Squat and Milk...W/O 20 Reps

Diet and Nutrition
41

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
TrainerinDC wrote:
Calories = Weight gain. A gallon of whole milk is 16 cups of milk. 16 x 150 = 2400 calories of milk a day. This is half your diet right here.

Muscle growth = training intensity, frequency and rest. I don’t see where 20 rep squats fit into the equation. You could drink a gallon of milk, and intensely train with any program and you should gain.

Truth. This should be “Strong Words” for the next 3 months.

I hate reading “That program put on 10 pounds in 2 months”… Well, the program might have made some of that weight muscle, but it had nothing to do with the WEIGHT gain.[/quote]

Nearly entirely wrong. Simply eating more for some people won’t make them gain 20 lbs in a month. And I am talking about reasonably more. Like an extra 1000 or 2000 calories per day, not 10,000 or 20000 for the sake of argument.

I’ve seen people gain 10 lbs and eat less just by lifting weights correctly. If your particular body gains weight from eating alone, then that is your case but don’t generalize for all those that don’t.

42

Why ask the question if you’re so absolutely dead set against doing it?

Wouldn’t it be worth a few short weeks of your life to find out if 20 rep squats will work for you?

43

[quote]RJ24 wrote:
KO421 wrote:
RJ24 wrote:
sean_mur88 wrote:

RJ24 wrote:
In my mind, I see my current plan, teamed with the gallon of milk, bringing similar results to the SS program. There’s not nearly as much TUT, but my lifts are done at a much higher intensity.

Why don’t you just do the 20 rep squat at the same intensity as your singles or your 3-5 reps? I think that doing your 10rm and then doing 10 extra reps that you normally shouldn’t do would be a much more intense process for you than doing exactly the same thing you’ve been doing on a regular basis for the past few months or so. If you don’t find it intense, I suggest adding more weight until you do.

Intensity is a percentage of 1RM, not a feeling or attitude you put into your work sets. No matter how you slice it, 60% will always be less intense than 90%.

The point is to put as much intensity and force into a set at 60% as you would at 90%, this is called speed work and will up your totals

Non-ballistic speed work, such as you are recommending with 60% loading, is far from a productive way to train, unless powerlifting is your thing.

Not only that, but during 20 rep squats, wouldn’t you be glad to just get the bar up for another rep, let alone blast it up?

The only way for 60% loading to be as intense as 90% would be to perform drop and catch movements in which you blew through the ammortization phase instantaneously.

The intramuscular tension generated by an exercise such as this would certainly be much more intense than during a lift @ 90%, though the duration of the stimulis would be more brief.[/quote]

You seem to be missing the point of this program, intesity, and being big. You are not big at 6’1 202, thats about average 3 or 4 day a week gym goer size. 285x5 is not a heavy squat and there are alot of people doing that. Now if you are doing all this at 16 or 17 then maybe its a little more impressive size wise.

I am not saying this to put you down, but trying to express to you the point of 20-rep squats. This is a program for people to gain massive size on their body. Intesity IS almost 95% attitude 5% one rep max.

Proof is that adreneline controls how much you lift far more than the amount of muscle you have, and most people lift more wieght with a motivating partner than by themselves.

If you wanted to be HUGE then I would say start off by taking that 285 and do 20 reps with that, not 5. That is intesity.

44

[quote]Stuey wrote:
Why ask the question if you’re so absolutely dead set against doing it?

Wouldn’t it be worth a few short weeks of your life to find out if 20 rep squats will work for you?[/quote]

Prett much… 20 rep squats is mentaly draining!

do it as the program says squating 3x a week adding 5lbs each time… see how far you get, it ain’t easy!

It does work though I gained about 8lbs in 2 1/2 weeks

45

Um…285 is pretty good for a front squat. He is a pretty sick athlete. I think he can do a ton of unassisted natural glute ham raises too.

And I think he is only 18 or 19.

46

[quote]

Intensity is a percentage of 1RM, not a feeling or attitude you put into your work sets. No matter how you slice it, 60% will always be less intense than 90%. [/quote]

WHOA! You’ve obviously not tried breathing squats if you think they’re less intense than banging out a few singles. Give them a shot man, they’ll kick your ass.

I’ve grown a lot with singles too. They’re the meat and potatoes of my program. There’s no way in hell I could do 20 reppers for any length of time without overtraining, but there’s no doubt that sparingly throwing them in your routine will help you grow.

If anything they’ll make you all the tougher. Singles will seem easy after tackling breathing squats a few times.

47

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
… You are not big at 6’1 202, thats about average 3 or 4 day a week gym goer size. 285x5 is not a heavy squat and there are alot of people doing that. Now if you are doing all this at 16 or 17 then maybe its a little more impressive size wise.
… [/quote]

I think 285 was his front squat.

RJ24 is a pretty impressive athlete and is probably not looking to just bulk.

I believe he is concerned with keeping his explosiveness while gaining weight.

I am not sure 20 rep squats would be right for an athlete in his situation.

48

Yeah, 285 x 4 was my front squat, not my back squat. And yes, I am an athlete, so just getting big for the sake of it is not my goal.

A properly done 20 rep squat program would leave me tired and without any energy left to devote to athletic endeavors. I would get heavier, and stronger, but slower, and less explosive. I don’t want that.

I’ve decided that I’m just going to take in 1250-1750 calories pre, during, and post workout and then just eat when I’m hungry from there. I should start gaining weight soon. If not, I’ll just pump up the calories taken in around my workouts.

And as far as the intensity debate is going, jtrinsey said it best when he said intensity is described as a percentage of 1RM. Now, what HIT guys call intensity is actually one’s level of perceived exertion. Sure, busting your ass brings results, but anyone can get tired lifting weights, not everyone can get consistantly stronger or faster. And while there is a time to just chuck science out the window and push yourself until you throw up, doing that on a consistant basis will do little to make you a better power athlete.

Thanks for everyone’s input.

49

Well said RJ24. It’s all about your goals. If the tool won’t get the job done, don’t waste your time using it.

But again, the occasional use of 20 reppers will make you an all-round tougher person, mentaly at least.

50

[quote]unheatedgarage wrote:
But again, the occasional use of 20 reppers will make you an all-round tougher person, mentaly at least.[/quote]

I agree with that. There are two things I’m scared to do, fitness wise.

  1. High Rep Squats
  2. Run the 400M dash

Both are hell!

51

[quote]RJ24 wrote:
unheatedgarage wrote:
But again, the occasional use of 20 reppers will make you an all-round tougher person, mentaly at least.

I agree with that. There are two things I’m scared to do, fitness wise.

  1. High Rep Squats
  2. Run the 400M dash

Both are hell!

[/quote]

Don’t forget the 8. I can’t even run a 400 85%, conk out close to the 3 mark.

52

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
… You are not big at 6’1 202, thats about average 3 or 4 day a week gym goer size. 285x5 is not a heavy squat and there are alot of people doing that. Now if you are doing all this at 16 or 17 then maybe its a little more impressive size wise.
…

I think 285 was his front squat.

RJ24 is a pretty impressive athlete and is probably not looking to just bulk.

I believe he is concerned with keeping his explosiveness while gaining weight.

I am not sure 20 rep squats would be right for an athlete in his situation.[/quote]

I watched the video again and realized that it is a front squat, and that might be stronger than an average gym rat its’s still not huge leg building strong that the 20 rep program is for.

Although I slightly disagree with the uselessness of 20 rep squats, I never argued that it was great for sports, just that the program was not designed to be used with a 60% rm.

I’ve used 20 rep squats for both getting big, and for cutting. I’ve done it with 85% and 65%. Both times I got nothing but great results. I used the 65% when I wanted to stay in shape with sports, I did them full and fast. What I noticed was I can stop and go with anybody. With 85% I got cut and big.

53

If you have ever read Super Squats (which can be summed up on the books first page) it states that the 20 rep squats are simply designed to push the overload principle and trigger a “grow or die” response.

For me, 20 rep squats was stupid, I just did the 5x5 at 85% resting 90 seconds between sets and increasing in weight by 5lbs each training session. I can’t even count past 5, 20 sounds ludacris. Hehe. I tip my milk glass to you man, being big is fun.

54

[quote]RJ24 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
RJ24 wrote:
It seems the problem isn’t milk itself, but a vitamin D deficiency. I see no reason why a UV lamp and a good dosing of vitamin D every morning wouldn’t eliminate this threat.

Thanks for the info though, I’m going to put it to good use.

Dude if you put as much effort into moving some heavy iron around as you are musing over all this shit in this thread, you’d be well on your way.

Why is it that you assume I’m not lifting heavy. How does this look to you?

Looks pretty damn heavy to me, especially since it was at the tail end of only doing front squats for a month.

Trust me, my training is in check, though whether or not it is has nothing to do with this thread. As I said, I’ve already put on 35 lbs, so I’ve done my time under some relatively heavy weight. Thanks for your reply.

[/quote]

Your squats were fine. I was more impressed with the video to which your video had a link.

55

Hey Lonnie123 how bout you don’t just assume shit about people you don’t know alright?Who are you to just guess I’m buying beer or whatever every week?I have a job as an electrician’s helper when I’m not in school and that money is paying car insurance and getting saved up for college.My mom is a single mother of 4 kids.There isn’t just $20 a week to hand out.I’m sorry I can’t get a gallon of milk for every day just because you think it’s necessry to grow.I did just fine without it.

56

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
The generally accepted definiton of intensity in sports science is in relation to % of 1RM.
[/quote]

I don’t think the sports science definition really cuts it in this instance. Intensity is about more than a 1RM. If 1RM was the end all and be all of the formula it wouldn’t change. I would be willing to bet that half the members of T-Nation don’t know their true 1RM on many lifts because they haven’t put all they have into the lift.