Discussion in 'Health & Body' started by Eason, Dec 20, 2009.
Well, that's unfortunate.
"Because its there"
Here's all you need
For real though hit me up when you're there. I used to live in Bergen County and go back every once in a while. We'll get sundubu in fort lee.
$150 a month? Not sure if srs, thats 5 times my current fees. Is that just if you want to do the phaggy time classes? Can you just join and do what you want? Will hit you up when I go though.
lol that shit cray
Widowmaker is fucking ridiculous on something like squats or deadlifts, but aren't you guys training to failure anyways? I train to failure on almost all lifts I do on every set.
you really shouldnt be training to failure
in addition ime f you're a beginner you might make good gains, but later on failure is going to hurt you
but basically you're just training muscular endurance over strength and power
Most of the time I train to failure on my main lifts. The few exceptions are sessions where I'm working on correcting recent form breakdowns or when I've begun a new cycle, after I've gotten to a new max or when I'm coming off a meet (usually the first two-three weeks).
I don't train to failure, but very close to it, on accessory lifts.
I am in awe at how cheap Oreos are.
Train to failure? No, I don't train squats, deads, bench, or assistance to failure. I will take the press to failure, although I can't honestly say there is any point to that. Pull ups bump into failure.
I'm no windowmaker scientist, but I imagine it doesn't hurt to maintain a bit more conditioning than necessary for purely 1rm lifting to remove any glass ceilings on your 5 or 8rm's. Keeping your breath and wits about you on 5 and 8rm's goes a long way towards your 1rm's.
edit: Failure has more than one definition and the lift it is applied to makes a big difference.
The rep range from that study for the RF group is much higher than I fail at. I train to failure at around 8-12 reps per set, if I hit 8 on my first set then the next time I weight up. Which is why this:
Doesn't apply to me.
I don't do squats (5x5x10) to failure but I do take bench to failure (or, rather, one rep from complete failure).
it still applies to you because by training 8-12 instead of 5-6 you're training more for endurance over strength and power
but it sounds like you've thought it through so no biggie
I don't think this really is as discrete as you are implying with this statement, especially in such a small differential in comparative rep ranges. 20-30 is definitely not power/strength, but 8?
This statement does not hold true all the time. Depends on the lift and the lifter.
The statement does hold true all the time as there isn't an example of a lift where fewer reps places more emphasis on endurance than more reps. Prove me wrong with a mind blown, though.
^really? so in your opinion depending on the person 8-12 could produce more strength and power gains than 5-6 and 5-6 produce more endurance gains than 8-12?
+1 to what dbgmm said
yeah def not discrete as it's probably a continuum of things (which is why i said more), but you have to draw the line of low rep and med rep somewhere
their low rep was 3-5, mid rep was 9-11, high rep was 20-28
Separate names with a comma.