Super high sets and low reps for size AND strength??

Okay, I actually haven't trained hardly at all for the last 10 days because of really bad sleep and lack of time, but now that my schedule is much more open (more free time for learning and training!) and I've set up an awesome area training at any hour, I'm really super pumped to get back into things 1000%.

This is NOT another "how do I get big" post, by the way.

Actually, I have two questions.

Number 1) My routine is basically four days a week of super high set (15 and raising) and low rep (3) supersets (ex. pull ups/dips, sls/ghr, rows/wall handstands, deadlifts/1armDBshrugs) with about 60 seconds between each exercise in the superset (exercise 1, 30s rest, exercise 2, 30s rest). I do AIS in the upper body rest times and upper body prehab during lower body rest times. The three reps are in my 6RM range, so do you think this is developing, at least somewhat, maximal strength?

Number 2) MB from LeanGains seems to believe that anything besides walking/really light cardio between three day a week strength workouts will be detrimental to body recomp or strength development. I'm a bit dubious about the truth in that. Do you think that if I did about an hour of martial arts bag work and practice on Wednesday and Saturday that it would make a noticeable difference in my strength/recomp gains?

Hopefully I will start getting better sleep so I can wake up early and train again. I have really bad insomnia and I don't know why!

Thanks.

MB is coming from the standpoint of carrying the absolute maximum amount of muscle possible. In that sense he probably has a point.

That has absolutely nothing to do with athletic performance, they are totally separate.

If you want absolute maximum strength you need to be working your muscles 7 days a week 1-3x per day. De-training can begin in less than 24 hours post-stimulus. You don't need a massive stimulus, just a few reps of working weight can be enough.

Your scheme is in the right range but is probably developing work capacity more than absolute strength. As far as size goes, you may be doing too much. If you can do that many sets with your 6RM using 60-120s rest times, chances are about 100% that it isn't your 6RM anymore. I am personally not a fan of supersets for this type of workout, and your rest times are a bit too high if you are doing supersets. 30s rest should be plenty between the exercises. You don't want to take more than 60s rest total, including your other exercise in the superset, unless you absolutely have to and once you're over 2 minutes your workout is done because you are starting to hit fatigue.

You will be better served by doing a session of this type of work 2-3x per week with less sets and this rest scheme rather than what you are doing for the simple reason that you will be exposing the muscle to more stress per unit of time with less total damage, which leads to a larger net adaptation.

slizzardman said:

MB is coming from the standpoint of carrying the absolute maximum amount of muscle possible. In that sense he probably has a point.

That has absolutely nothing to do with athletic performance, they are totally separate.

If you want absolute maximum strength you need to be working your muscles 7 days a week 1-3x per day. De-training can begin in less than 24 hours post-stimulus. You don't need a massive stimulus, just a few reps of working weight can be enough.

Your scheme is in the right range but is probably developing work capacity more than absolute strength. As far as size goes, you may be doing too much. If you can do that many sets with your 6RM using 60-120s rest times, chances are about 100% that it isn't your 6RM anymore. I am personally not a fan of supersets for this type of workout, and your rest times are a bit too high if you are doing supersets. 30s rest should be plenty between the exercises. You don't want to take more than 60s rest total, including your other exercise in the superset, unless you absolutely have to and once you're over 2 minutes your workout is done because you are starting to hit fatigue.

You will be better served by doing a session of this type of work 2-3x per week with less sets and this rest scheme rather than what you are doing for the simple reason that you will be exposing the muscle to more stress per unit of time with less total damage, which leads to a larger net adaptation.

Hmm. You are definitely right about MB.

I'm not really going for absolute maximal strength right now, but I'd like to get strong while not skipping out on any size that would normally come with it.

Just in case I didn't make it clear earlier, I was getting about 50 seconds total rest per superset (about 20 seconds between each exercise). Supersets are nice because they seem to save time, but regular sets

I'm not focusing on leg size outside of what would just happen, but I am (right now) for upper body a bit. You think 10x3 upper body two times a week is good? You wrote a very comprehensive routine 5x5 progressive routine a month or two back, I'm thinking about using that for lower body stuff and posterior chain.

You have to experiment with the frequency yourself and see what kind of results you get, everyone is different and what works for you will change over time as your body becomes a more efficient healing and adaptation machine.

1) I would go with the standard accumulation/intensification scheme here that Ido always tells people to follow. It will yield excellent results for the simplicity of it's programming. You will probably see some size increase during the accumulation phase and than some strength increase during the intensification scheme, which sounds like exactly what you are looking for. The scheme you laid out does not look to be good for maximal strength, or size, to me. (personal opinion)

2) Anything you do outside of eating/sleeping/lifting will be detrimental to results in size and strength, the degree to which it retards the progress though is debatable. If your goal is to get really big it wouldn't be smart to run, but if your goal is to get big (notice the lack of "really" modifier) and be proficient in areas outside of being big, than do it. The more things you try to juggle the harder it is, but this is the only way to become a better juggler. (horrible analogy?)

BlLL said:

1) I would go with the standard accumulation/intensification scheme here that Ido always tells people to follow. It will yield excellent results for the simplicity of it's programming. You will probably see some size increase during the accumulation phase and than some strength increase during the intensification scheme, which sounds like exactly what you are looking for. The scheme you laid out does not look to be good for maximal strength, or size, to me. (personal opinion)

2) Anything you do outside of eating/sleeping/lifting will be detrimental to results in size and strength, the degree to which it retards the progress though is debatable. If your goal is to get really big it wouldn't be smart to run, but if your goal is to get big (notice the lack of "really" modifier) and be proficient in areas outside of being big, than do it. The more things you try to juggle the harder it is, but this is the only way to become a better juggler. (horrible analogy?)

1) That's basically what everyone who has ever been successful does, you have to start out with whatever your body tolerates well and slowly work into more volume from there. It's more or less exactly what the 10x3 is all about.

Note: I will point out that you better do a single set of higher rep work to positive failure at least 3 days a week. If you don't, you WILL lose the endurance adaptations that you currently have and those lower motor units will be somewhat de-trained which WILL detract from overall strength and size.

2) That's not true until you get fairly close to your "genetic limits." Even at my size I'm gaining muscle, and I'm doing quite a lot of work outside of lifting, eating, and sleeping. The key is to be very specific about what intensities you use, when you work things, and how much you do because you're right: If you try and run half-marathons at a competitive speed you are going to have to be the size of the competitive guys, and that means you're going to have to lose weight. The training required to get to that level will pretty much force the weight loss.

Note: The take home from this is that you need to make one of a few decisions (you can always change your mind at any point, but switching goals too frequently will lead to stagnation and frustration).

A) Pick a specialty and focus on that and the necessary prehab to maintain forward progress.

B) Pick a specialty and train for other things as well, understanding that even though you will be very good at your specialty you will not be #1 unless you happen to pick a specialty that you have extraordinary genetic gifts for that allow you to surpass the performance of others despite not being able to attain your personal peak in that area. Also understand that you will never be the best in the areas that are not your specialty.

C) Try to develop everything evenly. You will never be the best at anything but you will be way above average around the board.

These are the three basic choices we have as athletes. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I like B. C is fun too, and I may go there down the road as I get older, but right now I like B.

Mr. Slizzardman,

Lot of good points in your post, some I agree and some I think we might be saying similar things in different tones, but I do want to highlight the importance of not switching goals frequently, as you pointed out. This is an area where I think many people get tripped up, and flounder around for years not understanding why they never make progress. I have a friend who has a new fitness "thing" every other month it seems. Yoga to spinning to lifting to bodyweight to running to biking to lifting to kayaking and on and on it goes. He always looks the same, I always say stick with something to get results, and he never listens.

Consistency is such a large part of results, but for some reason it doesn't get the airtime that eating and training do. So people change their diets and training direction every month, following the every changing advice of experts, and never look like the people in the magazines. Well planned and timed change is great, haphazard and sporadic is not. If you haven't stuck with something for 6 months, you don't get to comment on it's effectiveness.

(Obviously this is not aimed at you specifically, I just think it's important to reiterate for anyone who may happen upon this page)

Sliz, what is "positive failure"?

BlLL said:

1) I would go with the standard accumulation/intensification scheme here that Ido always tells people to follow. It will yield excellent results for the simplicity of it's programming. You will probably see some size increase during the accumulation phase and than some strength increase during the intensification scheme, which sounds like exactly what you are looking for. The scheme you laid out does not look to be good for maximal strength, or size, to me. (personal opinion)

Hi, Bill. Can you give me a link to a page with more details about the accumulation/intensification scheme?

Positive failure = last good rep, which is generally discovered when you perform your first slightly crappy rep.

Bill I am with you 100% and I hope everyone remembers those words! Consistency is #1.

Thanks a lot, Sliz and Bill.