Workload volume versus intensity

[zepled37]

Curious how people view the trade off between volume and intensity especially when it comes to sets across. Do you just find this by trial and error?

I ask because it seems like my recovery is pretty poor (took at least a week to recover from squats 325 x 5 x 3 sets when doing the advanced novice program) and I feel like I can get a decent workout and make progress from a lower intensity if the volume and / or frequency is high enough. This seems especially true on the squat.

I've been doing Texas Method for a few weeks and took a pretty big reset...all the way down to 245 x 5 x 5 in the squat (going up 10lbs per week for now) and this week was 275 x 5 x 5 and felt pretty decent. Only 2-3 minutes between sets and wasn't too wiped out, but based on my past experience, I think once I get to over 300 pounds, 5 sets of 5 is going to destroy me!

I guess my question is do you just keep pushing the 5x5 weights and then when you get wiped out, reset and try to work up higher next time? I know you can also drop sets down to 3 again or drop reps on this day. Do you ever reach a point where you just stick with the same weight for a while on volume day if you can still make progress on Fridays?

Right now, I'm looking at keeping at 5x5 until it impacts my recovery for Friday's and then dropping to 3 rep sets with the same weight, but really think I could probably do a fixed weight for a while and still make progress Friday.

Does any of this make sense?!

Thanks.

[stronger]

2-3 minutes between sets? That's waaay too short. I take 10 mins between sets of squats, and I'm doing the Texas Method.

2-3 minutes is barely time to catch your breath if it's a heavy enough weight. You could probably be doing 10lbs more than what you're squatting for sets if you would rest longer.

[JC400]

If your goal is increased strength then as stronger says you should be looking at more rest. I would say 5mins minimum if you can get by with less the weight is probably not going to tax you enough to force a strength adaptation.

[Kenny Croxdale]

Curious how people view the trade off between volume and intensity especially when it comes to sets across. Do you just find this by trial and error?


Zepled,

Some individuals respond better to high volume/moderate intensity and tother to low volume/high intensity. It a bit like dating. It take you a few date to figure out if it's doing to work.

So yes, there is a bit of trial and error involved. Even Einstein found noted that, "Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing". You make educated guesses and then experiment.


I guess my question is do you just keep pushing the 5x5 weights and then when you get wiped out, reset and try to work up higher next time?

I'd recommend doing that.


I've been doing Texas Method for a few weeks and took a pretty big reset...all the way down to 245 x 5 x 5 in the squat (going up 10lbs per week for now) and this week was 275 x 5 x 5 and felt pretty decent. Only 2-3 minutes between sets and wasn't too wiped out, but based on my past experience, I think once I get to over 300 pounds, 5 sets of 5 is going to destroy me!

Taking longer recovery between sets (as Stonger posted) will enable you to push/pull more weight.

For strength training, you want recovery time of 3 mintues or longer between sets.

However, you don't need to take 10 minutes between every set (as Stronger seem to indicate in his post).

Kenny Croxdale

[zepled37]

Thanks, guys. Yes, maybe I wasn't clear. I do normally take more rest and plan to as the weight goes up. I was taking 5 to 7 minutes before, but honestly don't see myself taking 10 minutes.

As I said, I took a pretty big reset so the weight is a little light still and allows me to take shorter rest periods so far, but I do think this weight is still helping me to adapt. Even at the lighter weight(275x5x5), this is still 2000 pounds more total workload compared to my best 5x3 weight (325).

OK, so I'm thinking I'll first drop to 3 rep sets then when that peters out, I'll reset and start over with 5x5.

In general, would you make more adjustments to volume day programming first versus changing the intensity day? This question assumes stalling on Mondays or Mondays and Fridays both.

I have PPST2 coming in so maybe that will help. (Been through SS and PPST1 books already).

Thanks.

[knox]

However, you don't need to take 10 minutes between every set (as Stronger seem to indicate in his post).

You need to take as much time as is required to recover from the previous set. As Mark Rippetoe has indicated numerous times, when the weight gets heavy most trainees will need up to 10 minutes of rest between sets.

[stronger]

I rest for 10 mins on Squats, 6-7 on Press, Bench and Powercleans. Do what it takes to move the weight you have planned. That's the important part. Individual rest times may vary, naturally.

I'd rather overshoot the time I actually need to rest than undershoot it. Overshooting a tad means a few minutes of wasted time. Undershooting means a wasted week, or maybe more.

[matclone]

I guess my question is do you just keep pushing the 5x5 weights and then when you get wiped out, reset and try to work up higher next time?

Yes, that's the basic idea of periodization. Once past the novice stage, you progress in cycles.


I know you can also drop sets down to 3 again or drop reps on this day. Do you ever reach a point where you just stick with the same weight for a while on volume day if you can still make progress on Fridays?

I've never tried it, but it seems that doing the same volume sets on Mondays is not going to create the adaptation needed to increase the max's on Friday--at least not for long--which is the idea behind the Texas method.

On Rest:

I've always rested as long as needed, but not longer. I suspect we're all a little different in this respect. I'm sure I've never rested as long as 10 minutes between sets. If you've ever thought of being a competitive weightlifter, or think you might think about it, know that in a competition you might be called upon to follow yourself, which means you have only 3 minutes to make your next lift.

[RobertFontaine]

If none of these suggestions work you could look at bill starr's intermediate program which is is a two phase program with ascending set rather than sets across. Not surprisingly very similar to the texas method but with a potentially lower workload.

[zepled37]

If none of these suggestions work you could look at bill starr's intermediate program which is is a two phase program with ascending set rather than sets across. Not surprisingly very similar to the texas method but with a potentially lower workload.


Thanks, Robert. This is something that I've thought about also. Seems like the Bill Starr model might be easier to recover from assuming I used the ramped sets instead of sets across.

Texas Method seems a little more natural for overall strength training though while the Starr models seem maybe more flexible for other sports and physique training. I'm going to try to Texas Method for a bit and see what I can learn about myself and training.

[tennisgod]

I think Rip would ask you how much you are eating, and then say its not enough.
Personally, it works for me... the more I eat, the better I recover.

[zepled37]

I think Rip would ask you how much you are eating, and then say its not enough.
Personally, it works for me... the more I eat, the better I recover.


I definitely agree, more food = more strength, but do disagree with some of the reckless abandon that seems to embrace that on the forum here...at least for me. I get fat pretty easy and I've never been lean in my life. When training hard and being active, I can avoid getting too fat, but really don't see the point in anyone going over say 20% bodyfat unless you're weighing over 300 pounds. Right now, I'm about 5'9" and 195 pounds at I'm guessing 16% at 33 years old. I'm willing to accept slightly slower gains to maintain a more reasonable level of conditioning.

[JC400]

I think for most people the problem is nearly always they do not eat anywhere near enough, saying 'eat more!' is usually the most effective way to come about an improvement in strength.

However like you mention It can go a little bit in the wrong direction. The problem is, if you say to someone eat a load more but stipulate not too much junk food etc they get confused, bless them, and will end up trying to do some sort of rubbish like a 'clean bulk' (this term really makes me cringe, but I don't want to start ranting about this now!) which in most peoples hands will end up being more destructive than a subscription to 'muscle and fitness'.

So it can be easier for people to say just eat more.

Eating a lot of the right stuff is harder than eating a load of junk food and cakes etc and it does not taste as good! SO people just eat everything in sight including a load of crap, they get stronger but end up putting on more body fat than they needed to.

I don't think eating a lot is the culprit as much as eating a lot of shit?

[zepled37]

I don't think eating a lot is the culprit as much as eating a lot of shit?


Yes, I'll concede that...eating a bunch of shit definitely is worse than eating more nutritious foods, but mostly just because it's easier to get a whole lot more calories, not just because it is shitty food. I'm sure if I really did GOMAD and still ate other foods, I'd pack on some significant fat because of all the extra calories. Of course, I'm 33 (not too old, but not 16 either!) and have a slower metabolism.