More on Density

Yes that increases density and that is good but it drops the total volume, which may in this case be appropriate but I think it may be too heavy.

Well the reason it's confusing is because you are using stepped sets (or at least different weights). If it had been all the same weight sets then it would be very clear.

volume is reps x sets

workload is reps x sets x weight

Simple enough right.

Here is why you are confused. You are looking at individual weights. You are thinking 450 versus 455 versus 435 and all of that. What you have to realize is that when you are increasing density and volume, you are really only concerned with the average intensity.

The difference between 435 and 455 is about 4 percent. The difference between 450 and 455 is negligible. That means for the purposes of these workouts, whether you hit 455 versus 450 really doesn't matter. And if you were to choose all sorts of weights between 435 and 455 it still wouldn't matter if you were able to keep the average instensity on par.

Get the average intensity:

Take the workload: 6585

And divide it be the total sets: 15

439 is the average

So that is your median weight.

So think about that as all you HAVE to do on average in terms of weight. Then think about the top weights 450 or 455 as what you'd LIKE to do.

Now I don't know what you are able to put on the bar. But say you did 440 x 4 x 4. That would increase density while keeping the intensity within the proper range.

But since you looking to 'blitz' it for a short time period, you would LIKE to go heavier.

So any thing heavier than that 440 for sets of 4 would do it. And you'd need at least 4 sets. Preferably at least one of those sets at 450 or 455 but it is not completely necessary at all.

Your plan increases the density of the sets but it lowers the volume so that within the time frame of the workout the total density is lower.

Look at density as the amount of work you do in a certain time frame. Well there are different time frames within a workout, right?

One timeframe is the time from the beginning of one rest period to the end of the next, for instance. The beginning and end can be any point of reference, really.

Say the rest period is 5 minutes, then a set, then another 5 minute rest periods. The time it takes you to do the reps is negligible. That is, assuming you are doing one after another as quick as you can safely, the time it would take to add another rep or two doesn't add time to your frame.

So assuming all that, you add reps to any set you increase the density in that way.

But there is also the timeframe of the entire session. If you take the individual sets and increase them all by one you've added maybe, what, 10 seconds or so to each of your time-frames. As far as your body is concerned the work has increased a LOT per unit of time.

Just increasing work per unit of time, in itself is increasig density. If you decrease the overall volume so that you are asking your body to do less overall work it's like you've traded work per unit of time for volume of work, see? So you want to try and at least match the overall volume..reps x sets.

And within that you think about workload. If you can match or beat the workload that would be great but workload is what throws us under the bus. Instead, think about the average intensity like I explained above and then think about maybe hitting your upper weight limits for at least one of your sets. And that set doesn't even have to be more dense.

Now, I know we don't time our workout precisely. This is not 'density' training. We are assuming that our rest periods are reasonably similar and our rep cadense is fairly constant. So your workout is separated into several timeframes that contain a set, and those timeframes make up the total time which is the session.

As long as you increase work in some, most, or all of those timeframes and don't do less overal volume or take more overall time..you've increased density.

It's hard to spell this out in a precise way. It's quite intuitive.

Workload vs. Volume

Just so you know, for the future..the total pounds are 'work'. Commonly referred to as workload. That is NOT the same as volume which is just reps x sets with no thought as to how heavy. You can have a very high volume and a very low workload being the weights are light.

When I say volume I simply mean weights x reps. The point was that you could have increased density by just doing the same stuff in less sets. So what took you 4 sets of 2 say it takes you 3sets of 3 (+ 1 rep). That's not considering the workload as such.

So why would you consider the workload in that situation? Because it gives you an indication of the relative intensity of the workout. I.E say you did the 3 x 3 so that's 9 reps. You'd want you workload to hopefully be the same as the doubles and you know you've maintained the relative intensity.

What you did was consider workload as the same as volume causing you to try a BEAT the previous workload. Meaning you might have thrown yourself under a bus. It's nice to beat the workload but all you needed to do was more or less maintain intensity while increasing density and maybe increasing volume a little bit. That would have at least matched or beat the workload a little bit.
Right now it's hard to say what to do next because you kind of jumped the gun so we'll need to go by how you feel.

Given all that is sounds like you had a good session and you're happy so that is good.

Just never mix up volume and workload again.

Next 4 weeks on Deadlifts

So, last few workouts:

Week 1 = 415x2, 425x2, 435x2, 435x2 & 445x2

Week 2 = 415x2, 435x2, 455x2, 455x2 & 435x2

Week 3 = 415x5, 425x2, 420x5, 430x2 & 425x5

Week 4 = 420x2, 430x2 & 430x5

After this, Eric said:

So you pretty much ended up doing exactly what I wrote. And my preference would be for you to increase volume and density like I said in the last line there and THEN do singles. But it depends on your hands. If you hands are going to be giving you fits it will be easier to do singles probably, right? Since you won't have to hold on to the bar as long. If your hands are not an issue then increase the volume and density for the next couple of weeks, then backing off a bit for one week and then hitting singles will be to your best advantage.

I am talking about just increasing the volume/density a bit by maybe adding reps to those double or wherever. Just adding 4 more reps increases the volume by 60 percent and as it also increase density then your tolerance for the wait range should increase (as long as you are maintaining pretty good form). So you singles will be that much more successful.

But if your hands aren't going to hold up just go to singles.

Do I need BCAAs??

Whey is 25% BCAA's. Probably the highest proportion of any "protein source". Any benefit you will get from more bcaa you will get from the whey you are already using. That is why Alan Aragon calls why "bcaa plus". BCAA's by themselves are expensive, taste like shit, messy and hard to mix, etc…and while there may be some advantage to having more leucine you get that advantage from whey. Only so much extra is worth while since blood pools of amino acids are closely regulated by the body so taking "more than enough" is basically pissing away money.


Always remember that while some amino acids may be of particular importance for strength, muscle, fitness, or whatever they are NOT magic bullets and there is no reason to conclude that mega dosing them will give any additional benefits. It's akin to the same thing as people thinking if 1 to 1.2 grams of protein per kilo of bw is good then 3 grams would be better. But 3 grams is ridiculous and more protein than strictly needed will not mean more protein synthesis than strictly possible in the body. It's the same thing with bcaa's.


So to sum it up…stick with whey.