Stupid Questions Thread

All training and programming related queries and banter here

Moderators: mgil, chromoly, Manveer

Post Reply
GeoffBUK
Registered User
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:07 am
Location: Darlington UK
Age: 46

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2881

Post by GeoffBUK » Sun Nov 06, 2022 9:40 pm

janoycresva wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 9:12 pm Anyone else have a huge left/right discrepancy on grippers, but not on stuff like static holds? I can close the #1 like 50 times with my right hand and like 20 times with my left hand, but my left hand isn't really giving out first on DOH holds or deadlifts.
Yup! Not sure how much the bias grippers have between left and right hand makes a difference, I saw 'left handed' grippers somewhere might have been ironmind, also pretty sure I read somewhere that even left handed people find they're stronger with the right hand,

though exactly why/how the way the grippers are made makes a difference I have no clue!

User avatar
alek
Registered User
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:11 pm
Location: 2 gainzZz goblinz
Age: 42

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2882

Post by alek » Mon Nov 07, 2022 5:23 am

hector wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 6:46 pm
alek wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:34 am
GeoffBUK wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:11 am I "borrowed" the rrbt program from a grip thread on this board, I'm not sure how to link threads but it's the exodus "grip strength, what why how when" thread from 2017, Idlehands posted most of the phases, it's pretty high workload, building volume with a '5' rep gripper and a '10' rep gripper
I have the coc#2 and 2.5 and also 3 off brand grippers to warm up with, maybe I shouldn't have been so tight with money and gone for all coc grippers, the off brand are ok but the red '200 lb' one is Way easier to close than the coc#2 195lb gripper, like 8-10 reps with the red and can't single the #2
If you're in a thread, you can just copy and paste the url, a la

viewtopic.php?t=73

That's the thread you mean I think. I want to get back into gripping, so I'll check it out.

I would +1 for getting more of the CoC grippers. I think if you buy 3 straight from IronMind, you get a discount; I'm not sure it's worth it after shipping or to piecemeal them from Amazon, which is where I got most, if not all, of mine.

It looks like @OverheadDeadlifts has had some luck with their programming. When I give it another go, I think I'm going to try a DUP approach.
I have tried a few different programs to train grippers.

I also read a few years about a brittish guy (if I remember right) who closed the #3. His only training was just to carry a 100lb dumbbell with him everywhere he went.

After reading that I did a few walks after lifting where I just went around my neighborhood for 20 minutes or so with a 52lb kettlebell, switching hands as needed. This was after doing chins or Hangs (not to exhaustion).

I think it worked as well as grippers did for improving grippers. I closed in on the 2.5, never got it.
That sounds very interesting... like combining LISS cardio with farmer's carries.

hector
Registered User
Posts: 5070
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2883

Post by hector » Mon Nov 07, 2022 12:34 pm

GeoffBUK wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 9:40 pm
janoycresva wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 9:12 pm Anyone else have a huge left/right discrepancy on grippers, but not on stuff like static holds? I can close the #1 like 50 times with my right hand and like 20 times with my left hand, but my left hand isn't really giving out first on DOH holds or deadlifts.
Yup! Not sure how much the bias grippers have between left and right hand makes a difference, I saw 'left handed' grippers somewhere might have been ironmind, also pretty sure I read somewhere that even left handed people find they're stronger with the right hand,

though exactly why/how the way the grippers are made makes a difference I have no clue!
There's something about the physics of the design, especially the spring, that makes Ironmind CoC grippers easier with your right hand. So disparity isn't just due to your differing hand strength.
I dont know the particulars, but it comes up in grip forums.

dw
Registered User
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2020 1:35 pm

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2884

Post by dw » Mon Nov 07, 2022 1:26 pm

Seated good mornings:

Do you unrack the bar standing, with the bench between your legs, and then squat down to the bench?

Spent a few minutes pondering the problem before just going with that. The first few YouTube videos I found had the person magically starting in a seated position with the barbell on his shoulders.

User avatar
quikky
Registered User
Posts: 1424
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:42 am

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2885

Post by quikky » Mon Nov 07, 2022 1:41 pm

Does anyone understand Jordan's explanation here: https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/forum ... ypertrophy

It seems very inconsistent to me, as he sort of implies effective reps are correct, but then says not really.

dw
Registered User
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2020 1:35 pm

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2886

Post by dw » Mon Nov 07, 2022 2:19 pm

quikky wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 1:41 pm Does anyone understand Jordan's explanation here: https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/forum ... ypertrophy

It seems very inconsistent to me, as he sort of implies effective reps are correct, but then says not really.

Not really but I'm more struck by how bad his attitude is. It's funny he almost has a Rippetoean hostility to the questioner...as if he resents being forced to expose his potential ignorance.

Guess I've been listening to too much Greg Nuckols.

Anyway to your question I think the current thinking is that metabolic stress is more of a threshold that needs to be crossed during the set to get a strong per set hypertrophy stimulus than something that linearly increases that stimulus.

Idk...

psmith
Registered User
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:00 am

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2887

Post by psmith » Mon Nov 07, 2022 2:23 pm

alek wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 5:23 am
hector wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 6:46 pm
alek wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:34 am
GeoffBUK wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:11 am I "borrowed" the rrbt program from a grip thread on this board, I'm not sure how to link threads but it's the exodus "grip strength, what why how when" thread from 2017, Idlehands posted most of the phases, it's pretty high workload, building volume with a '5' rep gripper and a '10' rep gripper
I have the coc#2 and 2.5 and also 3 off brand grippers to warm up with, maybe I shouldn't have been so tight with money and gone for all coc grippers, the off brand are ok but the red '200 lb' one is Way easier to close than the coc#2 195lb gripper, like 8-10 reps with the red and can't single the #2
If you're in a thread, you can just copy and paste the url, a la

viewtopic.php?t=73

That's the thread you mean I think. I want to get back into gripping, so I'll check it out.

I would +1 for getting more of the CoC grippers. I think if you buy 3 straight from IronMind, you get a discount; I'm not sure it's worth it after shipping or to piecemeal them from Amazon, which is where I got most, if not all, of mine.

It looks like @OverheadDeadlifts has had some luck with their programming. When I give it another go, I think I'm going to try a DUP approach.
I have tried a few different programs to train grippers.

I also read a few years about a brittish guy (if I remember right) who closed the #3. His only training was just to carry a 100lb dumbbell with him everywhere he went.

After reading that I did a few walks after lifting where I just went around my neighborhood for 20 minutes or so with a 52lb kettlebell, switching hands as needed. This was after doing chins or Hangs (not to exhaustion).

I think it worked as well as grippers did for improving grippers. I closed in on the 2.5, never got it.
That sounds very interesting... like combining LISS cardio with farmer's carries.
Yoooo check out https://www.strongfirst.com/the-kettlebell-mile/, a lot of strongfirst stuff is a bit kooky but Mike Prevost is legit.

"carry kettlebell to park, do stuff, carry kettlebell home" is a pretty great session format if you're not too concerned about max strength.

User avatar
Hardartery
Registered User
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:28 pm
Location: Fat City

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2888

Post by Hardartery » Mon Nov 07, 2022 3:35 pm

augeleven wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 7:43 pm Does training your grip have upside, besides closing grippers? Kinda want to jump in, but I’m afraid of hurting my hands and not being able to play instruments and whatnot. Note that playing instruments is kind of in my dayjob description.
Closing grippers has a lot to do with hand size and shape. Phil Pfister was/is terrible with them but his grip strength is phenominal. It can have a uspide in jar opening ability and other regular life things, but not a ton unless you make it your thing to be known by.

User avatar
quikky
Registered User
Posts: 1424
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:42 am

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2889

Post by quikky » Mon Nov 07, 2022 3:37 pm

dw wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 2:19 pm
quikky wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 1:41 pm Does anyone understand Jordan's explanation here: https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/forum ... ypertrophy

It seems very inconsistent to me, as he sort of implies effective reps are correct, but then says not really.

Not really but I'm more struck by how bad his attitude is. It's funny he almost has a Rippetoean hostility to the questioner...as if he resents being forced to expose his potential ignorance.

Guess I've been listening to too much Greg Nuckols.

Anyway to your question I think the current thinking is that metabolic stress is more of a threshold that needs to be crossed during the set to get a strong per set hypertrophy stimulus than something that linearly increases that stimulus.

Idk...
Yeah, I was trying to understand what he's saying but it does not fit into a cohesive theory to me. If the idea, as you alluded to, is that hypertrophy is driven by metabolic stress, then we would not need to approach failure for light sets, and even endurance/cardio work would cause hypertrophy. However, I believe all the data shows that hypertrophy is achieved with almost any intensity above some fairly small threshold like 20-30% of 1RM, as long as it is taken close to failure, which is exactly the effective reps theory of stimulus. Jordan seems to agree that this is the case, sort of, and alludes to the fact that a certain level of mechanical tension likely needs to be crossed (again, effective reps), but then says going beyond this threshold does not matter, i.e. RPE 6 is the same stimulus as RPE 10, and yet his general theory is that volume is the driver of hypertrophy. This seems very inconsistent.

I don't know if Jordan is not making sense, or if I am not understanding him.

User avatar
Hardartery
Registered User
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:28 pm
Location: Fat City

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2890

Post by Hardartery » Mon Nov 07, 2022 3:41 pm

janoycresva wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 9:12 pm Anyone else have a huge left/right discrepancy on grippers, but not on stuff like static holds? I can close the #1 like 50 times with my right hand and like 20 times with my left hand, but my left hand isn't really giving out first on DOH holds or deadlifts.
I am left-handed, technically, but generally ambidextrous. My Left hand is definitely the stronger grip, and it also is stronger on the COC grippers, but barely. I have a #3.5 in front of me and I get closer with my left than my right, and I think the #2 was easier with the left. I don't have a #3 with me, but I don't remember the two hands being markedly different. Which is surprising given that I know for a fact the left hand is easily the better grip.

asdf
Registered User
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 7:29 pm

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2891

Post by asdf » Mon Nov 07, 2022 3:53 pm

psmith wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 2:23 pm Mike Prevost is legit.
I keep running into stuff by that guy. He co-authored the book American Weightlifting with Glenn Pendlay, and I recently read his two-part article on rucking.

User avatar
Hardartery
Registered User
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:28 pm
Location: Fat City

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2892

Post by Hardartery » Mon Nov 07, 2022 3:56 pm

quikky wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 3:37 pm
dw wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 2:19 pm
quikky wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 1:41 pm Does anyone understand Jordan's explanation here: https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/forum ... ypertrophy

It seems very inconsistent to me, as he sort of implies effective reps are correct, but then says not really.

Not really but I'm more struck by how bad his attitude is. It's funny he almost has a Rippetoean hostility to the questioner...as if he resents being forced to expose his potential ignorance.

Guess I've been listening to too much Greg Nuckols.

Anyway to your question I think the current thinking is that metabolic stress is more of a threshold that needs to be crossed during the set to get a strong per set hypertrophy stimulus than something that linearly increases that stimulus.

Idk...
Yeah, I was trying to understand what he's saying but it does not fit into a cohesive theory to me. If the idea, as you alluded to, is that hypertrophy is driven by metabolic stress, then we would not need to approach failure for light sets, and even endurance/cardio work would cause hypertrophy. However, I believe all the data shows that hypertrophy is achieved with almost any intensity above some fairly small threshold like 20-30% of 1RM, as long as it is taken close to failure, which is exactly the effective reps theory of stimulus. Jordan seems to agree that this is the case, sort of, and alludes to the fact that a certain level of mechanical tension likely needs to be crossed (again, effective reps), but then says going beyond this threshold does not matter, i.e. RPE 6 is the same stimulus as RPE 10, and yet his general theory is that volume is the driver of hypertrophy. This seems very inconsistent.

I don't know if Jordan is not making sense, or if I am not understanding him.
Jordan made perfect sense, to me. Any set taken to failure or closr to failure is by definition high intensity, it just takes a lot of reps to get there. It's more effecient to push lower reps and go to 4-5 RIR, it achieves the same level of overall intensity in a more effecient way, and likely leads to greater cross connection in the fibres that lead to greater cross-sectional size. Cross sectional size being different than simply "Size", which can be achieved through production of additional muscle cells but the literature that I have read doesn't seem to equate that to cross-sectional size gains. That doesn't make a lot of sense on it's face, but in practice you are going to gain strength at a much greater rate through the cross-connection of muscle tissues than you can by producing new muscle fibres. It makes for a denser muscle as well. Jordan seems consitant in saying that going to 4-5 RIR at any of the rep ranges mentioned would be the same result, which I honestly doubt but there may be some studies indicating that to be at least a realistic possibility. He also mentioned several times that one set on it's own cannot be considered outside of the context of the overall volume of the workout.

dw
Registered User
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2020 1:35 pm

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2893

Post by dw » Mon Nov 07, 2022 4:09 pm

quikky wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 3:37 pm
dw wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 2:19 pm
quikky wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 1:41 pm Does anyone understand Jordan's explanation here: https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/forum ... ypertrophy

It seems very inconsistent to me, as he sort of implies effective reps are correct, but then says not really.

Not really but I'm more struck by how bad his attitude is. It's funny he almost has a Rippetoean hostility to the questioner...as if he resents being forced to expose his potential ignorance.

Guess I've been listening to too much Greg Nuckols.

Anyway to your question I think the current thinking is that metabolic stress is more of a threshold that needs to be crossed during the set to get a strong per set hypertrophy stimulus than something that linearly increases that stimulus.

Idk...
Yeah, I was trying to understand what he's saying but it does not fit into a cohesive theory to me. If the idea, as you alluded to, is that hypertrophy is driven by metabolic stress, then we would not need to approach failure for light sets, and even endurance/cardio work would cause hypertrophy. However, I believe all the data shows that hypertrophy is achieved with almost any intensity above some fairly small threshold like 20-30% of 1RM, as long as it is taken close to failure, which is exactly the effective reps theory of stimulus. Jordan seems to agree that this is the case, sort of, and alludes to the fact that a certain level of mechanical tension likely needs to be crossed (again, effective reps), but then says going beyond this threshold does not matter, i.e. RPE 6 is the same stimulus as RPE 10, and yet his general theory is that volume is the driver of hypertrophy. This seems very inconsistent.

I don't know if Jordan is not making sense, or if I am not understanding him.


I'm not sure I understand the effective reps theory but I think it involves two premises: that metabolic stress is necessary for hypertrophy and that hypertrophy scales pretty linearly with metabolic stress. Therefore in a set taken to failure only the reps that are sufficiently stressful metabolically (say RPE 7-10) contribute to hypertrophy, and of those the later reps are substantially more effective than the earlier.

I think the more current theory is that metabolic stress is more of a threshold that needs to be crossed to *maximize* per set hypertrophic stimulus, not to achieve any hypertrophic stimulus at all, nor to maximize per workout stimulus (e.g. Montana Method).

This refinement has two consequences: you can achieve hypertrophy through mechanical stress alone, it's just not efficient per set. (E.g. Montana method not adapted to stress hypertrophy.) And second, because it is more a threshold than a linear driver of hypertrophy, sets at say RPE 6 might be equally stimulative to sets at RPE 8.

The latter premise has a very practical consequence for programming imo, in that if true you should aim for your sets across (before the final set) to be well away from RPE 10 so that you can maximize mechanical stress (i.e. total reps) without having to take long rest periods. Whereas if you hit RPE 10 with several sets to go you will lose a lot of reps as you start failing your rep target.

User avatar
quikky
Registered User
Posts: 1424
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:42 am

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2894

Post by quikky » Mon Nov 07, 2022 4:40 pm

Hardartery wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 3:56 pm Jordan made perfect sense, to me. Any set taken to failure or closr to failure is by definition high intensity, it just takes a lot of reps to get there. It's more effecient to push lower reps and go to 4-5 RIR, it achieves the same level of overall intensity in a more effecient way, and likely leads to greater cross connection in the fibres that lead to greater cross-sectional size. Cross sectional size being different than simply "Size", which can be achieved through production of additional muscle cells but the literature that I have read doesn't seem to equate that to cross-sectional size gains. That doesn't make a lot of sense on it's face, but in practice you are going to gain strength at a much greater rate through the cross-connection of muscle tissues than you can by producing new muscle fibres. It makes for a denser muscle as well. Jordan seems consitant in saying that going to 4-5 RIR at any of the rep ranges mentioned would be the same result, which I honestly doubt but there may be some studies indicating that to be at least a realistic possibility. He also mentioned several times that one set on it's own cannot be considered outside of the context of the overall volume of the workout.
That's the thing, he said two sets of different reps, but both done to 4-5 RIR are equally stimulating, but then also goes on to say that even doing sets at 10RIR could be the same as 4-5RIR at equal volumes. This seems contradictory to me.

The question is not efficiency of training, but rather what constitutes hypertrophic stimulus.
dw wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 4:09 pm I'm not sure I understand the effective reps theory but I think it involves two premises: that metabolic stress is necessary for hypertrophy and that hypertrophy scales pretty linearly with metabolic stress. Therefore in a set taken to failure only the reps that are sufficiently stressful metabolically (say RPE 7-10) contribute to hypertrophy, and of those the later reps are substantially more effective than the earlier.

I think the more current theory is that metabolic stress is more of a threshold that needs to be crossed to *maximize* per set hypertrophic stimulus, not to achieve any hypertrophic stimulus at all, nor to maximize per workout stimulus (e.g. Montana Method).

This refinement has two consequences: you can achieve hypertrophy through mechanical stress alone, it's just not efficient per set. (E.g. Montana method not adapted to stress hypertrophy.) And second, because it is more a threshold than a linear driver of hypertrophy, sets at say RPE 6 might be equally stimulative to sets at RPE 8.

The latter premise has a very practical consequence for programming imo, in that if true you should aim for your sets across (before the final set) to be well away from RPE 10 so that you can maximize mechanical stress (i.e. total reps) without having to take long rest periods. Whereas if you hit RPE 10 with several sets to go you will lose a lot of reps as you start failing your rep target.
And this kind of gets to the crux of it: if some threshold needs to be reached, what does it say about the reps preceding it? In other words, if for a set of 5 you need it to be at least, say RPE 5 to be considered effective, what happens if it is RPE 4 or less? I understand it is not a perfectly precise cutoff, but generally speaking, if we say you need to hit RPE 5-ish, what, generally speaking, do reps below RPE 5 do? It would imply they are junk volume. If they are not junk volume, and they are indeed stimulating, then why do we need to hit RPE 5? Why not just do sets across at RPE 2, for example, and achieve similar results with a lot less effort?

In one of the examples, where I think Jordan is at least consistent, he agrees that a set of 5 with a 10RM weight would be equivalent to a set of 25 with a 30RM weight. Why is that the case? What are reps 1-4, or 1-24 in terms of stimulus? Again, if they are useful because volume, then why does it matter if we hit RPE 5+? And if they are not useful, then we are back to effective reps theory*.

Also, this poses questions about the reps following the threshold rep. If RPE 5 means stimulus reached, and the reps following that are not driving more stimulus, just more fatigue, why is the RPE 5 rep stimulating, and the RPE 6+ reps not? Do muscles only respond to the first rep of increased mechanical tension, but not the following ones in the same set? Is a single at RPE 5 equally stimulating as a triple at RPE 7, or a set of five at RPE 9? Again, doesn't make sense to me.

---

* My understand is that the effective reps theory states that only reps that achieve an involuntary reduction in contractile velocity are considered effective. This tends to occur with RPE 5+ ish work. Each rep above 5+ is considered effective, so a set at RPE 8 has about 3-4 effective reps, and a set at RPE 5 has about 1 effective rep. The idea is that, based on fatigue, you can either go hard for very few sets, or go easier for more sets to achieve the same stimulus.

User avatar
alek
Registered User
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:11 pm
Location: 2 gainzZz goblinz
Age: 42

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2895

Post by alek » Mon Nov 07, 2022 5:58 pm

psmith wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 2:23 pm
alek wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 5:23 am
hector wrote: Sun Nov 06, 2022 6:46 pm
alek wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:34 am
GeoffBUK wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:11 am I "borrowed" the rrbt program from a grip thread on this board, I'm not sure how to link threads but it's the exodus "grip strength, what why how when" thread from 2017, Idlehands posted most of the phases, it's pretty high workload, building volume with a '5' rep gripper and a '10' rep gripper
I have the coc#2 and 2.5 and also 3 off brand grippers to warm up with, maybe I shouldn't have been so tight with money and gone for all coc grippers, the off brand are ok but the red '200 lb' one is Way easier to close than the coc#2 195lb gripper, like 8-10 reps with the red and can't single the #2
If you're in a thread, you can just copy and paste the url, a la

viewtopic.php?t=73

That's the thread you mean I think. I want to get back into gripping, so I'll check it out.

I would +1 for getting more of the CoC grippers. I think if you buy 3 straight from IronMind, you get a discount; I'm not sure it's worth it after shipping or to piecemeal them from Amazon, which is where I got most, if not all, of mine.

It looks like @OverheadDeadlifts has had some luck with their programming. When I give it another go, I think I'm going to try a DUP approach.
I have tried a few different programs to train grippers.

I also read a few years about a brittish guy (if I remember right) who closed the #3. His only training was just to carry a 100lb dumbbell with him everywhere he went.

After reading that I did a few walks after lifting where I just went around my neighborhood for 20 minutes or so with a 52lb kettlebell, switching hands as needed. This was after doing chins or Hangs (not to exhaustion).

I think it worked as well as grippers did for improving grippers. I closed in on the 2.5, never got it.
That sounds very interesting... like combining LISS cardio with farmer's carries.
Yoooo check out https://www.strongfirst.com/the-kettlebell-mile/, a lot of strongfirst stuff is a bit kooky but Mike Prevost is legit.

"carry kettlebell to park, do stuff, carry kettlebell home" is a pretty great session format if you're not too concerned about max strength.
Oooooh, I'm gonna have to try that.

@augeleven, didn't you recently get some kettlebells for cheap? Walmart?

User avatar
augeleven
Registered User
Posts: 4427
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:47 pm
Location: 9th level
Age: 43

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2896

Post by augeleven » Mon Nov 07, 2022 6:03 pm

alek wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 5:58 pm didn't you recently get some kettlebells for cheap? Walmart
They were stupid cheap. Like 33¢ a pound. Past tense. I’m still kicking myself for not getting a full set.
For the kids…

The tacticalbarbell cree have a “put a kettlebell in a backpack, do a hill sprint. Kettlebellswings st the top of the hill. Sounds awful. Sounds like Spring.

User avatar
alek
Registered User
Posts: 3146
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 4:11 pm
Location: 2 gainzZz goblinz
Age: 42

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2897

Post by alek » Mon Nov 07, 2022 6:08 pm

augeleven wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 6:03 pm
alek wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 5:58 pm didn't you recently get some kettlebells for cheap? Walmart
They were stupid cheap. Like 33¢ a pound. Past tense. I’m still kicking myself for not getting a full set.
For the kids…

The tacticalbarbell cree have a “put a kettlebell in a backpack, do a hill sprint. Kettlebellswings st the top of the hill. Sounds awful. Sounds like Spring.
There's a 24kg on walmart.com for $62.10 right now. Maybe black friday will bring some deals.

User avatar
Hardartery
Registered User
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:28 pm
Location: Fat City

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2898

Post by Hardartery » Mon Nov 07, 2022 7:27 pm

quikky wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 4:40 pm

That's the thing, he said two sets of different reps, but both done to 4-5 RIR are equally stimulating, but then also goes on to say that even doing sets at 10RIR could be the same as 4-5RIR at equal volumes. This seems contradictory to me.

The question is not efficiency of training, but rather what constitutes hypertrophic stimulus.


And this kind of gets to the crux of it: if some threshold needs to be reached, what does it say about the reps preceding it? In other words, if for a set of 5 you need it to be at least, say RPE 5 to be considered effective, what happens if it is RPE 4 or less? I understand it is not a perfectly precise cutoff, but generally speaking, if we say you need to hit RPE 5-ish, what, generally speaking, do reps below RPE 5 do? It would imply they are junk volume. If they are not junk volume, and they are indeed stimulating, then why do we need to hit RPE 5? Why not just do sets across at RPE 2, for example, and achieve similar results with a lot less effort?

In one of the examples, where I think Jordan is at least consistent, he agrees that a set of 5 with a 10RM weight would be equivalent to a set of 25 with a 30RM weight. Why is that the case? What are reps 1-4, or 1-24 in terms of stimulus? Again, if they are useful because volume, then why does it matter if we hit RPE 5+? And if they are not useful, then we are back to effective reps theory*.

Also, this poses questions about the reps following the threshold rep. If RPE 5 means stimulus reached, and the reps following that are not driving more stimulus, just more fatigue, why is the RPE 5 rep stimulating, and the RPE 6+ reps not? Do muscles only respond to the first rep of increased mechanical tension, but not the following ones in the same set? Is a single at RPE 5 equally stimulating as a triple at RPE 7, or a set of five at RPE 9? Again, doesn't make sense to me.

---

* My understand is that the effective reps theory states that only reps that achieve an involuntary reduction in contractile velocity are considered effective. This tends to occur with RPE 5+ ish work. Each rep above 5+ is considered effective, so a set at RPE 8 has about 3-4 effective reps, and a set at RPE 5 has about 1 effective rep. The idea is that, based on fatigue, you can either go hard for very few sets, or go easier for more sets to achieve the same stimulus.
So, here's how I see it, and how I think Jordan was indicating (Irrespective of my opinion): The earlier reps are simply the vehicle that carries you to the ones that count. You can take the winding road of 30 reps or the more direct route of 10 reps. You need to expend the energy of the earlier reps to get to the ones that count, so they are only junk volume if you stop short of the stimulus reps that are the goal. This type of programming is largely done to get you to the goal with weights that are less likely to cause injury or corrupt your form. You could skip straight to a weight that induce the stimulation at rep 1 or 2, but you chance of injury increases and your recovery need (CNS more than muscle) increases. I don't know what Jordan says directly on it, but the continued reps also provide stimulus IME, which is why Drop Sets and forced reps are a thing. The harder you grind the more stimulus, just maybe a slightly less effecient return on energy expended after a while.

ChasingCurls69
Registered User
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:43 am

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2899

Post by ChasingCurls69 » Mon Nov 07, 2022 7:40 pm

quikky wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 1:41 pm Does anyone understand Jordan's explanation here: https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/forum ... ypertrophy

It seems very inconsistent to me, as he sort of implies effective reps are correct, but then says not really.
I think the main thing is that below a certain threshold you have to get to that 4-5 RIR to achieve the mechanical tension and metabolic stuff for your hypertrophy stimulus across a given workout and total volume, but above a certain threshold % of 1rm you are getting roughly equivalent stimulus regardless of proximity to failure, within reason (i.e. probs not gonna do 30 singles with 70% of 1rm).

User avatar
quikky
Registered User
Posts: 1424
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:42 am

Re: Stupid Questions Thread

#2900

Post by quikky » Mon Nov 07, 2022 8:14 pm

Hardartery wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 7:27 pm
quikky wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 4:40 pm

That's the thing, he said two sets of different reps, but both done to 4-5 RIR are equally stimulating, but then also goes on to say that even doing sets at 10RIR could be the same as 4-5RIR at equal volumes. This seems contradictory to me.

The question is not efficiency of training, but rather what constitutes hypertrophic stimulus.


And this kind of gets to the crux of it: if some threshold needs to be reached, what does it say about the reps preceding it? In other words, if for a set of 5 you need it to be at least, say RPE 5 to be considered effective, what happens if it is RPE 4 or less? I understand it is not a perfectly precise cutoff, but generally speaking, if we say you need to hit RPE 5-ish, what, generally speaking, do reps below RPE 5 do? It would imply they are junk volume. If they are not junk volume, and they are indeed stimulating, then why do we need to hit RPE 5? Why not just do sets across at RPE 2, for example, and achieve similar results with a lot less effort?

In one of the examples, where I think Jordan is at least consistent, he agrees that a set of 5 with a 10RM weight would be equivalent to a set of 25 with a 30RM weight. Why is that the case? What are reps 1-4, or 1-24 in terms of stimulus? Again, if they are useful because volume, then why does it matter if we hit RPE 5+? And if they are not useful, then we are back to effective reps theory*.

Also, this poses questions about the reps following the threshold rep. If RPE 5 means stimulus reached, and the reps following that are not driving more stimulus, just more fatigue, why is the RPE 5 rep stimulating, and the RPE 6+ reps not? Do muscles only respond to the first rep of increased mechanical tension, but not the following ones in the same set? Is a single at RPE 5 equally stimulating as a triple at RPE 7, or a set of five at RPE 9? Again, doesn't make sense to me.

---

* My understand is that the effective reps theory states that only reps that achieve an involuntary reduction in contractile velocity are considered effective. This tends to occur with RPE 5+ ish work. Each rep above 5+ is considered effective, so a set at RPE 8 has about 3-4 effective reps, and a set at RPE 5 has about 1 effective rep. The idea is that, based on fatigue, you can either go hard for very few sets, or go easier for more sets to achieve the same stimulus.
So, here's how I see it, and how I think Jordan was indicating (Irrespective of my opinion): The earlier reps are simply the vehicle that carries you to the ones that count. You can take the winding road of 30 reps or the more direct route of 10 reps. You need to expend the energy of the earlier reps to get to the ones that count, so they are only junk volume if you stop short of the stimulus reps that are the goal. This type of programming is largely done to get you to the goal with weights that are less likely to cause injury or corrupt your form. You could skip straight to a weight that induce the stimulation at rep 1 or 2, but you chance of injury increases and your recovery need (CNS more than muscle) increases. I don't know what Jordan says directly on it, but the continued reps also provide stimulus IME, which is why Drop Sets and forced reps are a thing. The harder you grind the more stimulus, just maybe a slightly less effecient return on energy expended after a while.
Yeah, that's what my point above was, which goes hand in hand with the effective reps theory. However, this part from Jordan contradicts that:
Poster: So, like, 4x15 with 5RIR/at 20RM vs. 6x10 with 10RIR/at 20RM -- intensity and total volume are equal; what differs is proximity to failure of the sets...

Jordan: For your example, all the reps are equally as effective for hypertrophy, provided some threshold of fatigue products, tension, etc. are generated. There are likely other mechanisms we don't know about as well.

FWIW, I don't think there would be a difference in hypertrophy between those two products.
I don't understand how reps at 10RIR or easier can be as effective, or frankly, effective at all, as reps at 5RIR, and also how in the same thread he can say sets need to get to 4-5 RIR to get a hypertrophy stimulus.

Then there is this part, which @ChasingCurls69 was mentioning in terms of effectiveness vs proximity to failure:
Poster: My belief was based on the notion that all reps at ~70% 1RM or higher cause more or less equal motor unit recruitment, from pretty much the first rep in the set onward. Perhaps that part is true, but from what I've recently read it still seems as if ~4-5 RIR is best for hypertrophy.

Jordan: It's not that it's best, it's just likely equivalent to going to failure, but without the cost of doing so.
This part might mean different things. If Jordan means a single rep at RIR 4-5 is as effective as a single rep at 0-2 RIR, then that's reasonable. However, if he means a set done at 4-5 RIR is equivalent to a set done to 0-2 RIR from a hypertrophy stimulus standpoint, then that makes no sense to me.

Post Reply