Volume - a thought experiment

[Chebass88]

Edited - OT.

MOD: Can be deleted.

[strega]

I’m really enjoying this thread a lot of great info. However, it seems like a lot of it is Greek to me. I am apparently dumber than I thought or am still a recovering Riptoad.

Looking for a recommendation to sort of catch up, would this be a good start?

https://store.reactivetrainingsystems.c ... ductCode=3

[jake]

So I'm starting a new program today, and coincidentally I'll be doing the same weightxrepsxsets on the press today as I did last Friday. This some how feels super wrong, like I'm breaking a law or something.

This got me to thinking: I keep reading that volume is effective if it is over 70% of your e1rm.
So if I my press 1rm was 100, could I just do 80x5x5 until 80 was below 70% of my 1rm?

Well, if 80% for 5x5 causes max growth, but 70% causes no growth, then your rate of increase will asymptotically approach zero.

I.e. it would take literally forever to get to the point where 80lbs was 70% of 1rm.

I think there's another dimension to this: what if you are talking about 80%x5x5 once per week vs. 70%x5x5 three times per week? That's 50 more reps and almost 3 times the tonnage. As far as breaking the righteous and most important increase-the-bar-weight-at-all-costs law, I'd say: it's all accumulation, just maybe not in its most optimal expression in this example. The bar weight just gets increased after a longer period of volume accumulation.

So sure, you'll asymptotically approach zero with that loading within a discrete time frame, but if you increase volume within that same time frame the stress changes.

[SJB]

I’m really enjoying this thread a lot of great info. However, it seems like a lot of it is Greek to me. I am apparently dumber than I thought or am still a recovering Riptoad.

Looking for a recommendation to sort of catch up, would this be a good start?

https://store.reactivetrainingsystems.c ... ductCode=3

Nope, unless its been updated it is a hodge podge of confusion, the free stuff on the RTS website and some of the Barbell Medicine stuff or ask smater people than me here.

[strega]

Nope, unless its been updated it is a hodge podge of confusion, the free stuff on the RTS website and some of the Barbell Medicine stuff or ask smater people than me here.

Thanks, I'll start with the site and go from there. I don't need to be confused for sure I do enough of that on my own.

[SJB]

Nope, unless its been updated it is a hodge podge of confusion, the free stuff on the RTS website and some of the Barbell Medicine stuff or ask smater people than me here.

Thanks, I'll start with the site and go from there. I don't need to be confused for sure I do enough of that on my own.

No wuckers, see I'm not even smat enough to be able to spell smat.

[d0uevenlift]

Nope, unless its been updated it is a hodge podge of confusion, the free stuff on the RTS website and some of the Barbell Medicine stuff or ask smater people than me here.

Thanks, I'll start with the site and go from there. I don't need to be confused for sure I do enough of that on my own.

I agree, don't buy the book. Mike T is writing a new one, and the old RTS manual is outdated.

If you browse the RTS YouTube channel, you'll find loads of great info.

[strega]

I agree, don't buy the book. Mike T is writing a new one, and the old RTS manual is outdated.

If you browse the RTS YouTube channel, you'll find loads of great info.

Thanks, I'll start with the YouTube stuff and read the basics on their site. At times I'm a terribly slow learner, but I'm incredibly stubborn so sooner or later I figure things out.

[Hanley]

Thanks, I'll start with the YouTube stuff and read the basics on their site. At times I'm a terribly slow learner, but I'm incredibly stubborn so sooner or later I figure things out.

I think you’ll find that you bump up against “what is known” really quickly when it comes to the science behind programming.

For instance:

- when it comes to growing muscle, why is 65-70% 1rm the low-threshold for useful intensity?

- how does 10x3@500 differ from 3x10@500 considering only hormone signaling pathways (disregard “skill”)?

- what the fuck is fatigue?

^ anyway...don’t get too hung up on “special language” or proprietary systems. Everyone’s clusterfucking their way through the dark.

[OCG]

Yup. Most of this shit is all just best guesses. Some guesses are better than others. At it's most basic core periodisation is just a way to keep an athlete from trying to kill themselves or slack off too much for 12 weeks. There's no magic to it.

[slowmotion]

- how does 10x3@500 differ from 3x10@500 considering only hormone signaling pathways (disregard “skill”)?

I would be interested in thoughts on this subject.

[Hanley]

I would be interested in thoughts on this subject.

I don't have nearly a strong enough background in physiology to speculate on this.

In practice, I am absolutely certain that I get excellent hypertrophy results from doing lots of mini-sets with loads around 70-75% (so...basically the "10 sets of 3 at ~70%" approach.) My wild-ass guess is that different signalling pathways are de-emphasized by limiting intraset fatigue (IOW perhaps production of mechano growth hormone is similar between both approaches, but whatever pathways are opened up as inflammation-response are de-emphasized. Don't know. Above my paygrade.


I might reach out to Baraki and see if he'd be willing to some sorta interview for this site...I think I have lots of interesting questions that no one (outside of the research world) really seems to address.

[PatrickDB]

I might reach out to Baraki and see if he'd be willing to some sorta interview for this site...I think I have lots of interesting questions that no one (outside of the research world) really seems to address.

I would pay money to read about you and Baraki chatting about lifting.

[d0uevenlift]

I would be interested in thoughts on this subject.

I don't have nearly a strong enough background in physiology to speculate on this.

In practice, I am absolutely certain that I get excellent hypertrophy results from doing lots of mini-sets with loads around 70-75% (so...basically the "10 sets of 3 at ~70%" approach.) My wild-ass guess is that different signalling pathways are de-emphasized by limiting intraset fatigue (IOW perhaps production of mechano growth hormone is similar between both approaches, but whatever pathways are opened up as inflammation-response are de-emphasized. Don't know. Above my paygrade.


I might reach out to Baraki and see if he'd be willing to some sorta interview for this site...I think I have lots of interesting questions that no one (outside of the research world) really seems to address.

[Hanley]

[Baraki Vid]

That's cool. I still want to pick his brain on how manipulating intraset fatigue can emphaisze/de-emphasize certain signalling pathways.

[PatrickDB]

[Baraki Vid]

That's cool. I still want to pick his brain on how manipulating intraset fatigue can emphaisze/de-emphasize certain signalling pathways.

He'll answer if you post on his forum (barbellmedicine.com).

[d0uevenlift]

[Baraki Vid]

That's cool. I still want to pick his brain on how manipulating intraset fatigue can emphaisze/de-emphasize certain signalling pathways.

He'll answer if you post on his forum (barbellmedicine.com).

Are they pretty active over there?

[PatrickDB]

Are they pretty active over there?

Yeah. They have to approve your posts before they appear, but they get around to doing that and answering them about once per day, roughly.

[Hanley]

[Baraki Vid]

That's cool. I still want to pick his brain on how manipulating intraset fatigue can emphaisze/de-emphasize certain signalling pathways.

He'll answer if you post on his forum (barbellmedicine.com).

I visited the site. Read @TimK 's very good question about doing tonnage-matched 1) main-lift variations at higher RPEs vs 2) the main-lift itself at lower RPEs.

The exchange seemed like some weird exercise in riddle-me-this. Odd.

[TimK]

[Baraki Vid]

That's cool. I still want to pick his brain on how manipulating intraset fatigue can emphaisze/de-emphasize certain signalling pathways.

He'll answer if you post on his forum (barbellmedicine.com).

I visited the site. Read @TimK 's very good question about doing tonnage-matched 1) main-lift variations at higher RPEs vs 2) the main-lift itself at lower RPEs.

The exchange seemed like some weird exercise in riddle-me-this. Odd.

Frustratingly, I followed up with a post attempting to clarify some things and it was never approved.

EDIT: Just visited again and I see there is a reply, lol. I guess it takes a while. I'll go read it.