Hypertrophy/Bodybuilding Routine

[ThatOneLurker]

Then we'll agree to disagree because you missed what I was saying.

[grouchyjarhead]

Then we'll agree to disagree because you missed what I was saying.

In case you hadn't noticed, I wasn't addressing solely you in this thread.

It's for the majority of folks who think there's just one drink out there, and they all think it's the same Kool-Aid.

[Jasonk282]

Volume is in every strength training program. It's just how you structure it.

Yes, and that's exactly what's going on here.

take this weeks training that i did for floor press.

monday I did 165*5,5,5,5,5,5,4,3, for 27 total reps
Today I did 165*10,4,3,6,5 for 28 total reps,


about the same volume, just structured differently, this is no different that say the waterbury Method, just instead of using a percent of 1RM we up the weights each time we hit 12 reps on the first set.

[xxx_jfb_xxx]

In case you hadn't noticed, I wasn't addressing solely you in this thread.

It's for the majority of folks who think there's just one drink out there, and they all think it's the same Kool-Aid.

It isn't. It's a tool in our tool belt. That's the best analogy I've heard. Just because you don't need your screw driver or your hammer or whatever for the job you're doing, doesn't mean you throw it away. You put it in your toolbelt and pull it out when you need it.

Some tools do get used more often than others, though.

I believe I got that from a Biolayne video.

[Yeahbrah333]

Lets analyze a 2 hour session:

3RM

Bench = 10x3 @ 300lbs = 9000lbs
Incline bench = 10x3 @ 225lbs = 6750lbs

total tonnage for the session = 15750lbs

That'll probably end up being close to 2 hours. Using a maximal effort (ME) method you will require larger amounts of rest progressing into your later sets.

10RM Rest pause

Bench = Rep target 30 @ 240lbs = 7200lbs
Incline = Rep target 30 @ 180lbs = 5400lbs

Let's assume that took 25 minutes, 10 minutes per exercise, 5 minute rest in between flat and incline. You still have an hour and a half.

DB flyes = Rep target 30 @ 50lbs = 1500lbs

DB pullovers = Rep target 30 @ 80lbs = 2400lbs

You still have an hour left and your total tonnage at this point is 16500lbs.

Conversely you can simply perform

Flat bench = Rep target 50 @ 240lbs = 12000

Incline bench = Rep target 50 @ 180 lbs = 9000

At most it would take you to complete this in 45 minutes. 15-20 minutes per exercise, 5 minute rest in between flat and incline. Your total tonnage at this point is 21000lbs.

This is the advantage of repetitive effort (RE) method.

There is a point where total tonnage is neglected by how light a weight is but I only see this happening at the 15-20RMs.

a 10-12RM still requires significant effort towards the later reps as fatigue sets in because the load is still moderate.

Besides no one is saying the 10-12RM is the only option available to someone looking at hypertrophy as their main concern, we're simply saying it is the most efficient way.

Is this the method that is supposed to be used or if one is getting more reps in the subsequent sets he/she should up the number of sets to get more total tonnage or that would be a big difference ?

[Jasonk282]

Just because you don't need your screw driver or your hammer or whatever for the job you're doing, doesn't mean you throw it away. You put it in your toolbelt and pull it out when you need it.

So much this^

Especially truthful with working in building construction. Last job I was on we were building rebar foundations for the buildings colums. Typically I just bring my belt, wheel, pliers and cutters...but brought all my tool for some reason. 3 days later we had to unload 40,000 lbs of rebar from the truck and the wrenches and sleever bars came in handy.

[grouchyjarhead]

No disagreement here guys. If anything I'm saying the same thing.

My only issue is when folks don't completely understand their tools but try telling others what they are not capable of.

[Alyion]

If you're still increasing them, how are they suffering?

Because they don't increase as efficiently as if they were trained directly - like I mentioned in my hypothetical post with the bodybuilder and powerlifter (post 451). Both get stronger in 1rm and 20rm, but the bodybuilder doesnt have as good a 1rm as a powerlifter, and the powerlifter doesn't have as good a 20rm as the bodybuilder. I agree with your post that the adaptation wouldn't get 'worse' on an individual basis (barring maybe in the case of extremely high level elite powerlifters/oly lifters) but I believe there would be a difference (the severity of which depends on experience level) as the extremes of either end would develop at a 'slower' rate.

Now as to address the issue of a 10rm - sure, it isn't the be all and end all - Kelei mentioned it as a blanket recommendation to a largely anonymous audience - any rep range between 1 and 20 will ultimately work - but 10 is a nice round figure to go off. As you train and progress on an individual level it's perfectly fine to change certain exercises to different rep ranges if that's what you enjoy and find works best.

[ehrmanman]

I did my first workout with this program and I was surprised how fast I got out of the gym. I did

-Bench press 80kg x 10 -> Rest pause; 30sec rest till 40 reps total
-Incline press 50kg x 10 -> Rest pause; 30sec rest till 40 reps total
-Cable crossover 20kg x 15 -> rest pause; 15 sec rest till 50 reps total
-Cable pressdown 50kg x 12 -> rest pause; 15 sec rest till 50 reps total
-Lateral raises sitten 4kg x 15 -> rest pause; 15 sec rest till 50 reps total
-Leg raises 20 -> rest pause; 15 sec rest till 50 reps total

Did I get the idea of this routine right? You do as many as you can in your first set and then rest pause till you reach your target reps? Also how do you guys keep your form when you're nearly always doing the exercises at near to failure?

[Yeahbrah333]

Is this the method that is supposed to be used or if one is getting more reps in the subsequent sets he/she should up the number of sets to get more total tonnage or that would be a big difference ?

Some1 ?

[ThatOneLurker]

No disagreement here guys. If anything I'm saying the same thing.

My only issue is when folks don't completely understand their tools but try telling others what they are not capable of.

Then we misunderstood each other lol.


All I was saying is that the moderate rep range provides a greater amount of total tonnage in a shorter amount of time compared to using weight closer to your 1 rep max (2-5 RM).

[grouchyjarhead]

Then we misunderstood each other lol.

All I was saying is that the moderate rep range provides a greater amount of total tonnage in a shorter amount of time compared to using weight closer to your 1 rep max (2-5 RM).

And I countered that with using the Waterbury method as just one example. 15 minutes easy to do 30 reps with 80% your 1RM (to start - it increases as it goes), including 5 minutes for doing the actual sets themselves. There's your volume. There is far more than one way to develop hypertrophy optimally. It's very much an individual thing and what works for one individual does not work just as well for another.

[ThatOneLurker]

And I countered that with using the Waterbury method as just one example. 15 minutes easy to do 30 reps with 80% your 1RM (to start - it increases as it goes), including 5 minutes for doing the actual sets themselves. There's your volume. There is far more than one way to develop hypertrophy optimally. It's very much an individual thing and what works for one individual does not work just as well for another.

It is inferior because you don't take any sets to or near failure which is important for promoting neural strength adaptations quicker. Using 80% of your 1RM to or near failure will provide better results than the waterbury method.

[grouchyjarhead]

It is inferior because you don't take any sets to or near failure which is important for promoting neural strength adaptations quicker.

Doing 10 sets of triples with 80% is pretty tough if you've never tried it. You'll be pretty close to failure by the end, trust me.

And no, training to failure does not promote quicker strength adaptations. An interesting theory popularized by Art Jones in the 1970s, who was trying to promote HIT and saying training to failure with one single set was the best way of training. Interesting he should say that, being he designed the Nautilus exercise machines. Seems to me if you want to get more people working out through your gym, you tell them one single set to failure is optimal so you can rotate people through the machines quicker rather than having them doing multiple sets and tying up the machines longer. More people in, more money in.

Unfortunately, it's simply not the case and is one of the most common myths of strength training. You don't have to push to failure on every single set to see significant increases in both strength and hypertrophy.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76902896/D...OS-PAIN#scribd

Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Gonzalez-Badillo J, Hakkinen K, Ratamess N, Kraemer W, French d, eslava J, Altadill A, Asiain X, Gorostiaga E., Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains, J Appl Physiol, 2006, 100:1647-1656

^^One of the better studies done comparing the two. In summary, they found there is no greater benefit in training to failure and actually it can inhibit your hypertrophy (reduced IGF-1, which affects growth hormone production) if done too often. Worth the read.

[badackerhunter]

This routine is designed for hypertrophy/bodybuilding (physique development) purposes, it is not designed with sports/functional performance in mind. I have done my best to make it an effective, practical and flexible routine so as to be suitable for almost anyone. This routine is a culmination of all my previous routines and includes all of my updated recommendations, as such I will no longer be supporting/recommending my previous superseded/obsolete routines.

In my experience/opinion training each muscle group twice per week (or every 3-4 days on average) works well for just about everyone, assuming all other variables are appropriate of course. I believe that a 3 day split provides an ideal balance between volume per session and frequency of sessions.

In an effort to keep the routine flexible I prefer to not assign workouts to specific days of the week, rather I recommend that you simply rotate through D1, D2 and D3 workouts regardless of what day of the week it happens to be, if you performed a D2 workout the last time you were in the gym you should perform a D3 workout the next time you're in the gym. Rest days are taken whenever you feel as though you need one, just pick up from where you left off.

D1 - Chest, front delts, triceps
D2 - Upper back, rear delts, biceps
D3 - Thighs, lower back

* Side delts, calves and abs can be trained daily, these muscle groups respond exceptionally well to high frequency training.

I believe that training at a moderate intensity (75% etc) with moderate reps is the most efficient way to promote hypertrophy, your primary goal should be to increase your moderate rep strength.

I believe that training to/near failure (with failure being defined as performing as many full reps as possible, you should never actually fail to complete a rep) is important for promoting neural strength adaptions.

I believe that aiming for a total rep target rather than counting the number of sets you perform is the best way to manage total tonnage (volume), instead of aiming to complete a particular number of sets per exercise you should instead aim to complete a particular number of total reps per exercise and perform as many sets as it takes until you reach your total rep target.

In the past I have recommended rest-pause training and i still stand by this recommendation although I want to make it clear that straight sets are a perfectly acceptable option as well, at the end of the day it doesn't really mater how long you choose to rest between sets, short rest periods between sets will result in a greater number of sets being required to reach your total rep target, long rest periods between sets will result in a fewer number of sets being required to reach your total rep target, go with personal preference.

I recommend using an 8-15RM for most exercises, you should use your first set of each exercise as your measure of progress and add more weight once you can complete 12 reps in your first set for large exercises and 15 reps in your first set for small exercises. For calves and abs I recommend 15-30 reps.

It's practically impossible to recommend exercises suitable for everyone so I'll simply list my personal selections and you can substitute where necessary:

D1 - Wide grip bench press (elbows flared, bar lowered to upper pecs, feet on bench, no back arching), incline bench press (low incline, moderate grip width, no back arching), flyes/crossovers, rope pressdowns

D2 - Wide grip pull-ups (or pulldowns), seated rows, reverse flyes/crossovers, preacher curls

D3 - Romanian deadlifts, front squats, leg curls, leg extensions

* Side delts, calves, abs - Side lateral raises, standing calf raises, seated calf raises, ab rollouts.

In regards to volume (number of total/target reps per exercise) recommendations I firmly believe that more is better (within reason), I recommend performing as much volume as you have time for and can tolerate without exhausting yourself. 30-50 total reps per exercise (double or triple that for calves and abs) is a good starting point although don't be afraid of going even higher if you have the time and work capacity.

Due to the high training volume recommended in this routine it's essential that deloading periods are incorporated, I recommend 4 week blocks/cycles wherein you train (load) for 3 weeks followed by 1 week of complete rest (deload) from the gym. Deloading is mandatory and will make or break the entire routine, I can't stress enough how important/essential deloading is.

In regards to nutrition my general advice is:

- Most of your protein intake should come from meat, eggs and dairy products
- Most of your carbohydrate intake should come from starch (rice, pasta, potatoes, bread etc)
- Don't attempt a low carb diet during this routine, you'll hit a wall very quickly, aim for 200 grams per day as a bare minimum
- Most of your fat intake should come from animal sources, you need ample amounts of saturated fat, cholesterol and arachidonic acid in your diet

Disclaimer: Please be mindful of where your food comes from and try to keep animal welfare in mind, I'm an animal lover and as such I do my best to avoid unnecessary animal cruelty, even simple things like buying free range eggs instead of cage eggs will make a difference. I would urge you all to research the meat/dairy/egg industries in your respective countries/states and come to your own conclusions as to what animal products you are/aren't willing to eat, I have a moral responsibility to bring this to your attention.

Are we suppose to do this upon our isolation work outs? Because it seems kind of mixed and alot of the bigger guys at the gym I see always concentrate on a certain exercise for nearly an hour

[Jasonk282]

Doing 10 sets of triples with 80% is pretty tough if you've never tried it. You'll be pretty close to failure by the end, trust me.

And no, training to failure does not promote quicker strength adaptations. An interesting theory popularized by Art Jones in the 1970s, who was trying to promote HIT and saying training to failure with one single set was the best way of training. Interesting he should say that, being he designed the Nautilus exercise machines. Seems to me if you want to get more people working out through your gym, you tell them one single set to failure is optimal so you can rotate people through the machines quicker rather than having them doing multiple sets and tying up the machines longer. More people in, more money in.

Unfortunately, it's simply not the case and is one of the most common myths of strength training. You don't have to push to failure on every single set to see significant increases in both strength and hypertrophy.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76902896/D...OS-PAIN#scribd

Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Gonzalez-Badillo J, Hakkinen K, Ratamess N, Kraemer W, French d, eslava J, Altadill A, Asiain X, Gorostiaga E., Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains, J Appl Physiol, 2006, 100:1647-1656

^^One of the better studies done comparing the two. In summary, they found there is no greater benefit in training to failure and actually it can inhibit your hypertrophy (reduced IGF-1, which affects growth hormone production) if done too often. Worth the read.

To sum up how we all feel...

[grouchyjarhead]

Fair enough Jason. If they want to take it to PM they can hit me up, I'll keep it up on there. Just an awful lot of bro science being tossed around as fact.

[ThatOneLurker]

Doing 10 sets of triples with 80% is pretty tough if you've never tried it. You'll be pretty close to failure by the end, trust me.

And no, training to failure does not promote quicker strength adaptations. An interesting theory popularized by Art Jones in the 1970s, who was trying to promote HIT and saying training to failure with one single set was the best way of training. Interesting he should say that, being he designed the Nautilus exercise machines. Seems to me if you want to get more people working out through your gym, you tell them one single set to failure is optimal so you can rotate people through the machines quicker rather than having them doing multiple sets and tying up the machines longer. More people in, more money in.

Unfortunately, it's simply not the case and is one of the most common myths of strength training. You don't have to push to failure on every single set to see significant increases in both strength and hypertrophy.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/76902896/D...OS-PAIN#scribd

Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Gonzalez-Badillo J, Hakkinen K, Ratamess N, Kraemer W, French d, eslava J, Altadill A, Asiain X, Gorostiaga E., Differential effects of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains, J Appl Physiol, 2006, 100:1647-1656

^^One of the better studies done comparing the two. In summary, they found there is no greater benefit in training to failure and actually it can inhibit your hypertrophy (reduced IGF-1, which affects growth hormone production) if done too often. Worth the read.

None of the subjects were even weightlifters. They were basque players. In relation to weightlifting they were all novices and beginners are able to do whatever they please and gain results. With that being said, a beginner's work capacity won't allow him to train to/near failure effectively. The study even goes on to say that "evidence does support training to failure but it is unclear how to optimally include it into program design". Every supposed danger of training to failure that the study talks about is corrected by a deload, whether it be the risk of overtraining or the effects on resting hormone levels of IGF-1 and cortisol.

"Both training to failure and training not to failure resulted in similar gains in 1RM strength, muscle power output of the arm and leg extensor muscles, and maximal number of repetitions performed during the parallel squat."

Of course you're going to get a higher power output not training to failure because your level fatigue is much lower. Fatigue affects the type IIa fibers to a larger degree and reduces their power output. That is not our concern here.

"Training to failure resulted in larger gains in the number of repetitions performed in the bench press."

[dojsygo]

I'm thinking about splitting up the PPL split to chest/quads, back/ham, shoulders/arms/calf split. Mostly because that the leg day feels like a killer and i haven't dropped leg-press and hyperextensions yet like this in this routine.

Anyone see any problem with this?

[LazyBastard]

None of the subjects were even weightlifters. They were basque players. In relation to weightlifting they were all novices and beginners are able to do whatever they please and gain results. With that being said, a beginner's work capacity won't allow him to train to/near failure effectively. The study even goes on to say that "evidence does support training to failure but it is unclear how to optimally include it into program design". Every supposed danger of training to failure that the study talks about is corrected by a deload, whether it be the risk of overtraining or the effects on resting hormone levels of IGF-1 and cortisol.

"Both training to failure and training not to failure resulted in similar gains in 1RM strength, muscle power output of the arm and leg extensor muscles, and maximal number of repetitions performed during the parallel squat."

Of course you're going to get a higher power output not training to failure because your level fatigue is much lower. Fatigue affects the type IIa fibers to a larger degree and reduces their power output. That is not our concern here.

"Training to failure resulted in larger gains in the number of repetitions performed in the bench press."

This seems very accurate from my own experience and what I've read over the years. There's benefits to both ways of doing things, and novices will benefit from both sorts of programs.
I think it just comes down to preference. Doing straight sets that aren't necessarily to failure can still promote strength and size gains and won't fatigue you as much or burn you out (CNS). Rest-pause and/or continually going to failure may or may not be slightly more effective for hypertrophy/strength but it will certainly burn you out to where you need to back off/deload for a bit. Personally, I think going to failure works best for ME, but yeah the trade-off is that I get a bit burned out and need to chill out occassionally.
Long term it's difficult to say which one is more efficient, but it's pretty clear that either method works, though I do question how effective it would be for advanced lifters to not continually go to failure.
As far as preference, I like going to failure as much as possible- it's just how I train. Plus, if I have to travel and miss a few days of working out I don't feel guilty- I utilize it as my deload and I come back itching to hit the weights. So again, whichever method will keep you motivated, enjoying your workouts, and coming back consistently will be the most effective for you long term.

[LazyBastard]

I'm thinking about splitting up the PPL split to chest/quads, back/ham, shoulders/arms/calf split. Mostly because that the leg day feels like a killer and i haven't dropped leg-press and hyperextensions yet like this in this routine.

Anyone see any problem with this?

I do my own personalized split and I think an intermediate/advanced should be able to customize this program to their own liking. You might get carry-over from back day and then arm day the next day, or from doing shoulders and then chest the next day but I don't think it's an issue at all.

[dojsygo]

Yeah it's not perfectly balanced but like you said it's probably not an issue at all.

An other option is to add RDL to the back day but then I would like to move hyperextensions as well. How does your split look?

[ehrmanman]

I did my first workout with this program and I was surprised how fast I got out of the gym. I did

-Bench press 80kg x 10 -> Rest pause; 30sec rest till 40 reps total
-Incline press 50kg x 10 -> Rest pause; 30sec rest till 40 reps total
-Cable crossover 20kg x 15 -> rest pause; 15 sec rest till 50 reps total
-Cable pressdown 50kg x 12 -> rest pause; 15 sec rest till 50 reps total
-Lateral raises sitten 4kg x 15 -> rest pause; 15 sec rest till 50 reps total
-Leg raises 20 -> rest pause; 15 sec rest till 50 reps total

Did I get the idea of this routine right? You do as many as you can in your first set and then rest pause till you reach your target reps? Also how do you guys keep your form when you're nearly always doing the exercises at near to failure?

[64509chvl]

I did my first workout with this program and I was surprised how fast I got out of the gym. I did

-Bench press 80kg x 10 -> Rest pause; 30sec rest till 40 reps total
-Incline press 50kg x 10 -> Rest pause; 30sec rest till 40 reps total
-Cable crossover 20kg x 15 -> rest pause; 15 sec rest till 50 reps total
-Cable pressdown 50kg x 12 -> rest pause; 15 sec rest till 50 reps total
-Lateral raises sitten 4kg x 15 -> rest pause; 15 sec rest till 50 reps total
-Leg raises 20 -> rest pause; 15 sec rest till 50 reps total

Did I get the idea of this routine right? You do as many as you can in your first set and then rest pause till you reach your target reps? Also how do you guys keep your form when you're nearly always doing the exercises at near to failure?

You've got the idea. Up the weight if you can get 12 reps...although some of us like to use a 15 rep max on the smaller assistance lifts. Entirely up to you.
My own personal rule for adding weight is i only add enough to where it brings me back to about 10 reps...simply the way I like doing it. Not much weight added, sometimes only 5 pounds, but works for me.

[DumbbellDude]

My god, I just did this routine with pause reps instead of straight sets! That was a humbling experience, it's crazy how much more effort it took me to get to 48 reps. I actually had to decrease volume to 40 and 30 for some excercises. I'm nowhere near knowledgeable in regards to this, but if I compare a 4*12 straight set to a 48 pause rep set, the last one feels so much more intense. Great, almost scary stuff haha!

[BlueMadness]

Hi guys,I have been doing Kelei program for a while and last push training i had some problem.
When I was doing dumbbell bench press with 30kg I perfomed 65 total reps,and more for incline DB press and fly.
So I guess,its a lot of volume.
Next training I progress 2 reps in DB press but then I felt pain in left shoulder.
Also,I have been doing side lateral raise almost every day so I guess thats why I also ****ed my shoulder.
Now,I have pain in left shoulder while doing almost every pushing exercise.
I also read a lot of stuff about shoulder pain,but I don't know what to do.

Anybody else have this problem with shoulder and how can I fix it?(I don't like option to not going in gym for a while.)

[ThatOneLurker]

I'm thinking about splitting up the PPL split to chest/quads, back/ham, shoulders/arms/calf split. Mostly because that the leg day feels like a killer and i haven't dropped leg-press and hyperextensions yet like this in this routine.

Anyone see any problem with this?

No, that's how Serge Nubret split up his bodyparts. It's fine.

This seems very accurate from my own experience and what I've read over the years. There's benefits to both ways of doing things, and novices will benefit from both sorts of programs.
I think it just comes down to preference. Doing straight sets that aren't necessarily to failure can still promote strength and size gains and won't fatigue you as much or burn you out (CNS). Rest-pause and/or continually going to failure may or may not be slightly more effective for hypertrophy/strength but it will certainly burn you out to where you need to back off/deload for a bit. Personally, I think going to failure works best for ME, but yeah the trade-off is that I get a bit burned out and need to chill out occassionally.
Long term it's difficult to say which one is more efficient, but it's pretty clear that either method works, though I do question how effective it would be for advanced lifters to not continually go to failure.
As far as preference, I like going to failure as much as possible- it's just how I train. Plus, if I have to travel and miss a few days of working out I don't feel guilty- I utilize it as my deload and I come back itching to hit the weights. So again, whichever method will keep you motivated, enjoying your workouts, and coming back consistently will be the most effective for you long term.

I'm still a big believer in rest pause sets. They're just more efficient than straight sets.

If any of you guys are interested:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15903379

Training leading to repetition failure enhances bench press strength gains in elite junior athletes.

These subjects had at least 6 months of resistance training under their belt before starting this study.

The result?

"Bench press training that leads to repetition failure induces greater strength gains than nonfailure training in the bench press exercise for elite junior team sport athletes."

[Jasonk282]

My god, I just did this routine with pause reps instead of straight sets! That was a humbling experience, it's crazy how much more effort it took me to get to 48 reps. I actually had to decrease volume to 40 and 30 for some excercises. I'm nowhere near knowledgeable in regards to this, but if I compare a 4*12 straight set to a 48 pause rep set, the last one feels so much more intense. Great, almost scary stuff haha!

yeah it's a different way if training that lost are not used to. However since I started lifting this way I've responded much better to it that more traditional ways

[Negligence]

It is inferior because you don't take any sets to or near failure which is important for promoting neural strength adaptations quicker. Using 80% of your 1RM to or near failure will provide better results than the waterbury method.

Something tells me you don't actively work in the 80-85% range enough to realize that what you're suggesting is a bit crazy. First, you don't need to go anywhere close to failure to promote strength adaptations (otherwise most strength coaches/athletes/routines would recommend it, which they don't), and second, you would burn out real fast taking sets to near-failure consistently at such as a high intensity.

I've done many 10x3 cycles and I know that it's hard and it works, and the strength/size adaptations are unparalleled (at least for me, which is why I tend to stick to high-sets/low-rep work).

Rest-pause/near-failure works, too, but not at a such a high intensity.

[ThatOneLurker]

Something tells me you don't actively work in the 80-85% range enough to realize that what you're suggesting is a bit crazy. First, you don't need to go anywhere close to failure to promote strength adaptations (otherwise most strength coaches/athletes/routines would recommend it, which they don't), and second, you would burn out real fast taking sets to near-failure consistently at such as a high intensity.

I've done many 10x3 cycles and I know that it's hard and it works, and the strength/size adaptations are unparalleled (at least for me, which is why I tend to stick to high-sets/low-rep work).

Rest-pause/near-failure works, too, but not at a such a high intensity.

My 10RMs are 83% of my 1RM because of training in this manner for so long. So yes, I do know what I'm suggesting.



If you're going to do low rep work then you should train exclusively with singles and doubles utilizing 90-95% of your 1RM.