5 exercises, 5 sets, 10 reps, same weight...

[Capnwilliam]

...how do you rate that as a training routine?

Jim

[Marius_Ursus]

I'd rather do 10 sets of 5 reps to give glycogen a chance to replenish and more breaks to the CNS, but it looks like a good set up if you're not lifting way heavy for you.

[ironwill2008]

If it's a change-up from what you've been doing, go for it.

[greyhair]

Originally Posted by Capnwilliam

...how do you rate that as a training routine?

Jim

Cappy,

I can't say who the source is, but I believe it.

"Anything will work for 6 weeks"

As long as it is a change from what you were doing.

MU would probably agree with me that over the long run, you have to vary the program to include intensity,volume and "depletion sets"

If you havent been doing high volume, I bet you'll benefit from this, for abotu 6 weeks that is.

Good luck

[Fifty+]

Originally Posted by Capnwilliam

...how do you rate that as a training routine?

Jim

Is that 5 total sets of 10 reps each or 25 sets of 10 reps each?

[dbx]

Originally Posted by Marius_Ursus

I'd rather do 10 sets of 5 reps to give glycogen a chance to replenish and more breaks to the CNS, but it looks like a good set up if you're not lifting way heavy for you.

WTF?

Originally Posted by Fifty+

Is that 5 total sets of 10 reps each or 25 sets of 10 reps each?

I was wondering the same.

But in any event, the question is too general .

[Old-Time-Lifter]

Why use the same weight? too much trouble to load or unload the barbell?

[Marius_Ursus]

Originally Posted by dbx

WTF?

More frequent rests to allow glycogen to come into the cells rather than fewer rests periods with the same total volume of work. You'll be able to push more weight with more frequent breaks without sacrificing total output.

Originally Posted by greyhair

Cappy,

I can't say who the source is, but I believe it.

"Anything will work for 6 weeks"

As long as it is a change from what you were doing.

MU would probably agree with me that over the long run, you have to vary the program to include intensity,volume and "depletion sets"

If you havent been doing high volume, I bet you'll benefit from this, for abotu 6 weeks that is.

Good luck

Yes, I agree completely.

[spefitness]

Originally Posted by Capnwilliam

...how do you rate that as a training routine?

Jim

Any change in a workout is great, and this will make changes. I would change the weight each set, either pyramid or drop sets. This way you can work on Strength, Power, and Endurance.
s p e fitness.

[dbx]

Originally Posted by Marius_Ursus

More frequent rests to allow glycogen to come into the cells rather than fewer rests periods with the same total volume of work. You'll be able to push more weight with more frequent breaks without sacrificing total output.

Sounds like nano science, and I can't imagine it being significant in any meaningful way. If you did 10 sets with 5 reps for each exercise with any level of intensity, you'd likely completely deplete your glycogen levels before your workout was over. It's estimated that you'll deplete muscle glycogen in roughly 45-50mins if exercising intensely.

But not to lose sight and get too far off track here; just about any rep/set scheme is appropriate if it is challenging, and if it's changed up periodically. What I'm saying, is that telling him 10x5 is "scientifically better" than 5x10, isn't really worth arguing over glycogen depletion/efficiency (I'd be interested to see a study where is gives explicit examples of what you mentioned). Either scheme may be good any given time for him depending on his current goal. And in either scheme, he could change his rest periods accordingly (if he needed/wanted to), with the exception of actual duration of a single set.

[greyhair]

Originally Posted by dbx

Sounds like nano science, and I can't imagine it being significant in any meaningful way. If you did 10 sets with 5 reps for each exercise with any level of intensity, you'd likely completely deplete your glycogen levels before your workout was over. It's estimated that you'll deplete muscle glycogen in roughly 45-50mins if exercising intensely.

But not to lose sight and get too far off track here; ....clip...

Dbx,

Not clear to me that you have to completely deplete muscle glycogen of the whole muscle. IIRC the buildup of waste products is what causes sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and increases the overall capacity of the muscle fibers for work by increasing mitochondiral capacity.

Also, its OK to thread hijack as long as we more or less answer the OP somewhere along the line

[dbx]

Originally Posted by greyhair

Dbx,

Not clear to me that you have to completely deplete muscle glycogen of the whole muscle.

LOL. It's not clear to me where I said you have to . I was merely pointing out that if you workout intensely by fully challenging a muscle group, that you will for all practical purposed deplete your glycogen in that group.

[OutOfStep]

If the routine is giving you results, then it's great. If you aren't getting results from it, then it sucks. I've seen too many people with incredible physiques who trained completely differently over the years to dismiss anything out of hand. Some had routines that looked totally retarded to me but I couldn't argue with the results they were getting. Trying many approaches and then listening to your body and taking note of what is working and what isn't is how you get results.

[shuriwud]

Originally Posted by OutOfStep

If the routine is giving you results, then it's great. If you aren't getting results from it, then it sucks. I've seen too many people with incredible physiques who trained completely differently over the years to dismiss anything out of hand. Some had routines that looked totally retarded to me but I couldn't argue with the results they were getting. Trying many approaches and then listening to your body and taking note of what is working and what isn't is how you get results.

x2. Great advice.

[Marius_Ursus]

Originally Posted by dbx

Sounds like nano science, and I can't imagine it being significant in any meaningful way. If you did 10 sets with 5 reps for each exercise with any level of intensity, you'd likely completely deplete your glycogen levels before your workout was over. It's estimated that you'll deplete muscle glycogen in roughly 45-50mins if exercising intensely.

But not to lose sight and get too far off track here; just about any rep/set scheme is appropriate if it is challenging, and if it's changed up periodically. What I'm saying, is that telling him 10x5 is "scientifically better" than 5x10, isn't really worth arguing over glycogen depletion/efficiency (I'd be interested to see a study where is gives explicit examples of what you mentioned). Either scheme may be good any given time for him depending on his current goal. And in either scheme, he could change his rest periods accordingly (if he needed/wanted to), with the exception of actual duration of a single set.

Do you know if the length of rest periods matters? As long as there's glucose in the blood, there's replenishment going on, albeit at different capacity during intense exercise as you inferred. With a longer rest period, that replacement might be more filling, and the CNS also gets a chance to rest and write its information to the muscles' neuron pathways.

Originally Posted by greyhair

Dbx,

Not clear to me that you have to completely deplete muscle glycogen of the whole muscle. IIRC the buildup of waste products is what causes sarcoplasmic hypertrophy and increases the overall capacity of the muscle fibers for work by increasing mitochondiral capacity.

Also, its OK to thread hijack as long as we more or less answer the OP somewhere along the line

That's interesting info. I've never read what the mechanism is that causes hypertrophy, only methods of exercises that yield greater or better results. I know for me I have a greater capacity for work working higher sets with lower reps than vice a versa, so I do get bigger and stronger with that method.

[Capnwilliam]

Originally Posted by Fifty+

Is that 5 total sets of 10 reps each or 25 sets of 10 reps each?

25 sets total: 5 sets each, for 5 different exercises.

Jim

[Capnwilliam]

But in any event, the question is too general .[/QUOTE]

I wanted it to be general, so it could spark off a discussion.

Jim

[Capnwilliam]

Originally Posted by Old-Time-Lifter

Why use the same weight? too much trouble to load or unload the barbell?

No particular reason. Just to get other people's ideas about a certain type of routine.

Jim

[dbx]

Originally Posted by Marius_Ursus

Do you know if the length of rest periods matters? As long as there's glucose in the blood, there's replenishment going on, albeit at different capacity during intense exercise as you inferred. With a longer rest period, that replacement might be more filling, and the CNS also gets a chance to rest and write its information to the muscles' neuron pathways.

Yes, rest time does matter as far as recovery goes. Basically, you're allowing muscle to gain intra-cellular energy, as well as allowing lactic acid to diminish. And the heavier the sets (weight/effort exerted), the longer the rest period should be to allow you go back and hit it again. But this isn't the same thing as replacing muscle glycogen, which takes several hours. And again, it can be depleted/expended in well under an hour of high intensity (heavy weight) being lifted.

And the main thing here is to answer the OP's question (given his time here, experience, etc..) in a simple manner, not with scientific jargon . Just sayin'.........

[greyhair]

Originally Posted by Marius_Ursus

...clip..



That's interesting info. I've never read what the mechanism is that causes hypertrophy, only methods of exercises that yield greater or better results. I know for me I have a greater capacity for work working higher sets with lower reps than vice a versa, so I do get bigger and stronger with that method.

The best overall explaination I've seen was written by Gavin Laird.
He described the processes for Sarcoplasmic and Sarcomere hypertropy and related them back to specific training routines and discussed CNS related aspects.

Distilled down, you basically need to do 3 types of training
Sarcoplasmic for overall capacity and minor hypertropy
Sarcomere for significant hypertropy
and CNS related to continue to progress.

All three training components have to move forward, or eventually, you will lag on all three. Kind of like a tripod, you eventually a too short leg will make the thing fall.

[Marius_Ursus]

Originally Posted by dbx

Yes, rest time does matter as far as recovery goes. Basically, you're allowing muscle to gain intra-cellular energy, as well as allowing lactic acid to diminish. And the heavier the sets (weight/effort exerted), the longer the rest period should be to allow you go back and hit it again. But this isn't the same thing as replacing muscle glycogen, which takes several hours. And again, it can be depleted/expended in well under an hour of high intensity (heavy weight) being lifted.

I was thinking about this on my way to work, and I don't know down to the letter what the mechanism is. I assumed it was glycogen because I didn't know anything else gave cells contractile energy. What is it that allows me to get 115 pounds over my head for one 10 reps but 125 pounds for three sets of reps? What drives that intra-cellular energy?

And the main thing here is to answer the OP's question (given his time here, experience, etc..) in a simple manner, not with scientific jargon . Just sayin'.........

CapnWilliam and I have talked about rep/set schemes before with the details explained. This is sort of a follow-up from a couple months ago, so maybe you're not privy to the whole story. Just sayin'...

[Marius_Ursus]

Originally Posted by greyhair

The best overall explaination I've seen was written by Gavin Laird.
He described the processes for Sarcoplasmic and Sarcomere hypertropy and related them back to specific training routines and discussed CNS related aspects.

Distilled down, you basically need to do 3 types of training
Sarcoplasmic for overall capacity and minor hypertropy
Sarcomere for significant hypertropy
and CNS related to continue to progress.

All three training components have to move forward, or eventually, you will lag on all three. Kind of like a tripod, you eventually a too short leg will make the thing fall.

Whoa...sarcomere? First time I've heard of that. New info! Hooray!

Time to read voraciously again.

[greyhair]

Originally Posted by Marius_Ursus

Whoa...sarcomere? First time I've heard of that. New info! Hooray!

Time to read voraciously again.

Hey my brother,
Here is a colloquial breakdown

Sarcomere: Force producing muscle fibers. EG. Actin/myocin
Sarcoplasmic: non-force producing cell components. EG. Mitochondira, endoplasmic reticulum

[Marius_Ursus]

Originally Posted by greyhair

Hey my brother,
Here is a colloquial breakdown

Sarcomere: Force producing muscle fibers. EG. Actin/myocin
Sarcoplasmic: non-force producing cell components. EG. Mitochondira, endoplasmic reticulum

Aha...interesting. See after all this time, I didn't think that the force producing muscle was capable of hypertrophy. It's not that I ever read, "Sarcomere can't grow!" It's that all the literature I've come across (unintentionally...just worked out that way) emphasized force as force and sarcoplasm as having the potential for growth.

Do you have any recommended books? I'll look up Gavin Laird and see if I can find anything by him.

[greyhair]

Originally Posted by Marius_Ursus

Aha...interesting. See after all this time, I didn't think that the force producing muscle was capable of hypertrophy. It's not that I ever read, "Sarcomere can't grow!" It's that all the literature I've come across (unintentionally...just worked out that way) emphasized force as force and sarcoplasm as having the potential for growth.

Do you have any recommended books? I'll look up Gavin Laird and see if I can find anything by him.

MU,

It is generally believed that muscle cells can not increase via Hyperplasia (fiber splitting)
But the fibers do get bigger by increasing the size of the actin/myocin fibers.

[Marius_Ursus]

Originally Posted by greyhair

MU,

It is generally believed that muscle cells can not increase via Hyperplasia (fiber splitting)
But the fibers do get bigger by increasing the size of the actin/myocin fibers.

Shoot. There are those words I hate, "generally believed". LOL That means no one actually knows. I'll go with it for now at least until something else pops up on the training radar to disprove it or prove it.

[jixsumo]

I used to do 10 sets of 10 reps of two lifts, and get it done in 30 minutes.

Like dead lifts and incline bench press or squats and lat pulls.

I am starting to think my trainer is an adrenaline junkie.

It would keep my coming back though.

[tonester]

I always thought that it was ATP that we waited on during rest periods not glycogen.

http://www.essortment.com/all/whatisatp_rcbe.htm