BB.com Argument Against Heavy Shrugs

[IronManlet]

BB.com classic: "Argument against heavy Shrugs."


"Just a clarification on the traps - One of the points of doing them higher rep is the principle of time under tension, while it's certainly true that heavier weights will make them stronger - So will an increased period of stress, at no point in a 20 rep set of shrugs are your traps not under tension. In training the period of stress more similarly to a deadlift, the training is more specific and useful, a single shrug for exampled will take a fraction of a second whereas a grindy deadlift can take approximately 8.6 million years.

You don't shrug a deadlift, your traps are there to support the weight and maintain it's position so the ability to shrug weights far in excess of your deadlift is redundant, especially given that they are never going to be the weak point of the lift.

This is the reasoning, as I understand it behind recommending higher rep sets for things like shrugs and DB rows, specificity in training the lifts through time under tension."




That just happened. O_O

Listen up, people: The way to get stronger Traps is NOT to use heavy weights; you might injure yourself/your big toe/your vagina. Instead, we should get used to repping lighter weights because there's no REAL point to getting big, strong Traps in the first place...

Time under tension...and that was from the PLing section, btw. one wonders why they don't train everything high rep, with that kind of reasoning...

[BendtheBar]

Moved this to it's own thread...

I do high reps shrugs from time to time, but I don't know how to do them without heavy weight. I think recently I did 315 x 40 or 50.

In all reality, the difference between an 10 rep set of shrugs and a 20 rep set of shrugs isn't that much weight for most lifters. Both sets should be pretty darn heavy.

I guess I need TUT. TUT is the new progression...

[IronManlet]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

Moved this to it's own thread...

I do high reps shrugs from time to time, but I don't know how to do them without heavy weight. I think recently I did 315 x 40 or 50.

In all reality, the difference between an 10 rep set of shrugs and a 20 rep set of shrugs isn't that much weight for most lifters. Both sets should be pretty darn heavy.

I guess I need TUT. TUT is the new progression...

The reason everyone on there keeps bringing it up when I post is that I do them CnP style: no more than 5 reps per set. I recently just did 455 for 10 sets of 3, and they can't understand how that's helping my pulls.

In the meantime: my Traps are getting bigger and stronger, and my Deadlift is now much more solid at lockout.

My reasoning is that if you do Squats/Benching/Deadlifting with heavy weights to get stronger, it only makes sense to train every part of your body the same way. They're telling me to be using 275-315 for Shrugs when I can easily put up 405; peak contraction and all.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong and should start doing Pilates so I don't plateau.

[ElementalVirago]

Well, you know, this "Time Under Tension" concept makes perfect sense. My left trap is much bigger than my right from carrying everything from bags to children on my left side, so I guess if you just do high reps/low weight for 37 years you could see some progress.

[IronManlet]

Originally Posted by ElementalVirago

Well, you know, this "Time Under Tension" concept makes perfect sense. My left trap is much bigger than my right from carrying everything from bags to children on my left side, so I guess if you just do high reps for 37 years you could see some progress.

Maybe. Maybe I should try that; yeah...in about 30-40 years I should be able to pull 2 plates one-handed.

[BendtheBar]

Originally Posted by IronManlet

The reason everyone on there keeps bringing it up when I post is that I do them CnP style: no more than 5 reps per set.

I understand completely. I don't train with high reps. Never have. People are constantly debating the need to higher rep bodybuilding sets.

90% of my sets since I began training have been 8 reps and under. At least half of them have probably been 4 to 6 reps. Last year I trained with 90% of my sets between 2 and 4 reps, squats excluded.

I know I train with higher rep sets compared to you CnP guys, but my style is still considered "powerlifting" by most who see it and judge it. I've received comments on Youtube telling me I wasn't a bodybuilder, despite the fact that my arms are 19" and my quads 30".

The myth will never die..."low reps don't build muscle." It's under my avatar

You can definitely train with a focus on TUT, but you still need to push for more weight.

[IronManlet]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

I understand completely. I don't train with high reps. Never have. People are constantly debating the need to higher rep bodybuilding sets.

90% of my sets since I began training have been 8 reps and under. At least half of them have probably been 4 to 6 reps. Last year I trained with 90% of my sets between 2 and 4 reps, squats excluded.

I know I train with higher rep sets compared to you CnP guys, but my style is still considered "powerlifting" by most who see it and judge it. I've received comments on Youtube telling me I wasn't a bodybuilder, despite the fact that my arms are 19" and my quads 30".

The myth will never die..."low reps don't build muscle." It's under my avatar

You can definitely train with a focus on TUT, but you still need to push for more weight.

Your sets aren't that high; sometimes I'll take a few accessory lifts into the 5-6 rep range. My heavy stuff is 1,2, or 3 reps.

The funny thing is that I would think the PLing section would agree with what you're saying and advocate low rep sets. Instead, they're blabbering on about MMC, perfect form, proper rep range, etc. Even "respect for the weight."

I mean, who the fuk respects the weight?! Does HE looks like he respects the fuking weight: http://www.michiganapf.com/images/lifters/matt_k.jpg

It's very simple: you pick up a very heavy piece of metal as brutally as you can until you can't do it anymore; and you do that as often as you can. But people are trying to make something simple into a science.

[BendtheBar]

I don't even know what "respect for the weight" is supposed to mean.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds like an "out clause" or an excuse. I always use good form. It's hard not to respect the weight when it's ripping your arms off, or about to crush you.

[IronManlet]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

I don't even know what "respect for the weight" is supposed to mean.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds like an "out clause" or an excuse. I always use good form. It's hard not to respect the weight when it's ripping your arms off, or about to crush you.

Exactly. Maybe it's an excuse for being afraid of grabbing onto 400lbs or something. hahaha

[BendtheBar]

"Respect for the weight".

I can see it having some meaning with regards to periodization and CNS, but as I've said before...progression is progression is progression. Even if someone focuses on TUT, they still have to push for more.

...all roads lead back to heavy ass weight.