Increasing Strength

[Fazc]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

That's what I've been using for the last 8 months.

Looked to me like you've been doing multiple singles at 90% and/or various assistance during the week also. Not just one top single at 90%.

[BendtheBar]

Talking to Brute in the SB, and wanted to share this.

How do you know if you're using enough weight for heavy singles?

If you hit rep 2 and aren't considering alternative programming methods, the weight is too light.

[BendtheBar]

From an ancient T-Nation post...

Originally Posted by mertdawg

1) Technically, I believe what Louie Simmons refers to as the Conjugate Method is simply the method of rotating special ME excercises, not his entire system of periodization.

Quote:
The conjugate method is the answer. This is a complex method of rotating special exercises that are close in nature, in our case, to the powerlifts.

The Russians and Bulgarians used this method up until the mid 80s, but apparently abandoned for a simple approach involving only A)Squats for strength and B) The classic full clean, snatch and if needed a press-but with LOTS of lighter work-thousands of leg raises, hundreds of back extensions-but not for maximal weights. I think this shift occured because they were selecting OLers very young and were getting guys who were so ideally built for the classic lifts that the other lifts became unimportant.

2) I think that these intensive squat routines are a joke. I think they produce short term neural drive such as fully activating the hips and tightening the core. I think you can get the results of the Smolov routine with one week of intensive work or even 2 days straight of squatting-say 10 x 3 at 80% one workout, 10 x 3 with 10-15 pounds more, and 10 x 3 with another 10-15 pounds more, then take a couple days off and hit a max, but I think this would work only once maybe in a six month period.

3) The lasting Russian research is that you have to cycle loads of 70-90%, with 70% being ideal to reset neuromuscular firing rates, 80% to maintain strength and 90% to go to the next level.

3) I have considered that the "cycling of special exercises" works not because you can push 100% all the time, but because YOU ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH in the new exercise to kill yourself for two to three week. then you get good enough and have to switch so you don't overreach. No research has shown that a true max effort builds strength at all, but tons have shown that 3-10 total reps at 90% DO! I have seen people go from 500 to 600 in 2 weeks in say a certain height of rack pull. They were not efficient enough to push 100% of their true capacity from the first week-and yet they got stronger.

4) I think that approaching overtraining and then cutting back is critical to long term improvement, but I think that most people may begin with 3-4 weeks of increasing volume and 3-4 weeks of cut back, but by the time they are pretty stong, these time frames drop to 1-2 weeks each. the Russians actually had their guys building volume for only 3-4 days followed by 3-4 days cut back. I have also found that despite this pattern working for long term improvement, I was always STRONGEST about 1 week after I had bumped the volume BACK UP AGAIN.

5) I think the key with Westside is short cycles, and a cycling of lighter loads 50-70% to restore the neuromuscular firing rate. 13 week cycles don't work if you start with high volume and gradually reduce. You lose your power and you loose your special strengths withing 2-3 weeks.

[BendtheBar]

the Russians actually had their guys building volume for only 3-4 days followed by 3-4 days cut back. I have also found that despite this pattern working for long term improvement, I was always STRONGEST about 1 week after I had bumped the volume BACK UP AGAIN.

Made me wonder if he was ramming for 3-4 days, the deloading a week.

[jaymax]

Thanks for digging up that great post BTB.

On point 3 I had always thought it "works" so to speak because you have advanced lifters essentially maxing out every time they get under the bar. If you're benching 500 for a max single you aren't going to be going in the following 2 weeks and hit a 5 lb PR 3 weeks in a row just isn't going to happen.

Again, if they used the method of adding a single it would probably work better you aren't going to see progression that fast when maxing out.

[jaymax]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

Talking to Brute in the SB, and wanted to share this.

How do you know if you're using enough weight for heavy singles?

If you hit rep 2 and aren't considering alternative programming methods, the weight is too light.

Too true. If you "think" you can hit a few more singles but it's gonna be hell you're in the ballpark.

[jaymax]

Philosophical strength training question...

Does submaximal (less than 70%) volume contribute to strength gains when preceeded by heavy sets or not? Example: I wouldn't gain strength off just a single heavy set of 5 but if I added additional volume (a few sets of 10 at say 60%) would it add to the strength component or not? 5/3/1 for example. Are those that gain strength off of that just intermediates that could gain strength off one top set or does the additional volume make a real difference?

[BendtheBar]

The more I tinker and experiment, the more I see the 3 big lifts as having unique needs. For example, squats I could nearly work up to a max single for the day, and see progress. I worked max singles 2-3 times per week over the last year. Mostly 3x a week.

I started doing this with 465 singles last year. As the singles felt lighter I added weight. Tomorrow I will be up to 550 max singles, as my last 3 runs with 545 were very easy.

This same approach hasn't worked well with deadlifts or bench. I have found that deadlifts seem to function better with some form of periodization, when I am not ramming heavy every week. Bench press I seemed to need slightly less frequent workouts, but more reps per workout. 2x a week seems to be the sweet spot for me right now - one heavier day, one rep day.

So I guess my point is that when I see statements that generalize all 3 lifts under the same blanket, I tend to recoil a bit. I am specifically referencing this quote:

3) The lasting Russian research is that you have to cycle loads of 70-90%, with 70% being ideal to reset neuromuscular firing rates, 80% to maintain strength and 90% to go to the next level.

Don't get me wrong...I've read this guy's posts at T-Nation and he knows 200x what I do about strength training. I respect him greatly, and wish I had his Westside knowledge.

I think we all would agree that for the advanced lifter, personal experience must be woven with concepts like the above. It's easy to read that quote and start doing a Wendler style 3 week periodization, or start doing a longer term block periodization.

I certainly don't want to step in here and make poo poo with my ignorance, but I did want to interject the thought that each lift can be a unique baby for each lifter, and that not every lift will fit in well with concepts that work for other lifts.

Does that make sense?

[BendtheBar]

Originally Posted by jaymax

Philosophical strength training question...

Does submaximal (less than 70%) volume contribute to strength gains when preceeded by heavy sets or not?

I think they help add muscle mass, which contributes to strength building. And the progression on them builds strength.

If I were training someone on 531, I would almost always recommend more volume on squats and bench press after the money set. This is how I set things up for Jen on the forum.

I don't know if I am answering your question, but no, I don't think one single money set a week is the most efficient way to add strength for late beginners to intermediates. I think additional rep work is needed to build bases. I'm not sure a 5x10 at 50% is something I will every recommend; I like a 3x10, leaving room for an extra assistance exercise, but that's really splitting hairs as both are effective.

[jaymax]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

I certainly don't want to step in here and make poo poo with my ignorance, but I did want to interject the thought that each lift can be a unique baby for each lifter, and that not every lift will fit in well with concepts that work for other lifts.

Does that make sense?

Yes. For me the deadlift is a completely different animal than squats and bench in terms of what they respond to. For me squats and bench seem to react similarly to "most" training protocols. The exception being, and here is where the uniqueness for each lifter comes in, is that I've noticed squats don't respond to higher frequencies as well as bench.

And this is a bit off-topic but the odd thing for me is that rows and chins don't at all respond the same for me. I can make progress on rows doing basically the same thing as I do for bench but NOTHING I do improves my chinup performance save maybe really high frequency which I've never tried for them.