[quote]RealPC wrote:
Wow this little tid bit from my blog has already caused quite a stir. 
Jim and I talk about this shit offline quite a bit.
Jim is big on rep work obviously and he and I both talk about translation of reps into maxes and of course reps into legit hulking size. We have generally found certain weights x reps for most guys that have X maxes. Again let me state up front, just because you can do 500x20 in the squat or dead doesn’t mean you can single 800 in those lifts. We know that up front. However if you can get to 500x20 in the squat/dead you’re going to be unbelievably massive all over, and of course strong as hell. And I believe that your potential for a higher 1RM single will have gone through the roof as well. A 700 squatter or puller goes from 500x13 to 500x20 in a few months I have no doubt will come back to find his 1RM will improve A LOT over a few weeks of doing singles again.
maraudermeat’s approach of using it as a “back off” is exactly how I do it where I think Jim uses it as a mainstay (he can expound on this if he wants to). I generally do what I call an “over warm up” to a single, then do the reps. Something in the neighborhood of 10-15% over the weight to rep seems to be just right.
You can always think of it as your “assistance” work and stay with a minimalist approach.
There is a lot more to these lifts and numbers than meets the eye. They weren’t thrown out there completely at random.
One thing Jim and I are real big on is hard ass conditioning and being in shape. [/quote] Rumor has it he can now walk from the living room all the way to the fridge stopping to rest only once on the trip, for around 10 minutes. That conditioning stuff must be working, go Jim 
[quote]
Something we are both fond of noting is “who gives a shit if you can squat a grand if you can’t do anything with it?” In other words, if you’re a fat out of shape SOB and all you can do is waddle up to a monolift to squat a grand, how functional[/quote] How dare you invoke such a vile word on here! [quote] is your strength? It isn’t. And Jim can speak from experience on that. [/quote] That explains the very high reps on squats and deads, but especially the 500x20 squat is still astronomically difficult compared to a measly (“”) 315x1 standing mil press or hell, even the curl unless you’re being super-duper strict and slow on the negative on the latter.
[quote]
One of the reasons chins are in there is because they are such a great mass builder AND because fat guys hate em. It behooves you to be in shape and lean to be good at chins. If you’re carrying a ton of extra fat you aren’t going to be very good at chins more than likely.
Same holds true for 20 rep squats and deads. Generally making those weightsxreps requires a certain degree of conditioning as well as strength.
Be strong AND in good condition. This is HARD. But, it also means you are more awesome and kick more ass.[/quote]
Okay well, I’d go with 405x20 or, if you want a fairly difficult but still potentially achievable one, 455x20 on the squat for the list… Or else make the st. mil press 405x3-5 or something like that to match the ridiculous 500x20 squat… Come on, you can’t just pick exercises you’re strong at and assign them astronomical numbers and then wimp out on the overhead work, what’s more bad-ass than putting major weight over your head? 
