T Nation

10,000lb Workout?

Hey everyone, read this artcle in the magazine awhile back and wanted to see what the tnation crowd thought about it. I just finished a5/3/1 plan and wanted to try the 10,000lb workout rob orlando suggests. Basically it is moving 10000lbs using one movement for reps.

So is it worth trying?

It sounds a lot like Sadiv - sets, which are fun. What movements are you thinking of using? seems ideal for big compound lifts

I think most people on this site are going to say the same thing: It depends on where you are at, personally. This workout program is not tailored to anyone; you move the same 10,000 lbs regardless of how strong you are.

In my opinion you would be better off finding a program which accounts for a person’s starting strength and has a progression model…like 5/3/1.

My Accumlation Block involves 350lb squats for 25 sets of 2 followed by 20-25 sets of 1 with 405lb deadlifts. Squats= 17,500lbs, deads= 10,125. My extra workouts usually consists of repping 135lbs 100 times. That’s 13,500lbs on an off day.

Suck it crossfit.

Typical Accumulation Block Dynmaic Effort Day:

Squats- 350lbs for 25 sets of 2= 17,500lbs
Pulls- 405 for 25 sets of 1= 10,125lbs

Typical Recovery Workout-
135lb deadlift for 100 reps= 13,500lbs (this is on an off day to recover between workouts)

Suck it crossfit.

LOL

I think it sounds dumb, why 10,000 and not 9,000 or 11,000?

[quote]StormTheBeach wrote:
My Accumlation Block involves 350lb squats for 25 sets of 2 followed by 20-25 sets of 1 with 405lb deadlifts. Squats= 17,500lbs, deads= 10,125. My extra workouts usually consists of repping 135lbs 100 times. That’s 13,500lbs on an off day.

Suck it crossfit.[/quote]

ROFL!!!

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I think it sounds dumb, why 10,000 and not 9,000 or 11,000?[/quote]

Its over 9,000!!!

-Zep

[quote]Zeppelin0731 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I think it sounds dumb, why 10,000 and not 9,000 or 11,000?[/quote]

Its over 9,000!!!

-Zep[/quote]

x2. I am glad this powerlifting forum tends to have a good sense of humor.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I think it sounds dumb, why 10,000 and not 9,000 or 11,000?[/quote]

But wait, 9,000 and 11,000 without the 0’s is 9, 11 or 9/11. Therefore you were responsible for 9/11, right?

[quote]S C 0 0 Z E wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I think it sounds dumb, why 10,000 and not 9,000 or 11,000?[/quote]

But wait, 9,000 and 11,000 without the 0’s is 9, 11 or 9/11. Therefore you were responsible for 9/11, right?[/quote]

^^That’s the second time today I’ve gotten to use that clip.

Sorry for the derail…
STB, those are ~50% or your 1 RM, right?

I train Shieko. On the lightest days I move over 30,000lbs. 10,000 seems quite doable.

FYI, I have always tracked total tonnage as one way of (loosely) quantifying workout intensity.

[quote]redroast wrote:
I train Shieko. On the lightest days I move over 30,000lbs. 10,000 seems quite doable.

FYI, I have always tracked total tonnage as one way of (loosely) quantifying workout intensity.[/quote]

wouldn’t total tonnage quantify volume and not intensity?

[quote]Sterneneisen wrote:
Sorry for the derail…
STB, those are ~50% or your 1 RM, right?[/quote]

Yep, give or take a couple percentage points.

Thank you.

[quote]Ghost16 wrote:

[quote]redroast wrote:
I train Shieko. On the lightest days I move over 30,000lbs. 10,000 seems quite doable.

FYI, I have always tracked total tonnage as one way of (loosely) quantifying workout intensity.[/quote]

wouldn’t total tonnage quantify volume and not intensity?[/quote]

Yes, it is a direct measure of volume. I suppose intensity isn’t the best word, perhaps I should have said “workout effectiveness”.

For what its worth, the highest volume that I seem to do is close to 60,000 lbs. Those are days when the loading (or intensity) is the lowest and the reps and sets are the highest.

An interesting concept but so oversimplified…

Lets say 1rm is 520lb… Doing 100lb for 10x10 is 10,000lb of volume but useless. Doing 500lb for 20 singles is insanely over the top. Both are 10,000lb of volume… 10,000lb of volume would be a more acceptable suggestion if it is enforced that volume be in the 60-85% range.

[quote]arramzy wrote:
An interesting concept but so oversimplified…

Lets say 1rm is 520lb… Doing 500lb for 20 singles is insanely over the top. …[/quote]

I’m curious as to why you say that. Is the problem the number of singles? Would, say, 10 singles not be over the top?