|
|
Post by carruthersjam on Apr 15, 2008 10:51:14 GMT -8
Hi John have you ever considered reversing the sequence of the protocol i.e., performing the sets of low reps at high loads prior to the higher repetitions:
Bench press 10, 20, 30 or 5, 10, 20
The warm-up would obviously need to be extended.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by John A. Casler on Apr 17, 2008 9:21:36 GMT -8
Hi John have you ever considered reversing the sequence of the protocol i.e., performing the sets of low reps at high loads prior to the higher repetitions: Bench press 10, 20, 30 or 5, 10, 20 The warm-up would obviously need to be extended. Thanks Hi Jamie, I get this question quite frequently, and it is certainly an option to consider, but it seriously reduces the efficiency (as I see it) of the first set also serving as the warm up set, since in order to handle a 5 or 10RM, one must warm up. The general thought is that the "heavier" sets are in some way more valuable, or more the goal sets. They are not. I am not a strong believer is CNS fatigue, and while it does happen, training the CNS under fatigued conditions (IMO) makes it adapt to those conditions. I would have subscribed to that model, had I not seen and personally made better progress with this model. The Higher Reps sets ARE brutal, and they surely will "slightly" reduce the load one might use in the lower Rep(Max) sets, but reversing the set order will not facilitate greater stimulus. Some would also argue that performing the heavier set first would create greater PAF (Post Activation Facilitation). I would suggest that actually it would not. WHY? because any 5 or 10 REP MAX set would have to be preceded by a "light" warm up set. That set would "subdue" PAF for the RM set, and subsequently you have lower PAF through all the sets, instead of higher. In my model, you are "BTTW" (balls to the wall) from rep one on each set. (especially if you use the bands) The PAF from Max Effort on the lower loads DOES facilitate (pre-excite) for the next higher load. So I am not saying that the reverse model will not get a great result, but I don't think it would be "as great". The most important thing is realizing that increasing strength and performance in the higher rep range sets, presents an "automatic" strength increase immediately above it. The smaller increments (steps) can more easily be made in those higher rep sets, and so progress is driven by THEM, and not by the Heavier Lower Rep set. |
|
|
|
Post by carruthersjam on Apr 19, 2008 8:50:05 GMT -8
Hi Jamie, I get this question quite frequently, and it is certainly an option to consider, but it seriously reduces the efficiency (as I see it) of the first set also serving as the warm up set, since in order to handle a 5 or 10RM, one must warm up. The general thought is that the "heavier" sets are in some way more valuable, or more the goal sets. They are not. I am not a strong believer is CNS fatigue, and while it does happen, training the CNS under fatigued conditions (IMO) makes it adapt to those conditions. I would have subscribed to that model, had I not seen and personally made better progress with this model. The Higher Reps sets ARE brutal, and they surely will "slightly" reduce the load one might use in the lower Rep(Max) sets, but reversing the set order will not facilitate greater stimulus. Some would also argue that performing the heavier set first would create greater PAF (Post Activation Facilitation). I would suggest that actually it would not. WHY? because any 5 or 10 REP MAX set would have to be preceded by a "light" warm up set. That set would "subdue" PAF for the RM set, and subsequently you have lower PAF through all the sets, instead of higher.. The research I have come across analysed the effects of near maximal dynamic actions, or brief maximal voluntary isometric (including EMS) prior to "power" movements which showed a potentiation. Furthermore, a significant warm-up was performed prior to the near maximal dynamic actions or MVIC. The warm-up did not subdue the PAF for the power movements. In my model, you are "BTTW" (balls to the wall) from rep one on each set. (especially if you use the bands) The PAF from Max Effort on the lower loads DOES facilitate (pre-excite) for the next higher load. So I am not saying that the reverse model will not get a great result, but I don't think it would be "as great". The most important thing is realizing that increasing strength and performance in the higher rep range sets, presents an "automatic" strength increase immediately above it. The smaller increments (steps) can more easily be made in those higher rep sets, and so progress is driven by THEM, and not by the Heavier Lower Rep set. If that is the case how could we facilitate performance of the higer rep ranges? |
|
|
|
Post by John A. Casler on Apr 19, 2008 9:53:24 GMT -8
Hi Jamie, I get this question quite frequently, and it is certainly an option to consider, but it seriously reduces the efficiency (as I see it) of the first set also serving as the warm up set, since in order to handle a 5 or 10RM, one must warm up. The general thought is that the "heavier" sets are in some way more valuable, or more the goal sets. They are not. I am not a strong believer is CNS fatigue, and while it does happen, training the CNS under fatigued conditions (IMO) makes it adapt to those conditions. I would have subscribed to that model, had I not seen and personally made better progress with this model. The Higher Reps sets ARE brutal, and they surely will "slightly" reduce the load one might use in the lower Rep(Max) sets, but reversing the set order will not facilitate greater stimulus. Some would also argue that performing the heavier set first would create greater PAF (Post Activation Facilitation). I would suggest that actually it would not. WHY? because any 5 or 10 REP MAX set would have to be preceded by a "light" warm up set. That set would "subdue" PAF for the RM set, and subsequently you have lower PAF through all the sets, instead of higher.. The research I have come across analysed the effects of near maximal dynamic actions, or brief maximal voluntary isometric (including EMS) prior to "power" movements which showed a potentiation. Furthermore, a significant warm-up was performed prior to the near maximal dynamic actions or MVIC. The warm-up did not subdue the PAF for the power movements. Hi Jamie, PAF (post activation facilitation) is a vast unexplored area. It is difficult to draw conclusions from limited or even specific research. Most research is "focused" on "heavy to lighter" activations, but in fact "ANY" pre-action will to a degree "set" the stage to follow. The question is "how much" and to what function/goal. Try loading a bar with 10# more on one side and do a set of bench presses. The set immediately following if loaded with correct balance will immediately produce a PAF result that will require the CNS adapt to the pre-actions "learned" PAF. As we move closer to lower rep and maximal efforts, the issue of "stabilization" becomes critical to success of the lift(s). While it is certainly evident that in a 1RM the lift's success is not only due to the performance of the primary movers, but also the ability of the stabilizers to function to their purpose. In the higher reps, (higher than 1RM) we have greater force (load) variations in the critical ROMs that stress these stabilizers, and not only that, it would not surprise me that those stresses "are higher" in those ROM's (particularly the eccentric to concentric SSC) to actually be more valuable to the stimulus package than the performance of a 1RM. These "specific" and "multiple" stimuli are one of the driving "engines" to ROGUE HIT. That is also why I suggest that the higher rep maximum sets are in fact "more important" than the later lower rep maxes, with larger loads. It is difficult looking at the current crop of research to follow that "path" since most all of the focus is on that 1RM or similar under the belief that this is the "primary" way to use PAF. PAF is really just the PRE-EXCITATION of the CNS to produce a desired result or ability. Even current research that too much stretching prior to competition is contraindicated, is an example of PAF in relaxing the Motor Response. So again, I feel the system could be used either way with good results, but in a system that has limited time, and is based on RM efforts, and uses the higher Rep Maxes as the driving engine, this would offer the best result. In viewing the best performances I achieved (330# x 30 in the pulldown and 400# x 8) I feel I would have an extremely difficult time getting my CNS to "jump" to the 400# x 8RM by performing lower effort warm ups. To that end, I think that strength at that level cannot be well tested without well thought out and precise approach to all the elements of "preparation" from Metabolic to Motor Prep. It is very complex and needs more exploration, and ALL factors need be factored into the goal. And that does not mean it should not be attempted the other way, or that the end result may not be similar, greater, or exactly the same. That is what makes this interesting. In my model, you are "BTTW" (balls to the wall) from rep one on each set. (especially if you use the bands) The PAF from Max Effort on the lower loads DOES facilitate (pre-excite) for the next higher load. So I am not saying that the reverse model will not get a great result, but I don't think it would be "as great". The most important thing is realizing that increasing strength and performance in the higher rep range sets, presents an "automatic" strength increase immediately above it. The smaller increments (steps) can more easily be made in those higher rep sets, and so progress is driven by THEM, and not by the Heavier Lower Rep set. If that is the case how could we facilitate performance of the higer rep ranges? The only method is to learn to use the load to produce the "transitional forces" that we seek. That is the SSC and the RFD (rate of force development) opportunities that occur. |
|
|
|
Post by carruthersjam on Apr 25, 2008 9:22:25 GMT -8
It is difficult looking at the current crop of research to follow that "path" since most all of the focus is on that 1RM or similar under the belief that this is the "primary" way to use PAF. PAF is really just the PRE-EXCITATION of the CNS to produce a desired result or ability. According to recent research there are numerous mechanisms of potentiation including ion changes at the neuromuscular junction, regulatory light chain phosphorylation, hoffman-reflex. Even current research that too much stretching prior to competition is contraindicated, is an example of PAF in relaxing the Motor Response. That's a double edge sword as static stretching prior to certain activities will also facilitate improve performance under certain conditions - static stretching of the "antagonists"? So again, I feel the system could be used either way with good results, but in a system that has limited time, and is based on RM efforts, and uses the higher Rep Maxes as the driving engine, this would offer the best result. In viewing the best performances I achieved (330# x 30 in the pulldown and 400# x 8) I feel I would have an extremely difficult time getting my CNS to "jump" to the 400# x 8RM by performing lower effort warm ups. To that end, I think that strength at that level cannot be well tested without well thought out and precise approach to all the elements of "preparation" from Metabolic to Motor Prep. It is very complex and needs more exploration, and ALL factors need be factored into the goal. And that does not mean it should not be attempted the other way, or that the end result may not be similar, greater, or exactly the same. That is what makes this interesting.. Here's an interesting video with Werner Gunthor using various training methods: www.dailymotion.com/related/5840047/video/x3h412_athle-entrainement-werner-gunthor-pIf that is the case how could we facilitate performance of the higer rep ranges? The only method is to learn to use the load to produce the "transitional forces" that we seek. That is the SSC and the RFD (rate of force development) opportunities that occur. |
|
