Slightly different strength training??

[dacicsak]

I couldnt add a better subject name for this. Here is an example to understand what i think of.

Let's say Pseudo Planche Pushup for exercise. My reps with correct form is 4. This is still requires strength for me, so i will do 3x3.

after i get better i do 3x5, and when i get even better i do 5x5. But after the 5x5 PPP is really easy for me, why i should do harder variations like wall planche pushup?

So my main question is: why dont we use program like this for every exercise?

Pseudo Planche Pushup

1. need a lot of strength to do the exercise: 3x3reps

2. getting better: 3x5

3. good: 5x5

4. nice you got it: 3x8

5. this stage is easy, with this endurance you can go on the harder variation with safety: 2x12

harder variation: Wall Planche Pushup

1. 3x3reps

2. 3x5

3. 5x5

4. 3x8

5. 2x12

And go on...

I think this is the same as the static strength training. When you learn advanced tuck planche or front lever, you dont go for 10 sec and saying hey im ready for the straddle...You must have to hit the 40sec or even the 60 sec to get safety on the next stage, and learn the scapula placement correctly. Because you get the 3x5 strength reps you should change on harder exercise, really?

Well i think you have to be good at that exercise that your strength is enough at...Then when you totally mastered it (2x12), you can go on.

What do you think? Is it a good program for every exercise? Here you still train for strength but improve that exercise much more.

Sorry for my english, i hope it is clear.

Thanks for your help!

[Blairbob]

Looks like some form of periodization in a sense.

Try it for yourself. Experiments need guinea pigs at some point. Possibly risky, but.

[Khassera]

There's nothing dangerous or inherently "wrong" about training this way. I do it all the time.

Since [this doesn't even need to be said, it should be obvious, and a universally accepted norm among athletes] every individual reacts to training differently, some tend to be better with longer sets, some do horribly. Some can't maintain form after 3-4 reps, but some can maintain a steady output of force for longer periods. Saying a certain rep range is anaerobic and another aerobic is generalization and a bit pigeonholed.

For example, I'm not exceptionally strong on longer reps, so I tend to go for shorter rep ranges with shorter pauses between sets, and it works for me. Depending on the exercise I might work up to 7-8 reps with the variation I'm currently on if the next variation feels totally out of my league. A good example of this would be the backlever. I worked up to the 15s mark and tried to hold an advanced tuck and it felt totally impossible. I continued with the tuck BL, worked up to a 40s tuck and tried again. I held the advanced tuck for 15s and I could also do a 3-5s straddle BL.

This goes to show that

1) Strength training (and training in general) is very much dependent on the day and your motivation (hormones might have something to do with this, at least that's what I always assume), and

2) Dogmatic approaches to rep ranges and volume yield mediocre results at best. Not listening to your body is the worst possible thing you can do to yourself. I should know, I suffered 7 months from a golfer's elbow (with total rest and rehab), and I just recently hurt my lumbar spine on a squat I just pushed too far. Classic examples of "this is how much I have to do to get better."

In a nutshell: If it feels good man, go for it.

Out of topic a bit, but I think it's somewhat related: I'd love to see some data on TUT for lower rep ranges and what it does to muscles. For example, holding a planche for a minute is tough stuff. It's bound to cause hypertrophy or strength increase. I can hold a frontlever for 5 seconds, I bet I'd be tons stronger if I could hold it for a minute. It seems logical, but just recently I heard of a study that claims tempo (in this example, super slow) lifting speed has no effect on protein synthesis. This seems really off when I think of it in the context I mentioned.