Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HIThopper
Quality over quantity, but also what constitutes quality, is it bar speed is it feeling the muscles work more? certainly gets the mind ticking over anyways.
|
Well bar speed is something you "pay attention to" doing SS or any of this kind of thing. But that is not the same as the extreme version of what I am saying.
If you take it to it's extreme then "quality" would mean that you strived to have your last rep as good as your first (good) rep. So with the same perfect form and the same speed. Obviously to try to do that with SS would just be throwing out the baby with the bath water. But that doesn't mean you can't pay a little more attention to quality as a means sustaind progression.
Usually the thing about bar speed is something along the lines of your last three or so reps being very slow so then maybe you decide to hold the weight over (most won't). Basically you have a "reactive" way of training instead of a "proactive". Hell this is the way most people injur themselves. They wait until they fuck up and "react" instead of paying attention and taking a proactive role. So it's the same way with bar speed and form. You wait until it goes to shit and then you "react" by holding over the weight or backing off or whatever the circumstances dictate. Reactive.
Proactive would be paying attention and learning to anticipate what is going to happen on that next rep or the next few reps and taking measures to have that next rep be as good and quick as the one before just like I was explaining. That is difficult to do but it can be learned.
Let's take an easier example. Your on you second set and the last two reps barely go up. Your form sucks and it is a complete grinder. So that's ten reps with two of them sucking. Then you take your rest and manage to get one more shitty rep in. sMaybe two. So 11 or 12 total reps. And then you hold the weight over. And maybe you get some more reps but a lot of them suck as well. Then before you know it even if you advance in weight you need a backoff.
Okay so what if in that same scenario you're on your second set. You get to rep three and you know that your form is about to break down and the bar has begun to slow down. So instead of pounding out two crappy slow reps you rerack, rest a short time and then you get both of those reps good. Then you take a good rest and you get two or three more good ones for you last set. Another rest and you do the next double good too (maybe a little farfetched but possible). Who can tell me that those 15 good reps aren't better than those 11 or 12 reps with three shitty ones.
You're recovery will be pretty much the same. Then you hold the weight over and see what happens. What is wrong with that? You've actually done more reps at the same intensity and all of those reps of a higher quality. Who can tell me that is not a good thing?
Traditionally we think of getting a certain number of reps and sets done in a certain period of time. We have these notions of rest periods and all that. You even get people making ridiculous rules like only ever rest two minutes. And of course doing more or the same work in less time is a way of progressing. BUT that is progress. At any given time and any given intensity, I could argue that more reps is more reps.
If you take Stahley for an expample and his escalation density stuff you would pick a weight and work on doing as many reps as possible in a given time frame. Like 20 minutes. Then you would work on reducing that time in subsequent workouts. At least that is how the "hypertrophy" protocal works, I'm not really sure about the strength part. But, that kind of thing will make you stronger and bigger up to a point.
But look at the time frame of 20 minutes and compare that to the time frame you would do your typical 5x5 exercise. It's a lot more time. You will be able to do a lot more reps. There have been studies comparing different rest periods and the number of reps subjects can do with a certain RM given these different rests. And of course between 1 minute rest periods and 5 minutes rest periods the 5 minute ones did like 6 to 8 more reps (I should note that the difference between 1 and 2 minutes turned out to be pretty much nonsignificant).
Ok so you could argue that it took a lot more time to do that and that would be valid since "in theory" the amount of work done in a given unit of time is what is important. But I could argue that they did 6 more reps with their 6RM and also "in theory" more reps done at a certain intensity may be a very important way of gaining strength. So like everything not the only way but not something that should be discounted. Especially if you took that initial period and reduced it.
But this is all given by way of illustrating my point. To take this and try to apply it in some type of rigid way to SS would be ridiculous as I said before. But I could give many example of how this applies to all sorts of training scenarios. Like instead of doing a heavy 3x3 you could pick 90 to 95% and just try to do as many GOOD reps as possible, regardless if that is singles, doubles, or triples. Try either one of those and I guarantee the second one is going to serve you better. That is not to say that I think all traing should be like that, I'm just talking about a tool that not many ever seem to consider.