able to perform more reps at 80% then the athlete who uses 1-3 reps..i thought only fast twitch muscle fibres were recruited during weightlifting
-
Participant
Thing I think has been missed throughout here, is that different athletes have different working capacity.
For instance, I’ve seen some who can easily do 5×5 at 90% (with sufficient recovery) but others I’ve trained with would struggle to do that with 80%. For me, I can easily work at 85%+ for most of my working sets all year long, while others should be much lower.
I’d think that the greater one’s % of slow twitch fibers, the higher % of 1RM one can use for working weight.
Thoughts?
There is truth to that; everybody is wired differently. Generally though, I think much of the struggle is emotional/mental because most lifters don’t like the >85% stuff or working right up to failure. Their lack of progress is the result.
EDIT: Just exchanged posts with Charlie Francis and he indicated that he believed Ben’s 6RM was closer to his 1RM that the tables suggest. I suggested perhaps more like 90%, and he concurred. He attributed this to Ben’s high level of special endurance.
-
Participant
Thing I think has been missed throughout here, is that different athletes have different working capacity.
For instance, I’ve seen some who can easily do 5×5 at 90% (with sufficient recovery) but others I’ve trained with would struggle to do that with 80%. For me, I can easily work at 85%+ for most of my working sets all year long, while others should be much lower.
I’d think that the greater one’s % of slow twitch fibers, the higher % of 1RM one can use for working weight.
Thoughts?
True, but not the whole story. The more reps someone can do with a high percentage of 1rm is also indicative of CNS efficiency. The more CNS efficient athlete will have a 1rm higher than what he can do reps with.
Something else to consider, champions are often genetically predetermined rather than created. The freaks of nature that can handle ridiculous volumes without overtraining are more likely to succeed in any sport. A weightlifter who can lift at over 95% twice a day, 5 days a week without overtraining is going to get very strong very quick. This would be the fastest way to develop strength but only for those with a ridiculously high work capacity and recovery rate, and it would lead to nothing but injury and failure for those less genetically gifted.
-
Participant
True, but not the whole story. The more reps someone can do with a high percentage of 1rm is also indicative of CNS efficiency. The more CNS efficient athlete will have a 1rm higher than what he can do reps with.
tom, I’m not sure I follow this. Doesn’t everyone have a 1RM that is higher that the load they can do reps with?
A weightlifter who can lift at over 95% twice a day, 5 days a week without overtraining is going to get very strong very quick. This would be the fastest way to develop strength but only for those with a ridiculously high work capacity and recovery rate, and it would lead to nothing but injury and failure for those less genetically gifted.
Very true. The trick is to train as close to the edge as you can without crossing that line, and without competing with more important training goals.
-
Participant
[quote author="TomMartin" date="1249324111"]
True, but not the whole story. The more reps someone can do with a high percentage of 1rm is also indicative of CNS efficiency. The more CNS efficient athlete will have a 1rm higher than what he can do reps with.tom, I’m not sure I follow this. Doesn’t everyone have a 1RM that is higher that the load they can do reps with?
A weightlifter who can lift at over 95% twice a day, 5 days a week without overtraining is going to get very strong very quick. This would be the fastest way to develop strength but only for those with a ridiculously high work capacity and recovery rate, and it would lead to nothing but injury and failure for those less genetically gifted.
Very true. The trick is to train as close to the edge as you can without crossing that line, and without competing with more important training goals.[/quote]
The real trick is using the minimalist approach – doing no more than is necessary while maximizing results. This means doing very little lifting over 85%….
-
Participant
[quote author="TomMartin" date="1249324111"]
True, but not the whole story. The more reps someone can do with a high percentage of 1rm is also indicative of CNS efficiency. The more CNS efficient athlete will have a 1rm higher than what he can do reps with.tom, I’m not sure I follow this. Doesn’t everyone have a 1RM that is higher that the load they can do reps with?
A weightlifter who can lift at over 95% twice a day, 5 days a week without overtraining is going to get very strong very quick. This would be the fastest way to develop strength but only for those with a ridiculously high work capacity and recovery rate, and it would lead to nothing but injury and failure for those less genetically gifted.
Very true. The trick is to train as close to the edge as you can without crossing that line, and without competing with more important training goals.[/quote]
Sorry I just re read that lol. I meant to say that his 1rm will be higher compared to his say, 5rm than somebody who has a less efficient CNS. Someone with poor CNS efficiency might manage 5 reps with 90%, someone with good efficiency might only manage 3 reps at 90%.
-
Participant
[quote author="star61" date="1249331298"][quote author="TomMartin" date="1249324111"]
True, but not the whole story. The more reps someone can do with a high percentage of 1rm is also indicative of CNS efficiency. The more CNS efficient athlete will have a 1rm higher than what he can do reps with.tom, I’m not sure I follow this. Doesn’t everyone have a 1RM that is higher that the load they can do reps with?
A weightlifter who can lift at over 95% twice a day, 5 days a week without overtraining is going to get very strong very quick. This would be the fastest way to develop strength but only for those with a ridiculously high work capacity and recovery rate, and it would lead to nothing but injury and failure for those less genetically gifted.
Very true. The trick is to train as close to the edge as you can without crossing that line, and without competing with more important training goals.[/quote]
The real trick is using the minimalist approach – doing no more than is necessary while maximizing results. This means doing very little lifting over 85%….[/quote]
Does Mike not prescribe many lifts in the 85% range and a substantial amount even over that?
For something like Olympic weightlifting using much under 85% many would consider a waste of time. That would be Bulgarians, Chinese, etc.
I assume you did not mean a weightlifter though.
-
Participant
Nothing against Mike but it doesn’t make it right or wrong. I prefer to keep ol’s in the 70-85% range. Please don’t use weightlifters/powerlifters as examples, we are sprinters!!!
[quote author="utfootball4" date="1249338401"][quote author="star61" date="1249331298"][quote author="TomMartin" date="1249324111"]
True, but not the whole story. The more reps someone can do with a high percentage of 1rm is also indicative of CNS efficiency. The more CNS efficient athlete will have a 1rm higher than what he can do reps with.tom, I’m not sure I follow this. Doesn’t everyone have a 1RM that is higher that the load they can do reps with?
A weightlifter who can lift at over 95% twice a day, 5 days a week without overtraining is going to get very strong very quick. This would be the fastest way to develop strength but only for those with a ridiculously high work capacity and recovery rate, and it would lead to nothing but injury and failure for those less genetically gifted.
Very true. The trick is to train as close to the edge as you can without crossing that line, and without competing with more important training goals.[/quote]
The real trick is using the minimalist approach – doing no more than is necessary while maximizing results. This means doing very little lifting over 85%….[/quote]
Does Mike not prescribe many lifts in the 85% range and a substantial amount even over that?
For something like Olympic weightlifting using much under 85% many would consider a waste of time. That would be Bulgarians, Chinese, etc.
I assume you did not mean a weightlifter though.[/quote]
-
Participant
Because there are so many variables, this question ends up being a bit vague and utfootball brings up good points which might lead to a re-phrasing of the question-
“With safety, training economy, training age, and time of year in mind, what is the best rep selection for the development of max strength?”
-
Participant
Nothing against Mike but it doesn’t make it right or wrong. I prefer to keep ol’s in the 70-85% range. Please don’t use weightlifters/powerlifters as examples, we are sprinters!!!
[quote author="Brooke Burkhalter" date="1249339228"][quote author="utfootball4" date="1249338401"][quote author="star61" date="1249331298"][quote author="TomMartin" date="1249324111"]
True, but not the whole story. The more reps someone can do with a high percentage of 1rm is also indicative of CNS efficiency. The more CNS efficient athlete will have a 1rm higher than what he can do reps with.tom, I’m not sure I follow this. Doesn’t everyone have a 1RM that is higher that the load they can do reps with?
A weightlifter who can lift at over 95% twice a day, 5 days a week without overtraining is going to get very strong very quick. This would be the fastest way to develop strength but only for those with a ridiculously high work capacity and recovery rate, and it would lead to nothing but injury and failure for those less genetically gifted.
Very true. The trick is to train as close to the edge as you can without crossing that line, and without competing with more important training goals.[/quote]
The real trick is using the minimalist approach – doing no more than is necessary while maximizing results. This means doing very little lifting over 85%….[/quote]
Does Mike not prescribe many lifts in the 85% range and a substantial amount even over that?
For something like Olympic weightlifting using much under 85% many would consider a waste of time. That would be Bulgarians, Chinese, etc.
I assume you did not mean a weightlifter though.[/quote][/quote]
I like OL’s in that range as well mostly for sprinters…how for long jumpers it is important to hit much higher percentages of OL’s for singles or doubles…
-
Participant
Comments from a Elite Track Coach:
“track guys don’t need to do singles and doubles for a long time like Olympic lifters. I think the Olympic lifts are good, but if you look at all the top sprinters, they aren’t good Olympic weightlifting technicians and don’t move that much weight. So, I don’t get too hung up about higher reps – as it gives them some repetitive explosive work”.
-
Participant
Yeah i agree…slightly different for jumpers and throwers…
-
Participant
Maximal strength is essential and is the basis of speed-strength and strength-speed movements. Actually, as an athlete matures and has the ability to recruit high threshold motor units quickly and readily, the lower the repetition range that athlete will need. An example, if you have been weightlifting or lifting weights, yes there is a difference, consistently for 10 years or more you will benefit greatly in the 1 to 3 repetition range. Where as someone who is in there first year of serious training will see results in the 3 or 4 to 6 repetition range. And this also will depend on the coach’s determination if their athlete can maintain good form, explosive concentric movements, good eccentric control and is just an all around beast.
-
Participant
Does Mike not prescribe many lifts in the 85% range and a substantial amount even over that?
For something like Olympic weightlifting using much under 85% many would consider a waste of time. That would be Bulgarians, Chinese, etc.
I assume you did not mean a weightlifter though.
Nothing against Mike but it doesn’t make it right or wrong. I prefer to keep ol’s in the 70-85% range. Please don’t use weightlifters/powerlifters as examples, we are sprinters!!!
I agree with both of these comments. Brooke speaks about the optimal method for an athlete to maximize strength training. UT correctly points out that sprinters have different goals, and while improving max strength is an important one, such a program can, for a sprinter, interfere with the primary goals of max speed, speed endurance etc., even if its just a matter of competing for limited training resources. As a result, compromises must be made. But when there is no such competition for resources, such as offseason or very early GPP, there may be no need to compromise your strength program.
My point through all of this thread has been that you shouldn’t ignore what ‘optimum strength training’, or at least our best understanding of it, actually consists of. If you design your ‘compromised strength training program for a sprinter’ based on another already ‘compromised strength training program’, you get farther and farther from what is optimal. Make adjustments, accept the necessary compromises, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that 3 x 10 @ 70%1RM at any volume is going to be as effective for building max strength as 5 x 2or3 @ 85-95%1RM even once per week.
-
Viewing 101 reply threads
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.