It's just for the pullups, haha.
Actually here's something. Today was a big upper body day what with all the pullups and the OH squat. I also did dumbell lunge presses, lat pulldown and pushups.
You know that I do a lot of volume on pulling in general, not that today was really high volume.
Anyway on upper body days sometimes stretching the pecs out helps and especially before rows. Sometimes with really heavy days what I want is to keep the shoulders back and down rather than really stretch the chest. This helps keep the back feeling right and it helps the trap soreness I get which is an ache.
So in between sets what I will do is take a stretch band, grab it in the middle about shoulder width or so apart and bring it around behind me so that it is wrapped around my upper back. This forces my arms and hands back so that I am in a position like the bottom position of a pushup, except with a bit more stretch due to the band. The scapula are forced into passive retraction. I just let the band hold me that way and I also keep the shoulders depressed and get a bit of stretch in the neck. Then I just walk around that way between the set. Feels great and makes everything feel just so again.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, February 19, 2010
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.
Monday, February 15, 2010
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.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Deadlift Progression after I hit 455x1, 475x1 & 455x1
Step 1 of this involved 4-5 weeks of clusters. After that, this is what Eric planned:
OK here is the plan. This is gonna seem funky to you so if you don't understand something let me know.
Looking at the clusters and breaking them down to their essense: take out all the fancy methodology and you basically did a bunch of singles and then a bunch of double with 415 with VERY short rest periods.
My idea is to build on that by:
1. Using doubles with liberal rest periods and building the weight….taking advantage of the increased rest.
2. Increasing the density to build on recovery while using doubles to stoke and facilitate that.
That's the best I can explain it right now….the first one is simple enough. You did doubles with no rest so now you turn around and do doubles with rest. More rest more weight. Doubles are not something we have talked about that much in and of themselves.
Most people when they say singles they mean something but when they say doubles they really are just using short-hand for two reps. Doubles are hardly ever used as if they have some value in and of themselves and they are more often employed in those crappy percentage based schemes. But double have some good things going for them and I use them a lot for certain reasons.
Much of the time, the second rep is better than the first. Look at triples and you have one bad rep, one good one, and one not so good. The second one is the sweet spot. Your past the first one so your nerves are better and you are not over-analysing it. Beyond the second to the third most people will simply not maintain the quality with very heavy weights.
So that can be an advantage of doubles over singles. And they are obviously more time efficient.
There will be two phases, each two weeks. And then we may add a third phase of another two weeks. If we add a third phase then the next two weeks after that will be singles, so that would make two months or 2 mesocycles using your language.
The first phase you will warmp up, using singles to acclimate until you get near enough to the 410 or 415 mark and then do a double with 410 or 415 and then move up through 420 and 425 for doubles. You can increase the weight again after that if you can maintain quality or you can stick at 425 (unless you can't do 425 that day of course). Aim to get 5 or 6 doubles for the first workout.
For the second workout do much the same thing and aim for the the same amount of sets, but see if you can add weight in any way that you find possible.
That couldn't be more simple.
For the second phase it's a bit more complicated and will take a bit more time.
It should go something like this:
Phase Two, Workout 1:
415 x 5
425 x 2 (+ 10 lbs)
420 x 5
430 x 2 (+ 10 lbs)
425 x 5
Phase Two Workout 2:
420 x 2
430 x 2
435 x (to near failure)
That should be challenging enough. The first phase, although it seems like a lot of doubles is actually less demanding than what you've been doing. You know by now that more weight doesn't always mean more demanding. The first workout of the second phase brings the volume and density through the roof so be careful with that.
If we decide to add another phase on it will be to increase volume and density using the weight range we establish in phase two workout two.
OK here is the plan. This is gonna seem funky to you so if you don't understand something let me know.
Looking at the clusters and breaking them down to their essense: take out all the fancy methodology and you basically did a bunch of singles and then a bunch of double with 415 with VERY short rest periods.
My idea is to build on that by:
1. Using doubles with liberal rest periods and building the weight….taking advantage of the increased rest.
2. Increasing the density to build on recovery while using doubles to stoke and facilitate that.
That's the best I can explain it right now….the first one is simple enough. You did doubles with no rest so now you turn around and do doubles with rest. More rest more weight. Doubles are not something we have talked about that much in and of themselves.
Most people when they say singles they mean something but when they say doubles they really are just using short-hand for two reps. Doubles are hardly ever used as if they have some value in and of themselves and they are more often employed in those crappy percentage based schemes. But double have some good things going for them and I use them a lot for certain reasons.
Much of the time, the second rep is better than the first. Look at triples and you have one bad rep, one good one, and one not so good. The second one is the sweet spot. Your past the first one so your nerves are better and you are not over-analysing it. Beyond the second to the third most people will simply not maintain the quality with very heavy weights.
So that can be an advantage of doubles over singles. And they are obviously more time efficient.
There will be two phases, each two weeks. And then we may add a third phase of another two weeks. If we add a third phase then the next two weeks after that will be singles, so that would make two months or 2 mesocycles using your language.
The first phase you will warmp up, using singles to acclimate until you get near enough to the 410 or 415 mark and then do a double with 410 or 415 and then move up through 420 and 425 for doubles. You can increase the weight again after that if you can maintain quality or you can stick at 425 (unless you can't do 425 that day of course). Aim to get 5 or 6 doubles for the first workout.
For the second workout do much the same thing and aim for the the same amount of sets, but see if you can add weight in any way that you find possible.
That couldn't be more simple.
For the second phase it's a bit more complicated and will take a bit more time.
It should go something like this:
Phase Two, Workout 1:
415 x 5
425 x 2 (+ 10 lbs)
420 x 5
430 x 2 (+ 10 lbs)
425 x 5
Phase Two Workout 2:
420 x 2
430 x 2
435 x (to near failure)
That should be challenging enough. The first phase, although it seems like a lot of doubles is actually less demanding than what you've been doing. You know by now that more weight doesn't always mean more demanding. The first workout of the second phase brings the volume and density through the roof so be careful with that.
If we decide to add another phase on it will be to increase volume and density using the weight range we establish in phase two workout two.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Cluster Sets
Oh of course. There are no rules to it. In this case you've general increased the reps and thus greatly increased the volume.
Or your could have started with 2 rep clusters then went to one with increased weight. Or you can maintain volume and just increase weight…which would usually be microloading like you planned.
Theoretically a cluster could be done in any way you can imagine up to I'd say about 3 reps. I don't thing anything more than three reps is really practical. That DC stuff is not really clusters it's post failure training. Not the same thing AT ALL.
But look at pullups. You were talking about increasing volume. Well say your best set of bw pullups was 10 reps. You could do three rep clusters with the goal of pulling off more reps. Iit would still be clusters.
You can also combine clusters with density training.
For instance say you took that 10 rep pullup and you did 3 rep clusters. So that you do:
1. 3 x 5 (minisets) —- so 15 total reps instead of ten
2. 3 x 6 (minisets) —— so 18 total reps (this takes around 96 seconds)
3. Density training with 18 reps in less than 1.5 minutes (so say you do 18 reps in 1 minute 20 seconds)
4. Density training for 1:20 seconds with at least 19 reps or more.
That's just an example. Maybe ambitious as hell of course but it's just an example.
The goal would be to increase your volume in general. It wouldn't matter how that panned out when you went back to straight sets as long as your volume increased overall.
I'm not saying you should do that it's just an example of the versatility of clusters.
Or your could have started with 2 rep clusters then went to one with increased weight. Or you can maintain volume and just increase weight…which would usually be microloading like you planned.
Theoretically a cluster could be done in any way you can imagine up to I'd say about 3 reps. I don't thing anything more than three reps is really practical. That DC stuff is not really clusters it's post failure training. Not the same thing AT ALL.
But look at pullups. You were talking about increasing volume. Well say your best set of bw pullups was 10 reps. You could do three rep clusters with the goal of pulling off more reps. Iit would still be clusters.
You can also combine clusters with density training.
For instance say you took that 10 rep pullup and you did 3 rep clusters. So that you do:
1. 3 x 5 (minisets) —- so 15 total reps instead of ten
2. 3 x 6 (minisets) —— so 18 total reps (this takes around 96 seconds)
3. Density training with 18 reps in less than 1.5 minutes (so say you do 18 reps in 1 minute 20 seconds)
4. Density training for 1:20 seconds with at least 19 reps or more.
That's just an example. Maybe ambitious as hell of course but it's just an example.
The goal would be to increase your volume in general. It wouldn't matter how that panned out when you went back to straight sets as long as your volume increased overall.
I'm not saying you should do that it's just an example of the versatility of clusters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)