Better reps?

[Brett]

Ive been thinking about this for some time. Want to know if anyones tried this or have heard of it. The idea is that as you perform your sets, youre going to fatigue, so why not account for this in the rep scheme? Basically move on up to the next weight when you can get 8,7,6. This way youre working to maximum on all three sets, not just the last one.

The example below is using the 3x8 format on bench press, comparing Simon who is training as per normal and Joe using the fatigue reps idea.

Week 1:

Joe: 8,6,4 @ 70kg
Simon: 8,6,4 @ 70kg

Week 2:

Joe: 8,7,5 @ 70kg
Simon: 8,7,5 @ 70kg

Week 3:

Joe: 8,7,6 @ 70kg
Simon: 8,7,6 @ 70kg

Week 4:

Joe: 7,5,4 @ 72.5kg
Simon: 8,8,7 @ 70kg

Week 5:

Joe: 8,6,5 @ 72.5kg
Simon: 8,8,8 @ 70kg

Week 6:

Joe: 8,7,6 @ 72.5kg
Simon: 8,6,4 @ 72.5kg

Week 7:

Joe: 7,5,4 @ 75kg
Simon: 8,7,6 @ 72.5


As you can see, Joe has moved on while Simon waits a few weeks to get that last 8,8,8. The first two 8s will hardly be taxing, as hes stopping with a few extra reps in the tank each time, whereas Joe is struggling to make 8 reps on the first set and the reps on the consecutive sets albeit with a heavier weight.

Thoughts?

[Robert]

Yes, but Joe's recovery will be shocking. Simon could do two sessions in the same time Joe has recoverd from one.

[Knighty]

Let me get this straight before I answer - Simon is stopping short of failure with less weight, where Joe is going all out to failure with more weight?

[Brett]

Yes, but Joe's recovery will be shocking. Simon could do two sessions in the same time Joe has recoverd from one.
I see. Do you think that this type of training could be useful in any application?

Let me get this straight before I answer - Simon is stopping short of failure with less weight, where Joe is going all out to failure with more weight?
Sort of. Simon wont be stopping anywhere near failure on the first set, closer on the second set, and will only stop short on the third set, whereas Joe will be stopping short on each set.

I was thinking why waste time only going to x number of reps on the first set when you could do so much more? But then, thinking back on it, it probably would be overtraining.

Still you never learn if you dont ask. :D

[Scourge]

Why not manipulate the load instead of the volume i.e. instead of Simon's 8/8/8 @ 70kg in Week 5, why not 8x75, 8x75, 8x70 or whatever weight he can use on each set for 3x8.

[Brett]

Why not manipulate the load instead of the volume i.e. instead of Simon's 8/8/8 @ 70kg in Week 5, why not 8x75, 8x75, 8x70 or whatever weight he can use on each set for 3x8.
Thats a good idea too, but what advantages would it have over manipulating volume? More weight=more stimulus? Others?

And what would (as Robert mentioned) recovery times be like? I mean that would still be training to failure wouldnt it?

[Scourge]

Thats a good idea too, but what advantages would it have over manipulating volume? More weight=more stimulus? Others?

And what would (as Robert mentioned) recovery times be like? I mean that would still be training to failure wouldnt it?
Weight is good. This is weight-training. The more weight, the better.

Obviously it would be harder than training 8/8/8 @ 70kg, but that's kinda the point of the thread, isn't it? You shouldn't be training to failure though, as in, you shouldn't fail to finish all of your reps.

[Brett]

Weight is good. This is weight-training. The more weight, the better.

Obviously it would be harder than training 8/8/8 @ 70kg, but that's kinda the point of the thread, isn't it? You shouldn't be training to failure though, as in, you shouldn't fail to finish all of your reps.
Ok that definately makes sense.

Failure is when you go to complete a rep and dont quite get it yes? I always stop on the rep before this. Or is your idea of failure when you cant get all 3x8?

It would seems the definition of failure varies between people who are manipulating volume and others who are manipulating load. Would you agree?

[Robert]

The definition of failure is when you couldn't be botherd to come up with a goal or plan so you just decided to tire yourself out, aimlessley, instead.

TBH, Brett you can't fight the words of all the worlds top pros in the feild of strength training today. The ratio of those who for non-financial reasons truely belive HIT or any other sort of failure training (failure on all sets*) works better than planned or persiodised protocol is about 1:10000000000000000

*Failure IS nessecary. Otherwise, how would one progress on 5x5 and the like? Getting 55543 IS failure. But ITS NOT failure training. Otherwise it woudl of looked like 76422 or something.

[Scourge]

Failure is when you go to complete a rep and dont quite get it yes? I always stop on the rep before this. Or is your idea of failure when you cant get all 3x8?

It would seems the definition of failure varies between people who are manipulating volume and others who are manipulating load. Would you agree?
I think you're differentiating between momentary failure i.e. when you miss a rep, and absolute failure i.e. when you're absolutely knackered.

[Brett]

Basically what you both are saying that you do want to train to failure, but not to 'absolute failure', as in 5,5,5,4,3 (this is in example of a 5x5 routine). The idea I posted at the top of the thread would be absolute failure.

However, if youre manipulating load you wouldnt want to miss all your reps. Out of curiousity how would you construct a squat session for example when manipulating load?

Cheers for the help so far guys. :D

[Scourge]

No. Don't train until failure. Training to failure is training to fail (IMO at least). Train until 'knackeredness' i.e. when your muscles are trying to fail on you but you keep grinding out as many reps as you need to.

Changing the load during a workout is easy:

1) Pick a rep range.
2) Stick to it.
3) Change the weight on the bar to enable you to achieve 2)

i.e. as you as get used to the heavy weights, you can add more to the bar, as your muscles fatigue, you can take weight off the bar. The plan is stick to your chosen rep/set range, while making every sure that every set is hard work.

[Scourge]

Think 'pyramiding' the load i.e.

6x(L), 6x(L+5kg), 6x(L+10kg), 6x(L+5kg)

or

6x(L+5kg), 6x(L+10kg), 6x(L+5kg), 6x(L)

Obviously L will depend on how strong you are at the lift you're training and the increments and the pattern of the 'pyramid' will depend on how you're feeling on the day.

[Brett]

Ok goddit. Ill think about trying this soon.

Cheers for the patience Scourge. :)

[Scourge]

Ok goddit. Ill think about trying this soon.

Cheers for the patience Scourge. :)
No problem. Glad I could help.