T Nation

Deadlift / Pull Ups / Dips Routine

What can i expect from a routine like this , im 5’10 and 155 lbs and my goal is to gain mass mainly but also be strong on these few exercices.

  1. Weighted Pull Ups RP 11-15
  2. Weighted Ring Dips RP 11-15
  3. Barbell Curls RP 11-15
  4. Deadlift 100% x 3-5 ; 90% x 3-5

for pull ups, dips and curls, i do them rest pause style.

Complete one set to failure
15-20 sec rest
another set to failure
15-20 sec rest
another set to failure

I up the Weight (1kg) when i can complete 15 reps over the 3 Rest Pause sets.

For Deadlift :

Do as much warm up sets needed.
180sec Rest
Complete the 100% set.
180sec Rest
Complete the 90% set.

I up the Weight (5kg) when i can complete 5 reps on the first set.

I train every three days / Train - Rest - Rest - Train - Rest - Rest - Train - Etc…

So what can i expect from a routine like this?

Mass Gain / strength Gain / Both /

or should i change the rep scheme to something like 3 x 8, 5 x 5, etc…? discuss!

[quote]NvDeus wrote:
what can i expect from a routine like this?

Mass Gain / strength Gain / Both / [/quote]
With low volume and low frequency (training basically just twice a week), I wouldn’t expect much size gains. And with high intensity training to failure and beyond (the rest-pause), I wouldn’t really expect much strength gains with the upper body stuff. Add in the fact that you have nearly zero leg work, and it’s just not a good-looking plan.

So, yeah, might look neat on paper, but I’d be hesitant about it working out in reality. Unless you’ve already been following it for a while and are happy with the results. In which case, nevermind.

Yep, I think using a more traditional, well-developed, more reasonable program would be a better choice.

So with high intensity training to failure he can expect neither size nor strength gains? Let me guess, one should never EVER train to failure, right?

Provided you don’t send yourself into shock, there is no such thing as too much intensity (intensity, not volume) since you simply allow for as much rest as is necessary to progress. Not saying more frequent training can’t be used as a tool to add size, but to rule out high-intensity, low-frequency training as a means of realizing untapped potential in size and/or strength is evasive and dogmatic. Training longer and necessarily with less intensity will always be too attractive an alternative and excuse in this day and age of masculinity and testicular fortitude on the decline. They say it’s something in the water.

The only thing I would change is dropping the second set of deadlifts and doing the one set every third session- or less frequently- and for the other sessions replacing the deadlift with a squat variation (as well as maybe alternating with / adding to the dips an incline press).

[quote]S.M.Punisher wrote:
So with high intensity training to failure he can expect neither size nor strength gains?[/quote]
That’s not what I said. I said combining low volume and low frequency isn’t going to lead to much progress. And high intensity, meaning training up to and beyond muscular failure, is not efficient for building strength.

So he’s combining several methods hoping to get the most out of each, but he’s ending up diluting everything overall.

In my experience, training up to or beyond failure works best when used as an occasional technique, rather being the primary method of training. Yes.

Thoroughly disagree. With intensity, there is absolutely a point of diminishing returns. If there’s “no such thing as too much intensity”, then we should probably drop set or rest-pause until we’re unable to lift our arms/legs every time we train. With enough recover between sessions, whether that 3 days or 8, that’d guarantee growth, right?!?

Sorry, Mike Mentzer, but high intensity-low frequency-low volume training has a track record of being less-than-productive for the majority of people who’ve tried it.

Resting as long as is necessary in order to train to failure or beyond, consistently, is simply another tool in the box for getting all that can possibly be gotten out of your potential- naturally, anyway.

Set-extending techniques like drop sets do not increase intensity; they “extend” intensity. They merely allow a 100% effort to be repeated. They do however increase inroad. The maximum possible intensity would be a rep that required a do or die effort to complete entirely. (And even “maximum possible” is dependent on the level of arousal of the trainee before taking on the set.) Those perfectly intense full reps are actually hard to get even when trying to get them, since failure often stops a rep midway. This is where rest-pause can be used if timed well. Rest-pause can increase intensity if the short rest allows for a rep which is even more of a grind than the last complete rep possible the set/rep before. Training until you can’t move your arms via drop sets may well work a few times or for a few people, but it seems that that level of inroad (not intensity) is unnecessary or may be counterproductive depending on the individual and the circumstances.

And eight days is not that long a rest period if you’re really training intensely, though that depends on an individual’s fiber type and the exercise in question. You’ll just have to take my word for it that three or four weeks of rest after one-arm negative chin workouts were often necessary to realize new gains (and feel like I wasn’t going to tear my lats; and until I got to be able to do a positive rep on each arm). These were workouts of two-three reps total volume on each arm. High-intensity, low-volume, low-frequency works with the right mentality. The higher the intensity, the lower must be the other two factors (over the longer term) if progress is to be consistent. (Raising any one of those factors necessitates a lowering of either or both of the other two.)

I got pretty big during my college years doing an abbreviated routine that looked like this:

Monday:
Squat 2 sets, second set to failure
Leg Press 2 sets to failure
Leg curl or other Hamstring work 2 sets to failure

Wednesday:
Bench Press 2 sets, second set to failure with rest/pause at times
Closegrip bench Press 2 sets, second set to failure

Friday:
Deadlift 2 sets, second set to failure (form breakdown)
Weighted pullup 2 sets to failure
Hammer strength low row 2 sets to failure
Machine curls one set to negative failure-a training partner would push down on the lever and I would resist and he would then assist in getting it back up if he had to. It was brutal.

I went from around 195 to 215-220 at 5’9" in one semester by doing this and eating a lot. I wasn’t super lean but not fat at all either, by most people’s standards I was really lean, but basically my stomach was flat and you might have been able to see abs in the right light. That being said, work like this killed me and by the end of the semester I would want to throw up just walking into the gym.

[quote]1000rippedbuff wrote:
I went from around 195 to 215-220 at 5’9" in one semester by doing this and eating a lot. I wasn’t super lean but not fat at all either, by most people’s standards I was really lean, but basically my stomach was flat and you might have been able to see abs in the right light. That being said, work like this killed me and by the end of the semester I would want to throw up just walking into the gym.
[/quote]

Hmm…

True story, bro.

[quote]S.M.Punisher wrote:
They do however increase inroad.[/quote]
“Inroad” is a buzzword used exclusively within the HIT community holding little, if any, relevance or legitimacy outside of that niche.

I get it though, you’re a fan of HIT. That’s fine if you dig it and if you’re happy with whatever progress you’ve seen, but the fact remains that the program the OP listed is inefficient and is very unlikely to provide the results he’s expecting.

I’ll take your word for it. Or better yet, pics of the physique you built with these methods would provide better evidence.

Yep, I do agree you need a certain mentality to do that kind of training.

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
I get it though, you’re a fan of HIT. That’s fine if you dig it and if you’re happy with whatever progress you’ve seen, but the fact remains that the program the OP listed is inefficient and is very unlikely to provide the results he’s expecting.
[/quote]

A fact? For all we know, his fiber type make-up may make the OP’s program ideal for him. Even if not, a few extra recovery days or even a few less would do the job. It looks like he is training intensely. Add in consistency, recovery and calories and… well, it’s not rocket science.

Why so much resistance? All OP said was that he wanted to gain mass and get strong on the exercises he listed. The program, on paper, IS efficient because he is not doing a bunch of other exercises that would use up recovery resources away from being used to progress on the goal exercises. The only major thing I see potentially inefficient with the program is too much frequency with the intensity he seems to be doing (the more so the more fast-twitch fiber dominance). One other option would be to back off or take a complete rest for two-three weeks after a four-six week blitz.

Yeah, I like HIT, but I use other strategies as well (though mainly after I built all the strength I wanted first). It’s usually HIT believers that get accused of being dogmatic, but it’s no different when HIT critics label any method or concept as HIT and write it off.

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]S.M.Punisher wrote:
They do however increase inroad.[/quote]
“Inroad” is a buzzword used exclusively within the HIT community holding little, if any, relevance or legitimacy outside of that niche.
[/quote]

Not surprising, since it’s pretty much only those in the HIT community who train hard enough to achieve or feel any significant inroad. To everyone else it’s just mechanics: “I lifted X total pounds today”, regardless of the numerous weight-set-rep combinations that could be used to lift the same X pounds with no serious effort (thus no significant inroad) whatsoever.

[quote]S.M.Punisher wrote:
pretty much only those in the HIT community who train hard enough to achieve or feel any significant inroad. [/quote]

You don’t really believe this, do you?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]S.M.Punisher wrote:
pretty much only those in the HIT community who train hard enough to achieve or feel any significant inroad. [/quote]

You don’t really believe this, do you?[/quote]

Lol, actually no. I think that a lot of people, bodybuilders, athletes are doing HIT (loosely defined) without realizing it. It’s pretty common now for people to work up to a top set, hit that hard and move on (as are negatives and statics). They might say they did four or five sets, though only the last one was challenging. A lot more to it than that, I know, but putting all your focus on one set per exercise is the foundation of HIT.

I’ve never heard the term ‘inroad’ before.

I googled ‘inroad hit’ and got: “Naked man doing push-ups in road hit by car and killed, Portland police investigating”

Not quite what I was expecting.

for some reason in my head it has the skeleton of Arnold’s “Golden Six” except you don’t have a quad or delt dominant movement. Add those, you’d be more or less complete IMO if maximizing your time outside the gym is the goal.

I’m a fan of abbreviated routines since my strength skyrockets on these things, but I get greedy, bump the volume/frequency (more is better syndrome) and next thing I’m back to square one feeling weaker than when I started. That said your frequency seems like the schedule recommended for older folks with piss poor recovery. Make it a full 3 day / week TBT split and be done, no?

[quote]giograves wrote:
for some reason in my head it has the skeleton of Arnold’s “Golden Six” except you don’t have a quad or delt dominant movement. Add those, you’d be more or less complete IMO if maximizing your time outside the gym is the goal.[/quote]
I do agree that the leg work, in particular, is lacking and something for quads would be an improvement. But that still doesn’t address the volume issue. 2 sets of deads, both to failure, and 1 set of rest-pause for the other stuff just doesn’t jive.

It’s definitely a plus when you recognize the type of training you respond to, even better when you have the old realization “Wait, I know I do well with that, but I’m not doing that, I’m doing this instead. Err, why’s that?” Been there plenty of times myself. Most lifters have, I think.

Pretty much agreed. I have nothing necessarily against training just twice a week, but it has to be a better designed plan from the start.

[quote]LoRez wrote:
I googled ‘inroad hit’ and got: “Naked man doing push-ups in road hit by car and killed, Portland police investigating”

Not quite what I was expecting.[/quote]
Ha, I just did the same thing. I ended up on the memorial page. Feels kinda awkward reading the sad comments and knowing what happened. And it looks like he was a father of six. Geez. I feel bad for the kids on several levels. /hijack