Oni didnt expect you to like that article, he made a facebook status asking what is your raw and equipped bench and about 16 people replied. Not the most reliable of data.
Oni didnt expect you to like that article, he made a facebook status asking what is your raw and equipped bench and about 16 people replied. Not the most reliable of data.
Anyone who is already putting up 140/100/180 at under 100kg BW is not going to see a 20kg increase in their 1RM in such a short time frame from simply increasing volume. I dont know how freakish some peoples genetics are but if i can gain 20kg on my squat in a year im pretty stoked! When you have full time work and shifts vary etc. gym time becomes more about quality of training over quantity ( less volume using most important lifts only for the highest effort ).
That study like most other studies conducted in bodybuilding/strength training are more based around students who have consistency and time to train when and how they want with little interruption.
Eastern European strength coaches had the biggest cohort of subjects at their disposal and the truth that has emerged from decades of training is that the biggest driver of improvement is volume. All the Russian programs are designed around the number of lifts per month, with the number of lifts increasing depending on the level and maturity of the lifting.
The intensity of the programming doesn't really change that much between bgeinner and elite lifters - it's lots of drilling the lifts at 60-75%, then work sets at 80-85%, occasionally dipping up to 90%. The elite lifters follow the same programming more or less, but they have many more lifts per month/year and spread it over 5-6 days as their work capacity increases.
This approach really does work.
I am currently benching the same weights during training as I was about 6 months ago, in fact probably at even less intensity, but I am benching 3 days a week with a massive increase of number of lifts per month. My comp bench went up 15kg (almost 15%) in the same time, after being stalled for a long time. I am a desk jockey on the wrong side of 30 who has never been naturally gifted a sport. I'm no genetic freak and it worked for me.
Great post- also great thread. Thanks for bringing our attention to the study ONI. This was the topic of a couple of discussions I had last week- one with mike tuchsherer, the other with a Russian coach. I have previously seen other studies that come to a similar conclusion- something along the lines of strength development for a lift is not simply about muscle stimulation but also significantly about building and reinforcing motor patterns and skill. Sheiko talked a lot about this in his book (not the new one- I saw that but it was in Russian alas) and raises some interesting issues around the utilization of the fatigue drop in the rts system.
Were squats the only exercise they performed over the study period or did they continue with regular training and up the volume for squats?
What do you think about average intensity? Was that ever discussed?
I've come to the conclusion now that all the body knows is RPE, so percentage used is largely irrelevant. All that matters really is the last few reps in each set, which gives you the RPE. This is why I suspect myoreps and rest pause work so well- you get so many "last reps". I remember Mike T saying that the ideal rep for strength building is the 1RM as it gives the most TUT in the weakest point but it just wasn't practical to build volume on this which is why you use special exercises. However recently I've been using percentages greater than 90% and doing sets of 1-3 reps only resting 60-90 seconds and doing 20-30 reps per session above 90% in this manner and pretty much every rep is like a 1RM attempt. I've had amazing success with this in a very short period of time and was wondering what you thought of doing this or if it was ever discussed
Do you think you should always strive to go as heavy as possible with good technique while getting in a decent number of reps each month (more than 100)?
I have a feeling that prilipins table isn't quite right, although I can't put words to it yet
There is an obvious reverse correlation though between volume and intensity