T Nation

X Rep or POF Training

Anyone use the x-rep or POF training? Any results to report? I think this is just doing sets and then using static holds at the end of the set. I would appreciate anyone who could describe this is a little better and tell about their results.
Thanks.

just do more cardio.

I like static holds for strength, but you need to do speed work to counteract the trade off of speed for strength. If you do both Working Sets and Static Sets I think it would be ineffective because it would overtrain the CNS. Static work should be very intense.

I have only tested static training on chinups and squats, so results may vary on other exercises. Many old strongmen and olympic lifters (before it was illegal to press the jerk) used Isometric training to increase their presses.

X-reps are when you do partial reps after you tire to hit the intended muscle more directly. For example, when bench pressing you often stop because your triceps give out, but your pecs still have the ability to do work.

So, after you finish the amount of reps you can do at full range, you continue to do bench presses from the bottom of the rep up to about halfway, which allows you to hit the chest more effectively.

[quote]IronWarrior24 wrote:
X-reps are when you do partial reps after you tire to hit the intended muscle more directly. For example, when bench pressing you often stop because your triceps give out, but your pecs still have the ability to do work.

So, after you finish the amount of reps you can do at full range, you continue to do bench presses from the bottom of the rep up to about halfway, which allows you to hit the chest more effectively.[/quote]

yes indeed that is the way, however, for some exercises leverage differences meen that the “x-spot” is sometimes higher or lower. for example, in the squat, the place to do the end of set partials is slightly above parralell. the same for undergrip chins, slightly above or below parallel, however this depends on the insertion points of the biceps and lattissimus dorsi.For some exercises, like skull crushers, x-reps are impossible, so a static hold may be substituted. On stretch position exercises, d-xo , were a double hitch in the bottom position is used in between reps, plus a static hold at the end may be a better option, as it will have positive effects on muscle hyperplasia and induce favouritable hormonal secretions ( mechano growth factor/igf-1).

the pof system is a good way to cover the muscle full chain of positions, most exercise programs tend to do this anyway.

the x-reps are supposed to be 8-12" long, depending on the exercise. for the bench there almost at the bottom of the stroke, for inclines slightly below halfway. squat slightly above, same for undergrip chins. impposible on bb curls and skull cruchers.

[quote]hotdog.350 wrote:
the x-reps are supposed to be 8-12" long, depending on the exercise. for the bench there almost at the bottom of the stroke, for inclines slightly below halfway. squat slightly above, same for undergrip chins. impposible on bb curls and skull cruchers.[/quote]

I have read plenty of the x-rep material. There is no official stroke length. I’ve heard suggestions of 8" on exercises like squats. But on shorter movements like incline bench, chin ups etc… They recommend any movement at all. Once I reach full range failure I can barley move it more than 4" for x-reps on any exercise.

X-reps work, but thay are easy to overtrain on.

Mytch- do you have any literature you could send me on this type of training? Or where could I go to look at this type of training?

Also CW had some articles out on partials and static holds as well. Is this roughly about the same as x-rep training?

Thanks again.

I think this x-rep, POF training shit is garbage. Its taking quality out of weightlifting and making it into a science, something that ruins bodybuilding. Many bodybuilders dont say to them selves “Hmmmmmmmm, for my chest today, i need a mid-range, a stretch and a peak contraction exercise. Which exercises will get the job done and really make my chest grow?”

I’ll tell you, the exercises that you get stronger at for chest will make your chest grow.

We’ve actually taken something really not that hard and started throwing fancy shit at it to make it 'revolutionary"

To sum up bodybuilding, its trial and error of yourself. Find what works, discard what doesnt. I dont feel pullovers in my back, so I dont do them. I dont feel wide grip barbell curls in my Bi’s, but instead feel the narrow grip, so I do them instead. Once I find the exercises that allow me for maximal stimulation for that particular muscle, all thats left is to get stronger at it.

Plain-and-Simple.

[quote]forbes wrote:
I think this x-rep, POF training shit is garbage. Its taking quality out of weightlifting and making it into a science, something that ruins bodybuilding.

Many bodybuilders dont say to them selves “Hmmmmmmmm, for my chest today, i need a mid-range, a stretch and a peak contraction exercise. Which exercises will get the job done and really make my chest grow?”

I’ll tell you, the exercises that you get stronger at for chest will make your chest grow.

We’ve actually taken something really not that hard and started throwing fancy shit at it to make it 'revolutionary"

To sum up bodybuilding, its trial and error of yourself. Find what works, discard what doesnt. I dont feel pullovers in my back, so I dont do them.

I dont feel wide grip barbell curls in my Bi’s, but instead feel the narrow grip, so I do them instead. Once I find the exercises that allow me for maximal stimulation for that particular muscle, all thats left is to get stronger at it.

Plain-and-Simple.[/quote]

Actually, you are correct, people overcomplicate bodybuilding, most of them do it to gain money. Gaining strength is very important and to see what works for you is essential.

But x-reps and POF are bullshit. If you do it with intensity, overload your muscles and it is different from what you’ve been doing then it will work. To say it is the best, most revolutionary training ever and it packs 20 pounds of muscle in 10 weeks is BS.

I do X-Reps on inclines only going about 8 inches off my chest. It’s been working great, very insane pump and they are actually harder to do then full extensions (maybe because of strong triceps, but I think they’re harder because it gives the muscle no pause allowing it to be under constent tension and allieviating any stored energy in the muscle.)

So far they’ve been a great add into my routine, I also use them on shoulder press sometimes.

Is their a readers digest version of X-reps anywhere? Something devoid of marketing schmaltz

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Is their a readers digest version of X-reps anywhere? Something devoid of marketing schmaltz[/quote]

i could make up a big folder or zip file with a very substantial amount of info if anyone is interested?

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Is their a readers digest version of X-reps anywhere? Something devoid of marketing schmaltz[/quote]

Is there even one person who got big off that crap… The two marketing freaks who hype it are the only ones with somewhat respectable physiques training that way.

John Hansen (Natty Mr. O at some point) tried it from what I know… And stopped doing it shortly after while making polite excuses.

When I read over their programs, all I think is: How the hell does anyone get stronger doing that?

So, anyone here gotten to 230-250+ at average height or something like that from following x-rep programs?

Larry Scott did 4-6 ‘x-reps’ for his arms after each set, which he called ‘burns’ John Lawson and Steve Hollman took this idea and called it x-reps. It is supposed to stimulate extra fibres directly after positive failure is reached- it should not be used on it’s own as partials- that’s bullshit. IMO this wil work best in the stretch position (as in bottom of incline DB curl) with immediate explosion into lifting phase of the exercise- this is called the myotic reflex and causes more fibres to fire. Max stretch, max explosive contraction and time under tension is what bodybuilding is about.

POF attempts to achieve this but IMO they use too many complicated bullshit exercises for each muscle when sometimes max stretch and contraction can be reached by one or two exercises if you train correctly- Take the ‘Perfect Curl’ from Vince Gironda for ex. which is a damn good exercise for biceps.

They still have some good stuff in there as well, for ex. they use pre-fatique and supersets etc. which are time proven techniques, The way they use them and put their program together and the results they claim are questionable to me. I will always try something that makes sense and keep what works best in the end.

[quote]hotdog.350 wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
Is their a readers digest version of X-reps anywhere? Something devoid of marketing schmaltz

i could make up a big folder or zip file with a very substantial amount of info if anyone is interested? [/quote]

Heck yeah. That would be terrific. Thank you in advance for doing it.

there’s a difference between SOLELY doing these “x-reps” or static holds, etc. as your program, and adding them at the end of a set to failure.

I think the latter way is probably just fine, and most people who actually train to true failure will do this naturally without giving it some brand name.

When I have an exercise go to failure, I usually try with all my might to move the weight up a couple more times after I hit failure (where safely possible, for example I’ve never done this on squats, sounds stupid to me…)

Marketing for this kind of stuff is ridiculous anyone who can gain 20lbs of pure muscle in 10 weeks is probably livin a dream.

X-rep and pof are just fancy marketing names for partials to failure. Either first half, last half or midrange partials like in the article the other week by tuminello. I use partials in my programs but not usually on their own.

Give them a crack and see how it goes.

While I thought the POF concepts were pretty cool when they first published the ideas, I have very little respect for Holman and Lawson and the crap they publish in their mag. Neither one has anything near a championship caliber physique, and while Holman always had a decent build, he simply shed some fat as he approached his 40th birthday and made a big deal about how he did it. Lawson was an employee for the company before he magically transformed his physique with their amazing program (Just like the original guys in the M-Tech transformation ads could be found in the magazine staff listings from a few years earlier if you looked -lol). Neither one accomplished anything earth shattering, it’s all marketing of concepts that have been around for a while. Is it bad stuff? No, not really, but it’s certainly not anything new or magical.

S

I wouldn’t touch those routines. They really sort of suck. You don’t need to x-rep anything. People who are big don’t do it and you don’t need to either.