Go Back   Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum > >


Sets and Reps



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-16-2006, 09:11 AM
911's Avatar
911 911 is offline
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 36
Default Sets and Reps

Ok...Ok my bad for asking a stupid question but for 3 days I have religiously searched the forum and found no references. I was talking to one of the guys I know "mistake #1" he was a runt for ever and a day and now he puts up some impressive weights. So any way he was saying that he does his sets "5X5" with out changing positions ie: 5 sets of 5 bench press' without moving to another set in between as appossed to say 5 benchs then 5 seated rows and so on he claims this gave him better result?? Any thoughts?
__________________
"BOOM"

DONT STARE AT MY GUN, PLEASE :bigeyes:
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-16-2006, 06:44 PM
Dr X's Avatar
Dr X Dr X is offline
Rank: Lightweight
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the deep recesses of your mind
Posts: 1,094
Default

0311 has a post on the 5x5 routine
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-16-2006, 07:17 PM
911's Avatar
911 911 is offline
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 36
Default

True and I have read it repeatedly. I think that I should reword my post. I am wondering if spliting the sets up is beneficial or detremental ie: should you do 5 sets of 5 benchs press' with out without doing anything in between the 5 sets. When I lifted "back in the day" I was told to break up my sets by doing say 5 reps on the bench then 5 reps of seated rows and so on until you have done all of your sets. This guy is telling me to set down do my seated rows for example with out moving to another excersize until all 5 sets of 5 are complete. I would think that is more like just doing 25 reps and calling it good, but I am a little out of date to say the least, thus the reasoning behind joining this forum to benefit from your experiance and knowledge.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-17-2006, 08:33 AM
ChinPieceDave667's Avatar
ChinPieceDave667 ChinPieceDave667 is offline
Rank: Middleweight
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: 7th layer.. or DC.
Posts: 2,329
Default

finish all sets of 5x5 for lets say bench, then move on 5x5 rows. so you should finish all sets of one exercise then move to the next one.
__________________
Yesterday is History, Tomorrow a Mystery, Today is a Gift, Thats why it's called the Present.

MONSTER: My Strength Endurance Journal, Part 2: The Strength Endurance Journal Returns <--NEW

BULKING: My 5X5 Journal

CUTTING: My CKD Max-OT Journal, My HST Cutting Journal


Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-17-2006, 09:04 AM
911's Avatar
911 911 is offline
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 36
Default

Thanks man. :You_Rock_Emoticon:
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-17-2006, 06:53 PM
Protobuilder Protobuilder is offline
Rank: New Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 6
Default

In Periodization Training for Sports, Bompa calls this horizontal vs. vertical training. Vertical would be what chinpiece is suggesting -- complete all 5 sets of bench before moving on. Horizontal is the opposite. Bompa recommends horizontal and points to some other people who agree. I believe Bill Starr set it up this way too, b/c he was running a lot of guys through the program and you can only have so many benches. LoL The thinking is, you're really doing strength training, and you want long rests anyway. Rotating through the exercises gives you more rest. Personally, I like it that way too. There's a fancy scientific phrase for it, but I don't know what it's called, but it's something about your nervous system handling the task better if you switch to back and forth between tasks.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Bodybuilding.net - Bodybuilding Forum > >


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 02:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.