High Reps for Strength

Unreal how moronic you guys are. A negative IQ would understand those numbers are estimates. ATP/lactate implications might be too complicated maybe ?

[quote]tontongg wrote:
Unreal how moronic you guys are. A negative IQ would understand those numbers are estimates. ATP/lactate implications might be too complicated maybe ?[/quote]

This seems needlessly rude.

[quote]tontongg wrote:
Unreal how moronic you guys are. A negative IQ would understand those numbers are estimates. ATP/lactate implications might be too complicated maybe ?[/quote]

I’m pretty sure (based on your log) every person you just called a moron has developed quite a bit more strength than you have to this point. So maybe it would be a good idea to think about what they’re writing rather than to just dismiss it…

Where did the chart come from?

[quote]tontongg wrote:
And for some reason I trust this guy. I dont see 30@50% for maximal strength here ?? Nor any long duration effort/lactate in the first 2 parts ?
https://www.T-Nation.com/training/22-proven-rep-schemes[/quote]

Lol…

“The Power of Variety
The rep schemes discussed here all work, and work great. They’ve been proven in the field and you can’t go wrong with any of them. But just like with any loading scheme, the body will eventually adapt, but with 22 of them you’ll have plenty of options to choose from to ensure continuous gains!”

The problem with a chart like that is that it needs a lot more context. Tempo, of course, being part of it; whether you’re lifting the reps explosively or not; how many total sets are performed/total volume, and even then, it varies per muscle group and movement, fatigue levels, prior exercise performance, prior adaptations, etc.

This stuff isn’t over the heads of any of the posters in here. It’s more along the lines of “as nice as that chart might be, things don’t really work quite that way”.

It’s nearly impossible to build a generalized model of any complex system, and trying to use a model developed from observation as a predictive model (e.g., train this way and you’ll get those results), will rarely work as expected, unless you’re able to reproduce nearly every parameter involved in the original observations.

If a model was built from observations of junior level weightlifters from the Soviet weightlifting program (so, fairly standardized training methodologies, fairly equivalent levels of performance), and someone gathers data and develops a model demonstrating the various capacities to be trained, and how to train them, for increasing rate of force development and transfer to the barbell in a clean high pull… you can apply that model, fairly effectively, to other junior level weightlifters in the Soviet weightlifting program. But you can’t expect that to work for anyone trained under the modern Chinese system, or under the Bulgarian system. Some stuff may transfer, some might not.

Even simple stuff like “do this to improve your bench press” might work almost 100% of the time for people who’ve followed Starting Strength, to the letter, for 6 months… but may have minimal effectiveness for people who’ve had a background with WSBB, simply because the body has already made certain adaptations in one program that it hasn’t in the other.

^Obv agrees with this

BUT the goal of this chart was only telling OP to stick to what’s been identified, tried and true, with general physiology guidelines, since he would most likely benefit from trying basic stuff prior to doing super-personal experiences from other (probably way more advanced) people on a forum.
I’ve never bought the 2 different hypertrophy stuff, but at the very least ATP and lactate fuels are pretty easy to feel and observe after X reps for X seconds with X tempo, even when you don’t even lift 3 times bodyweight in 3 years of lifting, so I don’t get the diss.

Since experience and weight moved seems to be what is needed, then why would pretty much zero powerlifting program include those kind of high reps/low % sets, and dudes like John Broz clearly explaining that they are a huge No-No ? Or Wendler himself saying 531 is weak for power goals, and he added joker sets and 100%+ work in beyond 531 ? Not even talking about BBB which is 5x10@50% (the closest my limited knowledge could think about to 30@50% in a strength program)

I didn’t really follow most of what you just said.

But the super-personal, highly advanced experiences of others mostly boils down to “if you’re doing stuff, and you’re getting stronger, keep doing it; if you’re not getting stronger, do something else”.

I mean, I personally find it useful to look at accumulating volume in specific intensity ranges, rather than most of those variables on that chart, but that’s me. Eg., what are the results from a weekly volume of 16 sets of 2-3 (~90-95%), and 12 sets of 4-6 (80-85%) on a particular lift’s max? Or, if I introduce some work in the 70-75% range, how much do I need to add to have a positive effect on max strength? At what point does it start negatively impacting recovery? Stuff like that.

But in the end, it all pretty much just comes back to that rule above.

[quote]tontongg wrote:
Since experience and weight moved seems to be what is needed, then why would pretty much zero powerlifting program include those kind of high reps/low % sets, and dudes like John Broz clearly explaining that they are a huge No-No ? Or Wendler himself saying 531 is weak for power goals, and he added joker sets and 100%+ work in beyond 531 ? Not even talking about BBB which is 5x10@50% (the closest my limited knowledge could think about to 30@50% in a strength program)
[/quote]

On the contrast, here is how the guy that just recently set the American record on the deadlift with a 909.4lb deadlift at 22 years old trains

Consequently, people constantly claim he doesn’t know how to train because of how he trains. The results seem inconsequential to the fact that, since his approach doesn’t match with what we “know” works, he is successful in spite of how he trains, not because of it.