T Nation

More Strength From 5x5 or 3x8-12?

I was talking to one of the bigger guys at my gym and asked him how he got so strong, his response was that he always did things in sets of 5-8 and never even higher. I began to think and realized I gain more strength, not necessarily functional strength but strength at weightlifting, when using reps in the 5-8 range. Is this true for all people? Should I switch up my current routine to incorporate the lower reps schemes?

Here’s my routine:

Monday, Chest:

Flat BB Bench Press 4x6-8
Incline BB Bench 3x8-10
Dips 3x10-12

(I’m doing the range thing but I’m going for the highest number there but if I don’t get it I won’t cry)

Tuesday, Back:

Chins 4x6-8
Pull Ups 3x8-10
DB Rows 3x10-12
T-Bar Rows 3x10-12

Wednesday, OFF

Thursday

Squat 4x6
Romanian deadlift 3x8-10
Leg Press 3x10-12
Leg Curl 3x10-12
Calf Raises 3x10-12

Friday, OFF

Saturday, Tris, Bis, Shoulders, Abs, mirror muscles basically.

Military Press 4x6-8
Barbell Curls 3x10-12
Close Grip Bench 3x10-12
Revers Crunch 3xFailure
Shoulder Press 3x8-10

Sunday OFF

If you’ve noticed increased strength with the lower rep ranges, and the bigger guy in the gym says that’s what he did to get to his level, then yeah it would be a good idea to switch things up.

I guess the question that should be asked is, if you knew you responded better with sets of 5-8, why have you previously chosen not to do that?

[quote]APLASTICSPOON wrote:
I began to think and realized I gain more strength, not necessarily functional strength but strength at weightlifting, when using reps in the 5-8 range.

[/quote]

You lost me with this sentence.

For me, strength gains some in the form of 1-3 reps and lots of sets.

Any set/rep scheme will increase strength to some extent, some just work better than others.

Get strong first, because you need to lift heavy weights to get big. The stronger you get, the more weight you lift (obviously).

5x5 works a charm, but varying from low (3x3) to higher (5x5, 4x6, 3x8) will probably work even better in my experience.

Different muscle groups respond differently to various rep schemes - some muscles like more reps than others. Trial and error.

Ok how about these changes:

Monday, Chest:

Flat BB Bench Press 5x5
Incline BB Bench 4x6
Dips 5x5

Tuesday, Back:

Pull Ups 5x5
Chin Ups 4x6
DB Rows 5x5
BB Rows 4x6

Wednesday, OFF

Thursday

Squat 5x5
Deadlift 4x6
Leg Press 5x5
Leg Curl 4x6
Calf Raises 5x5

Friday, OFF

Saturday, Tris, Bis, Shoulders, Abs, mirror muscles basically.

Military Press 3x8-10
Barbell Curls 3x10-12
Close Grip Bench 3x10-12
Revers Crunch 3xFailure
Shoulder Press 3x8-10

My Accessory muscles respond better to higher reps.

Sunday OFF

you don’t have to go that heavy in every movement that day, just the main ones. try it though, that’s the way to learn what works, by doing it.

Well I have always reacted better, gained more strength when I used the 5x5 I made more progress on my bench in 2 months than I did in the previous 6. Maybe go 5x5 everything then?

hahahaha…not functional strength…what-does-that-even-meannnn

[quote]APLASTICSPOON wrote:
I began to think and realized I gain more strength, not necessarily functional strength but strength at weightlifting, [/quote]

Come the fuck on.

Quit using this term. It makes no fucking sense at all. All strength is “functional”. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be STRENGTH.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
APLASTICSPOON wrote:
I began to think and realized I gain more strength, not necessarily functional strength but strength at weightlifting,

Come the fuck on.

Quit using this term. It makes no fucking sense at all. All strength is “functional”. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be STRENGTH.[/quote]

Good point. Actually, excellent point. The fact that it’s ‘strength’ means that it’s functional, somehow.

Could you explain what non-functional strength is? I simply assumed that if you got stronger in your delts, as a result of resistance training, ya’d be able to throw a baseball further, or row harder, for example. If i’ve got the wrong idea, fill me in

Stop overanalyzing this shit and just lift heavy weight each session. Add more weight next time and continue. This is not so complicated that “OMG do I do 10 reps or 5???!!! If I can’t decide this I won’t fucking grow and never look like that huge dude!!”.

It doesn’t fucking matter. What matters is that the weight you are lifting is increasing often and that you are growing muscle while at it.

That dude who said 5-8 reps are so great (and I agree with him) obviously realizes that this range allowed him to get consistently stronger over the long term while providing enough volume to get him bigger. I doubt he gave a shit whether he was doing “5x5” or exactly 3 sets of 8-10 reps.

[quote]TheOlympian wrote:
Professor X wrote:
APLASTICSPOON wrote:
I began to think and realized I gain more strength, not necessarily functional strength but strength at weightlifting,

Come the fuck on.

Quit using this term. It makes no fucking sense at all. All strength is “functional”. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be STRENGTH.

Good point. Actually, excellent point. The fact that it’s ‘strength’ means that it’s functional, somehow.

Could you explain what non-functional strength is? I simply assumed that if you got stronger in your delts, as a result of resistance training, ya’d be able to throw a baseball further, or row harder, for example. If i’ve got the wrong idea, fill me in[/quote]

What I’m saying is when me and my friends fight just for fun, some of them do better against me yet they are very weak in the gym.

I’m in a small college town not a whole lot to do but get drunk, get laid, and fight.

[quote]APLASTICSPOON wrote:
TheOlympian wrote:
Professor X wrote:
APLASTICSPOON wrote:
I began to think and realized I gain more strength, not necessarily functional strength but strength at weightlifting,

Come the fuck on.

Quit using this term. It makes no fucking sense at all. All strength is “functional”. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be STRENGTH.

Good point. Actually, excellent point. The fact that it’s ‘strength’ means that it’s functional, somehow.

Could you explain what non-functional strength is? I simply assumed that if you got stronger in your delts, as a result of resistance training, ya’d be able to throw a baseball further, or row harder, for example. If i’ve got the wrong idea, fill me in

What I’m saying is when me and my friends fight just for fun, some of them do better against me yet they are very weak in the gym.

I’m in a small college town not a whole lot to do but get drunk, get laid, and fight.
[/quote]

So you are confusing innate skill and strength with building strength in the gym?

Just because someone is stronger than you at one activity doesn’t mean anything.

I don’t do deadlifts AT ALL. That didn’t stop me from lifting a 200lbs oddly shaped generator from the ground and into my truck by myself when it took at least two people to move them any other time.

Where did that strength come from since obviously what I do isn’t “functional”?

One of my frat brothers can do more for calf raises than me and he rarely EVER lifts weights. Who cares? Everyone is not born with the exact same strength level. Those same guys you know who beat you in “play fighting” will be in the exact same spot as far as strength 10 years from now because they aren’t trying to build more strength.

That means if years pass and they are STILL stronger than you, you have no one to blame but yourself.

This term is irritating because it implies that you aren’t building real strength in the gym. This is bullshit. You can assume that 250lbs guy is weak all you want to. I wouldn’t advise allowing him to actually throw a punch at you at full force with the expectation that you won’t feel pain.

[quote]APLASTICSPOON wrote:
What I’m saying is when me and my friends fight just for fun, some of them do better against me yet they are very weak in the gym.
[/quote]

Maybe you’re just no good at fighting?

If you don’t think weightlifting translates into physical strength you can use in day-to-day situations then you just need to give up.

[quote]APLASTICSPOON wrote:
What I’m saying is when me and my friends fight just for fun, some of them do better against me yet they are very weak in the gym.

I’m in a small college town not a whole lot to do but get drunk, get laid, and fight.
[/quote]

“Fighting” requires skill, just like any other sport.

Skill is the most important factor to be successful in sport and not brute strength. Hell, even for “brutish” sports you still have to know where to position yourself and how to read a play or else you will look bad.

If brute strength was the only or most important factor to sport success then powerlifters, Strongmen, olympic lifters would be signing those juicy multi million dollar contracts instead of hosting a meet in a church basement.

Even pure speed like Usain Bolt has won’t make him a good NFL running back!

Skill and knowledge of the game is more important. Of course all things being equal the faster and stronger athlete will win… but then again things are never equal for a multitude of reasons.

This is why quasi-bodybuilding routines are just as good for athletes as many “sport specific” routines out there. You get these kids paying online PT’s tons of cash to write sport specific routines thinking that it will magically make them better on the field, pitch, rink or cage when in reality it makes little difference if you have zero, or minimal, skill to begin with.

On the other hand if you do have skills then a simple bodybuilding routine (although probably a bit less volume because you’re also taxing your body with practices and such) will be enough to strengthen your body and let you do what you know while playing.

Tell you what… feel free to do crossfit (which is popular with combat athletes and law enforcement agents) for a few months and then “play” with your friends again. Assuming you weren’t practicing the “sport” behind your friend’s back I’m guessing they will dominate you again because, for whatever reason, they are more skilled at this than you are.

It has NOTHING to do with “functional” strength.

[quote]APLASTICSPOON wrote:
TheOlympian wrote:
Professor X wrote:
APLASTICSPOON wrote:
I began to think and realized I gain more strength, not necessarily functional strength but strength at weightlifting,

Come the fuck on.

Quit using this term. It makes no fucking sense at all. All strength is “functional”. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be STRENGTH.

Good point. Actually, excellent point. The fact that it’s ‘strength’ means that it’s functional, somehow.

Could you explain what non-functional strength is? I simply assumed that if you got stronger in your delts, as a result of resistance training, ya’d be able to throw a baseball further, or row harder, for example. If i’ve got the wrong idea, fill me in

What I’m saying is when me and my friends fight just for fun, some of them do better against me yet they are very weak in the gym.

I’m in a small college town not a whole lot to do but get drunk, get laid, and fight.
[/quote]

In sports such as fighting, skill is the deciding factor in fights in all but the elite fights. You all are just a bunch of drunk college kids, i doubt your technique is up there with professional mma fighters, hence, at you all’s fighting level, skill is the reason they are better than you, not strength.

In summation, you lose to them, because you suck at fighting. In a professional mma bout where their techniques and skill level are up to par with the best fighters in the world, strength and conditioning is the deciding factor.