I have a hard time believing that 10 sets of 3 reps will result in hypertrophy. It goes against what has worked historically and is proven. Don’t get me wrong here… I actually prefer this style of lifting, but I don’t want to lose my current mass and would like to gain some. Can anybody report any REAL results?
Muchas Gracias!
I did well using the Waterbury Method. I gained 4-5lbs and got stronger all over. Stuck with total body too long and didn’t make progress for 6 months or so. Switched to variations on split training for 5 or so months and gained a shit load of muscle and strength. Am now doing a ws4sb routine and am getting strong fast while still adding muscle.
What I’m saying is if it’s different from what you’ve been doing, I can pretty much garauntee you’ll grow. Just be sure to switch when you’re stalling.
Its an awesome technique. Just give it a try man!
[quote]Joaquin wrote:
I have a hard time believing that 10 sets of 3 reps will result in hypertrophy. It goes against what has worked historically and is proven. Don’t get me wrong here… I actually prefer this style of lifting, but I don’t want to lose my current mass and would like to gain some. Can anybody report any REAL results?
Muchas Gracias![/quote]
I too had great success with this one about 2 years ago…
No hypertrophy but man my weights went up. Got way stronger.
Then went back to a 8-10 range for 4 set with my new strength and at that point noted some muscle…
I guess more weight will lead to the beloved hypertrophy, for me any way…
Solid
I just finished CW’s 10x3 FFL, and lost 22 pounds in 4 weeks, while gaining strength.
Worked for me with great results.
The best routine is something you aren’t doing now. The most unproductive is one you have been doing too long.
What rep range are you using now?
I think that 10x3 would be more specifically condusive to strength gain in beginner and intermediate trainees, however, I dont think increased strength ever hurt anyone’s efforts at hypertrophy.
I thought 10 x 3 was ‘like nitroglycerin to your muscles’, and ‘magical’ like several authors on this site have written. High sets/low reps has become so fashionable for hypertrophy from what I’ve read that I’m surprised so many on this thread aren’t encouraging this guy to do it a lot.
[quote]fightingtiger wrote:
I think that 10x3 would be more specifically condusive to strength gain in beginner and intermediate trainees, however, I dont think increased strength ever hurt anyone’s efforts at hypertrophy.[/quote]
Good post.
My strength levels went up. At the time though I wasn’t eating to gain mass so I can’t speak to the hypertrophy goal.
Why does it go against convention? It used to be 3 sets of 10 30 reps total, now your just doing 30 reps with a weight way heavier then your 10 rep max. Every week lower the time between sets, or raise the number of reps. Very quickly you will be doing 10 reps with a weight you used to do 3 with. Do you think your muscles will be bigger if your doing 10 reps with more weight?
It goes against convention because the traditional view has been “6-10 reps for mass and 1-5 reps for strength gain”. Strength gain as described by this point of view is more neurological than physiological. Lower reps with heavier weights are thought to create a greater neurological response and adaptation to the exercise than higher rep ranges.
Personally, Im not sure if you can make the correlation between 10x3 and 3x10 simply because youre still doing 30 reps. If that were true, then the best way to train would be 30 singles.
The question isnt as to weather or not increased strenght will lead to increased hypertrophy, but rather as to whether training in a manner that has traditionally been viewed as being more condusive to strength rather than hypertrophy will directly lead to more hypertrophy than traditional hypertrophy training.
Lifting for strength using the 10x3 method will give you hypertrophy no doubt. It will potentiate you in lifting heavier weights once you go back to your hypertrophy rep schemes, which means more muscle fibres stimulated, hence more muscle fibre hypertrophy.
I think because of the increasing literature on training and necessity to put everything in a box that you and other young lifters are confusing what weight lifting is. Specially when it comes to body building. HIIT, Clusters and the likes have been around for way more than 30 years.
We just have names for them now and groups of people that do it. My reason for asking why is this not convention is that 30 years ago you can see bodybuilders doing 10 sets of 3. If that was what was required to break a plateau. They just didn’t call it a Waterbury method. They would call it doing as many sets as needed with a weight that is hard to lift.
Meh is all I have to say for the whole apporach-hit failure on your last set with the CW style 10x3, 8x3, 4x6, etc. If your so afraid of failure just do 1 or 2 hard work sets per exercise. Those other sets that have to get you fatigued seem useless.
I think it works great, but I always pair it with something higher-rep.
As in, flat bench 10x3 and incline DB 3x8-10. Squat 10x3 with leg press 3x10-12. And so forth.
I respond to volume well, so you would have to experiment for yourself. But I have been satisfied with the 10x3 from both a strength gain and hypertrophy perspective.
Depends how quickly you do it. 10x3 with little rest between sets, obviously using less weight, WILL be effective at gaining size.
Why not try 2 weeks of 3x10, then, do 2 weeks of 10x3 ? I guarantee you that will get good results.
[quote]fightingtiger wrote:
It goes against convention because the traditional view has been “6-10 reps for mass and 1-5 reps for strength gain”. Strength gain as described by this point of view is more neurological than physiological. Lower reps with heavier weights are thought to create a greater neurological response and adaptation to the exercise than higher rep ranges.
Personally, Im not sure if you can make the correlation between 10x3 and 3x10 simply because youre still doing 30 reps. If that were true, then the best way to train would be 30 singles.[/quote]
Ever try it? 30 true singles over a sustained period of time would likely do one of two things (or both) 1)add strength and size 2) burn you out.
Triples are nowhere near as CNS intensive and are sustainable over a longer period.
[quote]fightingtiger wrote:
The question isnt as to weather or not increased strenght will lead to increased hypertrophy, but rather as to whether training in a manner that has traditionally been viewed as being more condusive to strength rather than hypertrophy will directly lead to more hypertrophy than traditional hypertrophy training.[/quote]
I think your splitting hairs. If someone is concerned with growth over a couple weeks and/or months vs. over the course of a year (more importantly years), they are likely to end up flipping among very similar programs (read all in the 6-12 rep range) and missing out on a lot of potential growth.
There’s a reason trainers recommend low/med/high rep ranges.
[quote]Magarhe wrote:
Depends how quickly you do it. 10x3 with little rest between sets, obviously using less weight, WILL be effective at gaining size.
Why not try 2 weeks of 3x10, then, do 2 weeks of 10x3 ? I guarantee you that will get good results. [/quote]
The object of 10x3 was to use 80-85% of 1RM and 70-90 seconds of rest between sets. So 10x3 with little rest and less weight is NOT what Waterbury had in mind.
When a coach mentions something that has worked wonders for him you need to try it exactly the way he has outlined it, whether it is counter intuitive or not. If you ‘tweak’ it in any way then you cannot know comment on the efficacy of the coaches program.
To the OP,
A lot of ways have been proven reasonably effective for gaining size that seem ‘odd’ in a way.
Clusters, rest-pause, 6-12-25, giant sets, combos, 100’s, speed reps, slow reps, 21’s etc. etc. so why would 10x3 with 80-85% of 1RM with 70-90seconds rest between sets be hard for you to believe?
And losing muscle? How do you figure that that’s going to happen when you do 30 reps with at least 80% of your 1RM?
By the way, not trying to be combative but I am truly interested why you would even remotely think that you would lose mass this way. Heck, 3x3 with 80% will have you hold on to your mass, even on a diet. Do you ever train with weights at this percentage (using a certain amount of reps)? (again asking respectfully).
Marc
[quote]fightingtiger wrote:
The question isnt as to weather or not increased strenght will lead to increased hypertrophy, but rather as to whether training in a manner that has traditionally been viewed as being more condusive to strength rather than hypertrophy will directly lead to more hypertrophy than traditional hypertrophy training.
I think your splitting hairs. If someone is concerned with growth over a couple weeks and/or months vs. over the course of a year (more importantly years), they are likely to end up flipping among very similar programs (read all in the 6-12 rep range) and missing out on a lot of potential growth.
There’s a reason trainers recommend low/med/high rep ranges.[/quote]
The thing is that I have heard 10x3 billed as way to induce immediate hypertrophy (during the span of 10 or 12 weeks or whatever it is CW reccomends)…even to the point where it is superior to traditional hypertrophy training. Both lower and higher rep ranges are neccessary for optimum results. A person moving 100 lbs for 3 sets of 10 reps is going to grow more than they would moving 50 lbs for 3 sets of 10 reps.
Stop arguing about stuff you read or heard and try it for yourself…then come back with opinions.