1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

Random health and exercise thoughts

Discussion in 'Health & Body' started by Eason, Dec 20, 2009.

Tags:
  1. Coldsnap

    Coldsnap Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,014
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    

    My understanding was separate days is fine and bench didn't need to be paused.

    My training total is 980 right now and my training #s are usually around 90% actual maxes.

    I got all year, no rush :embar: I won't be hitting heavy singles until I decide to do a meet, so there's a good chance the total might be with rep sets.

    edit; There's also a chance I'll hurt myself and won't be totaling shit this year
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2014
  2. Eason

    Eason Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    14,669
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    Bangkok
    

    Yeah idm if he does them on separate days. It's because I didn't think he could add 200 lbs to his total in a year, so I made the bet.


    lol nope
     
  3. Big Pun

    Big Pun Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,970
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Location:
    امریکا
    Got 405 on deadlift today, personal best. Don't use belts for deadlift anymore, fine without it. Also the program I posted a while back was Greg Plitt's MFT28. Did it for two days with my friend who is trying to shed some el bees. I think the program is horseshit, just way too much. Worked out for 3 hours on chest day and still didn't get everything, definitely over training, program is ideal for the unemployed. My friend's going to stick with it apparently.
     
  4. bawlin

    bawlin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,958
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Nice. I hit 405 a few times in the summer and then fell off the wagon. Now 315 feels heavy :(
     
  5. tesseract

    tesseract Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,883
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    
    hit last year, switched to gym with hex plates and 425 feels like 500. Teekay inspired me to start pulling sumo again so that number should shoot up nicely.
     
  6. TeeKay

    TeeKay Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,214
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    On the note of progress this year here's what I did for 1RMs compared to the peak of my bulk last year.

    Bench(no pause): 290 --> 310
    Squat: 405 --> 445
    Deadlift: 445 --> 495
    Total: 1140 --> 1250

    Obviously those aren't in meets and aren't anywhere close to "perfect form".
     
  7. tesseract

    tesseract Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,883
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    

    If your 1rms are perfect form they probably aren't really 1rns.
     
    4 people like this.
  8. conceptionist

    conceptionist Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,060
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2011
    Location:
    North
    That has to be the most ridiculous program I've ever seen. Blows my mind that this shit still gets put out.
    You can't deny that the mainstream bodybuilding / fitness industry is good at fooling people. No wonder people don't see any results when they do stuff like that.

    For those interested, here's for "Chest day"

    Smith Machine BW Push Up Ladder: 10 –> 12
    BW Flies: 3 –> 10
    Isometric Wipers: 6-6 –>13-13
    Clock Push Ups: 4 into 12 –> 14
    DB Bench Press Drop-sets (3, 5, 7, 9 reps): 70-50-30-20 –> 85-70-50-30
    DB Flies: (20×5) –> (30×5)
    Cable Chest Press: 47.5 –> 72.5
    One-Arm Cable Cross-Over: (22.5×10) –> (37.5×9)
    Cable Cross-Over: (22.5×8) –> (32.5×10)
    Cable Iron Cross: (22.5×8) –> (32.5×10)
    Decline Smith Press: (120×8) (70×10) –> (160×5 into 7) (90×9 into 12)
    Decline Reverse Grip Push Up: 9 –> 13
    Straight Arm DB Pullover: (50×8) –> (70×8)
    Close Grip DB Press: (50×8) –> (70×10)
    Low Cable Cross-over: (22.5×10) –> (37.5×8)
    Evening Cardio Lift:
    Smith Machine BW Push Up Ladder: 10 –> 10
    BW Flies: 5 –> 8
    Isometric Wipers: 6-6 –> 11-11
    Clock Push Ups: 6 into 12 –> 8 into 12
    DB Bench Press Drop-sets (7, 9, 11, 13 reps): 40-30-20-15 –> 55-50-45-40
    DB Flies: (20×6) –> (30×7)
    Cable Chest Press: 47.5 –> 57.5
    One-Arm Cable Cross-Over: (12.5×25) –> (22.5×20)
    Cable Cross-Over: (12.5×20) –> (22.5×22)
    Cable Iron Cross: (12.5×25) –> (22.5×22)
    Decline Smith Press: (80×20) (60×20) –> (100×12) (70×18)
    Decline Reverse Grip Push Up: 13 –> 15
    Straight Arm DB Pullover: (30×20) –> (40×22)
    Close Grip DB Press: (30×25) –> (40×22)
    Low Cable Cross-over: (12.5×20) –> (17.5×20)

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2014
  9. GraphicNovelty

    GraphicNovelty Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,487
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Location:
    NYC
    Korean Tacos with kimchi on a whole wheat tortilla.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2014
    6 people like this.
  10. Coldsnap

    Coldsnap Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,014
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Gimmie dat.

    I'm cooking all day. Got 2lbs of grassfed flank steak in the crockpot with pepperoncini peppers, got a chicken curry going in the oven, 6 homemade bagels fermenting in the fridge, and gonna cold brew some coffee for the week.
     
  11. Axelman 17

    Axelman 17 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,396
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    

    Is this truth? Will lifts be better preserved on a cut by a low volume / high weight routine vs. higher volume / lower weight? It feels like the latter might at least result in better physique.
     
  12. jarude

    jarude Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,767
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    i dont know about lifts being preserved but i looked way better when doing high volume with lower weights when cutting.

    conventional e-lifting wisdom says stick with low volume when cutting, but IME big strong lifts that you need to get psyched up for are what drain me and impede progress, even moreso on a deficit. cruising through some 3x10, 3x10, 3x10 is a little easier on the brain and a little nicer in the mirror.
     
  13. MarkI

    MarkI Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,685
    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    

    I think the best results will come from utilizing both, I'm cutting now and I'm keeping all big compound lifts 5x5 with heavier weight, squats, deadlifr, bench and OHP, then I'm doing 3x8-10 with accesories at a lighter weight
     
  14. jarude

    jarude Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,767
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    watching cross country skiing makes me want to vomit. what a brutal sport.
     
  15. Coldsnap

    Coldsnap Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,014
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Yea, that's a lot of work.
     
  16. conceptionist

    conceptionist Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,060
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2011
    Location:
    North
    the general thought is that for naturals - strength = size.
    By going for lower weights on a deficit, there is a risk that you strength and thus muscle mass. You also have to gain back that strength later on which is a "waste" of time.


    Isn't that just due to the muscles holding more fluid (being more pumped) from the high volume though? Not questioning that you won't look better, just saying that its water and nothing else.

    Also, higher volume will def have you burn more calories, putting you in a bigger deficit = faster weight and fat loss in comparison to lower volume.

    Another reason lower volume is recommended, is that most people reduce mostly carbs when they cut. Carbs are the bodys preferred fuel source and a higher intake has you tolerating higher volume a lot more due to higher endurance. Pure strength is not related to endurance in the same way so it could still be pushed hard.

    I could be wrong here, but that's just how I think about it logically.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2014
  17. jarude

    jarude Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,767
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    

    being pumped has a lot to do with it, for sure. i also felt a big difference in performance after a carb-up or big over-maintenance day, to lend credence to the effect of carb reduction. with that being said, trying to sustain progress or even maintain with heavy weights was pretty punishing for me mentally, whereas eking out "one more rep" with lighter weights wasn't as much of a task.

    i dont think its a right/wrong thing, nor do i think it has to be a binary thing that has to be decided upon - low volume/heavier weights vs higher volume/lighter weights. i think it would be prudent to continue training as normal and then adjust the volume of high-intensity sets (not all sets) downwards or limit the amount of "psyche-up" moments as progress starts to stall. i think the "carbs are energy, high volume requires more energy, therefore low carbs and high volume = bad" is a little simplistic. in my experience, calories had the biggest effect on gaining strength at low rep ranges. with a lack of calories, being able to maintain volume at a high level of intensity/low rep range was difficult. being able to maintain volume at a lower level of intensity was much easier. based on how i feel on a calorie deficit, trying to do 5's weekly was tough. i would rather do 1x3 / 1x2 / 1x2 and then 3x8-10 rather than trying to maintain 5x5 or 3x5 or 2x5 every week.

    as far as the losing strength thing goes - i don't think that's nearly as big of an issue as its made out to be. continuing to train in a calorie deficit is the important thing; nobody's going to be performing post-cut as they were pre-cut regardless of what parameters they use. simply because absolute strength is explicitly defined in terms of a 1rm doesn't mean training with low reps is mutually exclusive to maintaining or improving in that particular range; higher rep ranges with lighter weights at greater volumes also provide benefit to said strength, albeit differently. i dont think someone who chose 3x10 versus 2x5 for squats would be all that far behind, if at all, when it came time to bulk again. once the calories come back, the volume on higher intensity lifts will come back also.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2014
  18. GraphicNovelty

    GraphicNovelty Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,487
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Location:
    NYC
    Reverse pyramid training = nice mix of both
     
  19. TeeKay

    TeeKay Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,214
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Amazing that a race that goes over an hour comes down to tenths of seconds.
     
  20. conceptionist

    conceptionist Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,060
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2011
    Location:
    North
    Of course its easier to maintain volume at a lower intensity, that speaks for itself. You can't go balls to the wall and increase both. Then your frequency has to come down. I'm sure you now about the interplay between frequency / intensity / volume. The body's recovery is biologically a zero sum game so one of the two has to go down if you have less energy or you don't reduce your frequency. Then again, there's loads of other parameters besides frequency, volume and intensity that has to be taken into consideration, such as the "psyching up" for heavy lifts, which will worsen your mental recovery like you say.

    Isn't 1x3 / 1x2 /1x2 higher intensity than 5x5 / 3x5 / 2x5 though? I would argue that it is, and down sets are pretty much always used when you lift for singles and triples as a mean to get in adequate volume that you lose from only doing singles, doubles, triples.

    I agree on the last section. Just plug in your given weight for 3x5 into a 1RM calculator and then your 3x10 and it'll probably be very close. I'm honestly not sure how the reasoning goes there, except that lower energy levels would have your higher rep sets suffering more than low rep sets due to emptier glycogen stores and so on. If you can complete both alternatives equally easy (or rather, without one of the rep schemes being much more negatively effected by your energy levels), then they should no doubt lead to equal strength gains.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2014

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by