Go Back   Bodybuilding Forum - Bodybuilding.net > Members Section > Personal Journals

HIThoppers Training Journal

Personal Journals discussion on HIThoppers Training Journal, within the Members Section; Umm let me see if I understand what you mean The first option of simply backing off the weight is ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-21-2007, 04:25 PM   #31
HIThopper
Rank: Middleweight
 
HIThopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,029
Country:

Gender:
Default

Umm let me see if I understand what you mean

Quote:
The first option of simply backing off the weight is the best, IMO. You shouldn't change parameters so much if not necessary. Everything that can be kept simple and linear and still be progressed, at least in this type of routine, should be. That would mean a simple linear progression from Monday to Monday with a set amount of work. What is happening here is that you are producing complications where they are simply not needed and more complicated is never better.
So here do you mean If I were to stay at 5x3 just adding weight to that set amount of work until I stall? (15reps)
EG week1 90kg week2 91kg week3 92.5 kg and so on until I stall?

Quote:
In this case the best thing you could do, imo, is to add reps to the sets when you need to but carry over the weight, and hope you can re-establish progress. To do that you may need to back off the weight a bit also, but maybe not. I wouldn't stick with 3 reps for main work groups. It's not a good range for general strength. Of course there are no hard and fast rules and anything can work for a while but reps in the range of 4 to 6 produce a good tradeoff between neuromuscular and functional mass gains, i.e. general strength, providing of course there is enough work for the given individual
So here say I stall at 95 kg x 5x3 the following week would go say 95kgx5x4 reps(20)
then next week 95kgx5x5 (25)
then reset to 96 or 97kg x5x3 and build up from there again

Is this what you mean Eric?
HIThopper is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 04:53 PM   #32
EricT
Rank: Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
EricT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Country:

Gender:
Default

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, but you got it anyway .

I was speaking from the general in the first paragraph to the specific (your case) in the last. So yes, what it comes down to is the approach you described. EXCEPT, I didn't mean when you stall. I meant if and when you find that no PR's are not being made. So this approach is for if that happens before you stall.

If you wait until you stall then I doubt very much that approach would work. But if you continue to make PR's for the most part but stall out on the 5x3 then the best approach would going straight to 5x5 with a back off in weight to build up for a few weeks. If you stalled on the 5x3 and just switched off to the 5x5 (even with adding reps for two weeks to get there) I don't think you'd progress as far.

I think this set-up has become a "produce weekly PR's" thing instead of a progression thing for many. Let's not forget the main way to get stronger...simple progression (as simple as you can get away with) and THAT is the best way to produce those PR's.

EricT's Sig:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
or
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you act sanctimonious I will just list out your logical fallacies until you get pissed off and spew blasphemous remarks.
EricT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 05:37 PM   #33
HIThopper
Rank: Middleweight
 
HIThopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,029
Country:

Gender:
Default

Thanks heaps for your time Eric I really appreciate it.


I like that setup it sounds great and would help with making sure my form is spot on before weight is added.I think my ego and the fact that I really want to hit a 300 squat someday may be gettin in my way!!
HIThopper is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2007, 11:31 PM   #34
Jeffo
Rank: Member
Experience: 10+ Years
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Holland
Posts: 99
Country:

Default

Cool ideas!

I'll add that when you back off on stress day you normally have to back off on Performance day as well. Unless you'd been overreaching and were in a state of fatigue, in which case a back off will probably allow PR's to continue for a week or two, reducing the workload on stress day would mean there just isn't enough stress to spur PR's at the end of the week anymore.

Eric's offered some pretty good ideas. If you want to continue with triples on stress day though, just use the same principle but move up the sets instead of reps from 5x3 towards 8x3. That would be another option for a while.

Cheers,
Jeff

PS: Don't get too caught up with a 300 lb squat. You'll get there in due time.
Jeffo is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 10:17 AM   #35
EricT
Rank: Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
EricT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Country:

Gender:
Default

On these PR days the PR's are like any other PR you will ever make in your life....they are relative maxes. Meaning they are based on your ability at that time.

Now you are NOT supposed to link the stress day with the PR day in a progressive or tied together sense. Stress days are linked to the next stress day and PR days are linked to the next PR day, if anything. So that would mean one would hope to see some sort of straight forward progression between on PR day and the next.

But here's the point of it. There is no need to back off on PR days in order to artificially follow some pattern of the stress days. The trick is a basic skill that everyone needs to learn who doesn't have a coach or trainer guiding them. And that is to be able to come into a "PR" day and be able to make an educated guess as to their ability. Plan their warmups accordingly. Build up to the max attempt slowly and systematcially and, going, by the feel of that warmup and acclimation, further refine their guess as to what they will be able to lift for the attempt.

That is something that gets easier with time.

But the if the PR is basically a product of you fitness at any one time then there is no reason, in any shape or form, to back off it like you're doing intenstiy cycling. That day is also a day to gauge the effectiveness of what you are doing. If you tie it together with the stress day then that goes out the window. The fact is that you are trying NOT to regress. You don't want your PR's to go DOWN even if you back off the weight on stress day or whatever. For instance if you were to back off the weight on volume day too far and drop intensity below a certain percentage, so instead of just recovering you actually lose back track a little...that might be reflected on PR day.

So what happens on PR day can be used to determine what changes need to be made to the routine. But not if you monkey with PR day.

Anyway, nothing wrong with 8x3 but it just normally works better to start with the higher rep sets, 5x5, and then go to something like 8x3 in order to keep it going.
EricT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 04:40 PM   #36
HIThopper
Rank: Middleweight
 
HIThopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,029
Country:

Gender:
Default

AWESOME Stuff keep it comin Eric
HIThopper is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 07:18 PM   #37
marv
Rank: Member
Experience: 2-3 Years
 
marv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 293
Country:

Gender:
Default

Yeah Great Read!!

Your in good hands Hopper. Discussions like this really help me understand this program.

Marv.
marv is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2007, 11:57 PM   #38
HIThopper
Rank: Middleweight
 
HIThopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,029
Country:

Gender:
Default

Cheers Marv!! I agree these blokes really know their stuff, so glad I came to this site!

Stress Day 24/9/07

Squat 5x3 92.5kg felt a bit heavy but not too bad
Bench 5x3 72.5kg Fairly easy
Chin 5x5 BW+6.25kg felt great

Overall not a bad workout, I felt like I wasnt quite driving my hips and shoulders at the same time on squats which is what is making them feel a bit heavy.Ill get it going again I seemed to have lost my groove a little with the ol squats
I also did a couple light box squats after my workout (1 set just 2 reps) and I must say they felt fantastic I could really feel them throughout my quads and hams.
HIThopper is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2007, 08:42 AM   #39
Jeffo
Rank: Member
Experience: 10+ Years
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Holland
Posts: 99
Country:

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric3237 View Post
Now you are NOT supposed to link the stress day with the PR day in a progressive or tied together sense. Stress days are linked to the next stress day and PR days are linked to the next PR day, if anything. So that would mean one would hope to see some sort of straight forward progression between on PR day and the next.
Interesting. I understand that a PR attempt is simply an expression of your current preparedness (fitness - fatigue), but if the volume day drops off then the PR day should drop as well, unless you'd been working with some accumulated fatigue. If fatigue is present, then PR's can continue as fatigue dissipates. If not, then the reduced volume won't be enough stress to improve/retain fitness and it'll drop. At least that's how I understand it as of now. You know this stuff better than I do so what am I missing?

I've also always thought that one PR doesn't lead to another once a bunch of progress has been made. If one PR lead to another, HIT would actually work and volume day wouldn't be necessary. I do understand that volume day is linked to the next volume day, but have always thought of PR day is an expression of your current preparedness. That is tied to volume day as volume day is what's building fitness. I've never thought of PR day as the "stress" for the next PR day and it's simply independant of everything else. What am I missing here?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
But the if the PR is basically a product of you fitness at any one time then there is no reason, in any shape or form, to back off it like you're doing intenstiy cycling.
Sure, but I've always thought of it slightly differently. I've always thought of the PR attempt as an expression, or product, of your preparedness at any one time, not just your fitness. If fitness goes down, which is tied to volume day, then so does preparedness and the weight on PR day will have to drop some. I wasn't referring to "Intensity Cycling" per se, but simply expecting to have to use less weight on your maximal attempt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
For instance if you were to back off the weight on volume day too far and drop intensity below a certain percentage, so instead of just recovering you actually lose back track a little...that might be reflected on PR day.

So what happens on PR day can be used to determine what changes need to be made to the routine. But not if you monkey with PR day.

OK, yeah. That's what I was getting at. That would mean that PR day and Stress Day are linked in at least some way.

Define "monkey"

Nice post by the way.

Cheers,
Jeff

PS: Hops, I hope you don't mind us talking about this stuff in your log. Good session mate.
Jeffo is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2007, 09:54 AM   #40
EricT
Rank: Heavyweight
Experience: 7-10 Years
 
EricT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,314
Country:

Gender:
Default

You are right in all the technicalities, Jeff. And when I say that the volume day is not linked to the intensity day I only mean they are not linked from a linear progressive standpoint. In other words, you do not use the volume day to "predict" the PR day. Intstead the PR day in some sense predicts the next PR day.

Yes, one PR does not lead to another...for the most part.

Quote:
Interesting. I understand that a PR attempt is simply an expression of your current preparedness (fitness - fatigue), but if the volume day drops off then the PR day should drop as well, unless you'd been working with some accumulated fatigue. If fatigue is present, then PR's can continue as fatigue dissipates. If not, then the reduced volume won't be enough stress to improve/retain fitness and it'll drop. At least that's how I understand it as of now. You know this stuff better than I do so what am I missing?
You're getting highly technical with the fitness and preparedness stuff I just said fitness because it was a general term that most people would have some idea of. But you're right about preparedness so let me give a highly techinical explanation of all this.

Training stumulus gives rise to two things: fitness and fatigue.
So the 'fitness' is the postive affect of the training stimulus. The fatigue is the negative affect. The presense of fatigue 'masks' the presence of fitness. PREPAREDNESS is simply the summation of the afteraffects of those...basically the difference between them or what is left to work with given the two different effects.

In a way, you've answered you're on question except to misunderstand what a back off is. A backoff is never done to the point that it allows you to "lose" fitness. Only to the point that it allows accumulated fatigue to drop enough so that the gains in fitness that are occuring as you recover can be shown...i.e. greater "preparedness".

I think you may be overestimating what it takes to allow this. The idea is just to reestablish progress not to actually drop in maximal ability. That is not going to predict what will happen on PR days but only that PR attempts should be continued. At any one time on the program just go for a single heavy set on PR day.

This part is the most important:

Quote:
If not, then the reduced volume won't be enough stress to improve/retain fitness and it'll drop.
There is a huge difference between the stress required to improve fitness and that required to maintain it. This is really fundamental stuff when if comes to strength. But without getting into different kinds of strength and all that let me point out that we would be in big trouble if we always had to maintain the same volume in order to retain strength! Sure, sometimes you may take two steps forward one step back but that is not always the way. It is quite possible to take one step forward, rest, take another step forward....etc, so on.

But in terms of absolute strength as long as intensity doesn't drop with much less volume than it took to get them. How much and how often is up to the individual and their level of advancement.

You understand this better than most but in your quest for perfection I think you may be overcomplicating it .

Last edited by EricT; 09-24-2007 at 12:24 PM..
EricT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Bodybuilding Forum - Bodybuilding.net > Members Section > Personal Journals


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.