Legs still dying when I do anything over 10-12 reps in a set. Not sure if that’s where the hidden gainz are or if my legs are telling me to lift with my ego, but we all know I’m too stubborn to listen to my body.
Food
Cal: 1665
P: 149g
C: 55g
F: 92g
Didn’t have meal prep cooked yet, will be better tomorrow.
Glad you’re loving(hating) the program!! I’m actually a big fan of JP’s and follow him on IG, so I was hyped when I saw he was releasing programming and videos free online! I’ve definitely got this on my to-do list, as I find JP and are very likeminded when it comes to training.
Super glad to hear the progress has been coming along smoothly, you definitely are looking lean in your avatar, your weight is down a bit from my last time being regular here and I think you’re absolutely on the right track right now man!
Coming back to this, it’s super interesting. I’ve always been somewhat of a mindset that I count the sets to failure (knowing that the other sets still have an impact). That ends up with me doing ~5-8 sets per session, even if it looks like two dozen on paper.
Even within that, there’s a lot of lifts I simply refuse to come near failure. A failure set of squats hasn’t happened in years, but leg extensions you could do every week.
Edit: I meant to ask a question in there. Do you think you’ve found the “right” weekly volume for yourself (either by bodypart or total)?
Data consistently supports that the most effective reps are the last 5 until failure, so if every set is taken to failure… 5xSets=Effective Volume
That’s why I say counting total reps is kind of pointless. Whether you reach failure after 100 reps or 6 reps, the last 5 are the ones that count.
^Mike Israetel and the RP gang based their entire training model off Reps in Reserve (RIR) and adjusting their training volume to coincide with the most effective rep-range/1RM%. The intent was to train as close to failure as possible without suffering the CNS fatigue of actually hitting failure… some of the hardcore DC/Failure Training guys tried it and didn’t like it, but I think that makes sense for them. If you’ve trained to actual failure for a decade, training sub-failure will feel ineffective.
I don’t aim for failure on something that will kill me
Honestly I’m not in a position to say. I’ve got so many life variables going on that I think it’s premature to say I’ve got it figured out - but I like this PPL program quite a bit. Have considered dropping one of the failure sets on each exercise to make it more maintainable, but haven’t gotten there yet.
Everything from sleep and nutrition to daily stress and hormones are all over the place; I’m just piecing it together as I go and still making progress (much to my surprise).
I read this and for the most part agree. Then anecdotally I see dudes that do a couple hundred pushups or pullups or whatever and look jacked. Obviously much of that is because they’re lean, but they’ve also built some muscle. So there’s a spectrum of effective reps, and I don’t think any of them can be 0; by the same token none of them are completely non-fatiguing. I guess I’m talking myself into the old volume vs. intensity balance. In our case, it’s likely that the last 5 are simply the best balance of stimulus to fatigue. I’m also aware that Dr. Mike doesn’t even like that last rep or two because the cost rises exponentially.
Now, on the other hand, we take those studies and combine with conclusions from others (which we aren’t supposed to do, but do all the time with fitness) and say that the optimal weekly volume is 10-20 of those sets per bodypart per week; that would equal 50 - 100 effective reps per week. Fine, but then you get something like DC - no question that builds muscle. Let’s take an example of chest:
One rest-pause exercise (let’s say Hammer Strength bench because it’s awesome).
You get 11 - 15 rest-pause reps.
You’ll knock 8 on your first “round” - that’s 5 effective reps.
4 reps on your next mini-set - all those are effective.
2 on your final push - again all effective.
So that’s 11 effective reps. Frequency is moderately high, so you hit this workout 1.5 times per week, on average, giving you 16 - 17 effective weekly reps for chest. That’s where I think some of this falls apart (although I personally tend to lean to the aforementioned 50 - 100 weekly reps).
This is probably always true to the point that none of us can ever say “this is the way,” to be fair. We can probably say “this works right now,” which you’re obviously nailing.
I have a bed that does it for me. Calculates tossing/turning, sleep phases, duration, HRV, RHR, and some other metrics and comes up with a composite score. Tends to be pretty accurate to performance.
This is true, I don’t mean to say that your first xx number of reps are pointless, rather that the most effective reps are the last 5 to failure. There’s a lot of data that supports this, but also data that supports reps leading up to those last 5 being beneficial as well. I think @cdep89 and I got into the weeds on this a couple weeks back.
These studies are always flawed, using untrained individuals, and missing obvious intensification factors (which are required for more advanced lifters), so they lend themselves to inaccurate conclusions IMO. Untrained folks will get gains off of the dumbest routines, which is why so many newbies have outright stupid training ‘programs’… what used to work just doesn’t work anymore and now they’ve ‘stalled’ (lol).
If only it felt that way I’m always too hard on myself anyways, which is why I don’t recognize progress until WELL after I’ve made it.
I do plan to run DC when I can lay off the cut. Possibly even my 531/DC template I made a little while back… I just need recovery factors (mainly sleep and nutrition) to be more on board with that. Strangely, I find DC to be far more fatiguing than JP’s PPL and Upper/Lower split. I think it’s the Rest Pause.
Agree with everything you’ve said about DC training, and the reasons why it aligns with the claim of “the last 5 reps to failure are the most beneficial”. No wasted energy on high rep stuff (outside of the 5-reps), training primarily in peak progress zone, heaviest exercises only, progressive overload like a mofo. It has it all.
It’s fun to go down the rabbit holes. It’s only a problem for folks that read and think "I better stop doing anything until I figure out everything. I maintain moving metal around is not a game for rocket surgeons.
It’s definitely enjoyable, but it takes a freaking toll.
This is like a long-time mechanic having amazing forearms. Whilst we know there are certain “effective” rep ranges, these high sorts of ranges we see in people powering out 100s of pushups or the mailman getting amazing calves… it may not cause the muscle damage required for hypertrophy in a traditional sense, but there still has to be some sort of low-level signal to build muscle. It’s not as if they are tightening up those bolts harder, or pushing that trolley harder over time. Maybe it’s the pump, or maybe there’s something else we don’t quite know the science behind yet. It’s not a worthy endeavor for most though, because who wants to spend 25 years as a mechanic to get big forearms? I think I heard someone talking about this on a podcast recently but I can’t remember which one, too much goes in one ear then out the other. But ultimately “Everything works” seems to be true, some things are just more effective than others.
Everything you listed. 100%. I feel one of the biggest flaws though is that these studies are often done over a short period. It’s the classic “8-12 reps is best for hypertrophy so I’m not gonna do anything else”. Sure for 8 weeks over the course of the hypothetical study, it probably did have the best results in untrained or even trained individuals. What about after that though? Our bodies adapt to all that we do and training history can be everything. The best rep range for an individual could be the one they aren’t doing.
To emphasize the point above a little more. It’s different. There are a ton of people who run body part splits for years with a ton of volume and then get convinced of switching to 3x full body or sometimes as little as 2x a week workouts… and the gains come faster than they’ve had in months. The reverse of this can also be true. With DC training yes the effective reps are lower but with the rest pausing your body is like “woah, wtf is this” and has no other option but to build new muscle. Changing rest times is a little-used tool we have in our arsenals that has been proven time and time again to bring new gains. It can be as important as a different exercise variation, rep ranges, split, exercise order, and any other thing we can use to slightly change our workouts. All this kind of stuff is why I’m always cautious of the “this program is the best program I ever did, this is the one I got the most gains from” kind of chat you hear from people. Sometimes it’s about going as far away from the thing that’s been done for too long.
What’s funny is I totally agree with this, and suggest it to folks, and still have trouble applying it myself! It’s called a comfort zone for a reason, I guess.
To come back and argue with myself a little: I really believe the variable is consistent hard work. So if doing something new enables that longer run, that’s the right choice. If sticking to your norm, as long as you’re still really pushing it, keeps you in the game, do that one.
Maybe the switching it up is really about reigniting a fire or letting you get more consistent again by changing up some use patterns?
If I can still make progress in a comfort zone, i’m not too bothered. If I ever get sick of what I’m doing though…
Exactly that.
There are far too many examples of guys training the same way for decades and getting results to dismiss staying on the same path. Slight changes and evolving over time is still a good path to take. Maybe it’s not optimal, but what it is? I know all about the law of adaptation and I know I could probably make some great gains with a big shift in the way I train, and like you… it’s what I’d recommend others do. All the science is out there clear as day. In many ways I could be a fool.
There is a problem though, the word plateau is thrown about too much in fitness. We can switch things up all we like but it always comes back to consistency and progressive overload. I’ve seen one of the strongest guys I know with a big overhead press do the same amount of reps on a top set for 1-2 months, maybe one of the reps moved a bit quicker than last week, maybe the form was better, and then all of a sudden, boom, there’s that +1. Even if every +1 takes him six-eight weeks, over the course of a year that’s amazing progress. Getting +2 in the space of 3 months could add 10lbs to their max. If that progress continued it could be 40lbs added to an OHP in a year at the level they are already at - it’s insane, perhaps unrealistic progress that many people would consider a plateau and blame the program. Sometimes many of us are just not reasonable with the progress that we expect to get.
Fo’ Sho’. One of the things CT talks about, that I think gets at your point, is the illusion of progress when you first start doing something new. You rapidly improve for the first couple weeks, so you think “this is the magic program,” but really you’re just getting more practiced at something you hadn’t done.
I didn’t really understand failure until i ran DC. What i must say now though is that i find it really hard to say what true failure is. Couple of things i’d like to throw out there
Firstly, the 2-3 second rest. If i hit failure and literally rest a couple of seconds i can nearly always get another rep or two. So is this training past failure or is it true failure.
The second is body motion (or poor form etc.) again you get to failure but if you lose perfect form and give it a bit of body english you can get another rep. Which one is true failure for the muscle.
I’d also like to add that in my mind, people who have weak links in their body (the injured) may hit failure due to an accessory muscle rather than the main muscles working (or aiming to be worked) on a lift. On bench out of my failed reps, i’d say 99% of them were due to my triceps. I very rarely ever failed due to my chest nor do i really get to take my chest to failure until i use a fly motion to isolate it.
This brings me to the point where i quite like hitting the same weight for 3 or so sets because i really know what i’m aiming/ doing in the lift and i know how hard i can and should push. Now i’m not saying thats better, but for me it helps me navigate failure and also not over training.
But enjoying this discussion so please continue. It does make me want to run DC training again but i need to stick to a programme for a while again!
Quick note until I come back (I should probably do some work) - I’m with you on everything. That’s why I’d rather fail on a machine/ isolation movement and never on the big lifts.
“Forced reps” are a Blood N Guts thing if I’m not mistaken (haven’t run it, would need a gym buddy for that). I also believe this method uses “beyond failure” with this.
Pro tip: do this from rep 1 and consider it a constant, not a variable. Form matters… until it doesn’t. No one ever got hurt by doing a hammer curl with bad form. The negative still needs to be respected though.
I do believe this is a DC tenet as well. Except squats. Dante wants you to die on squats.
So weight loss basically isn’t happening unless looked at on a larger scale, which is still okay. I never cared what I weighed, just wanted to be leaner - which is still happening. I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again, if my body wants me to stay at 210 and just trade fat for muscle, I’m a happy man. I’m overdue for a progress picture, meant to do in the beginning of Feb so I could do monthly - just didn’t happen that way.
Spent the last 2 weeks running 80mg Test C/80mg Nandrolone, no issues to report. Acne has reduced significantly in this time (which was the goal).
Dropping Test C to 60mg and bumping Nandrolone to 120mg/wk to get back to my total 180mg/wk dose (I’m aware 1mg Nand =/= 1mg Test, don’t start).
I’m always too hard on myself anyways, which is why I don’t recognize progress until WELL after I’ve made it.
