Chest to floor press-ups, 8 sets to failure, 5 minutes = set + rest: 20 - 16 - 15 - 14 - 14 - 13 - 11 - 9. Total = 112.
If slowing down at the end of a set represents benefit - see reference above - I was certainly slowing down.
Printable View
Chest to floor press-ups, 8 sets to failure, 5 minutes = set + rest: 20 - 16 - 15 - 14 - 14 - 13 - 11 - 9. Total = 112.
If slowing down at the end of a set represents benefit - see reference above - I was certainly slowing down.
Dumbbell bicep curls. 2 X 12.5 kg. Simultaneous lifting with both arms.Eccentric lowering. 2 mins break between sets. Curl Reps were to failure, per set.
23 - 16 - 11 - 11 - 10 - 10 - 10 - 10 - 9
I'm confused about HVL vs LVL !!! Found this but it's not helped me v much, after a search.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
"In practice, competitive athletes usually have complex training arrangements, especially in competitive seasons. They may have fewer RT sessions and, in turn, a lower maximum strength [15,16]. Therefore, how to maintain and enhance maximum strength with a lower RT volume becomes a valuable research question. Several previous studies on VBT have implied that a lower velocity loss and its higher counterpart may be or similarly effective in maximum strength development, but the lower velocity loss may result in a lower training volume under the same relative intensity [17,18]. In other words, one repetition in a training intervention may lead to a greater gain of maximum strength on average under a lower velocity setting. This topic of training efficiency, however, has only been studied concerning traditional RT [19], while the relationship between velocity loss and training efficiency in VBT is understudied yet. Therefore, we conducted this dose–response meta–analysis aiming to..."
I did not realise that VBT - Velocity Based Training - had such a large research base. It must be difficult to allow for the fact that lower velocity loss in general means a lower volume of work, so presumably adjustments are made in the studies to allow for this. There seems little doubt that some velocity loss is a good thing, but how much? My velocity loss sometimes = 100%. And to get to, say, 60% velocity loss, you have to go through 25% velocity loss - do the extra reps actually do harm?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mossdog
I will carry on with either sets to failure = large velocity loss in every set, or volume sets - fewer reps but lots of sets, some of which approach failure.
This might be relevant to the discussion:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6303131/
And for those who are time-short, here are the conclusions from it:
CONCLUSIONS
The present study shows that marked increases in strength can be attained by resistance-trained individuals with just three 13-min sessions per week, and that gains are similar to that achieved with a substantially greater time commitment when training in a moderate loading range (8–12 repetitions per set). This finding has important implications for those who are time-pressed, allowing the ability to get stronger in an efficient manner, and may help to promote greater exercise adherence in the general public. Alternatively, we show that increases in muscle hypertrophy follow a dose–response relationship, with increasingly greater gains achieved with higher training volumes. Thus, those seeking to maximize muscular growth need to allot a greater amount of weekly time to achieve this goal. Further research is warranted to determine how these findings apply to resistance individuals in other populations, such as women and the elderly. Volume does not appear to have any differential effects on measures of upper-body muscular endurance.
Thanks Marco - interesting!Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
But don't hypertrophy and strength go together? And surely endurance needs to be assessed with multiple sets, not just one?
I can vaguely recall at least one other study showing that strength can be increased just as much with a small number of sets vs a larger number, as long as the sets are done to failure. However more sets had a bigger effect on endurance.
"Not necessarily" is my understanding of the research I've studied. Strength isn't just about muscle volume, it's also about the quality of the muscle and how many motor units are used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
We've had this discussion before, but to recap: competitive weightlifters don't want to increase their muscle mass as it would put them into the next weight category (where they'd have to lift even more to be competitive). Their training is about very small numbers of reps (possibly even one) with huge weights. The principle is that in doing so they will learn to recruit a higher percentage of the motor units they already have, rather than build more muscle.
Again, I've read research that implies that this not the case. In very simple terms, that hopefully all of the readers will follow, the logic is that if you are using 60 percent of your motor units in a squat type of exercise, such us uphill running, then they will quickly fatigue. If, however, you have done training that results in the same exercise recruiting 90 percent of your motor units then you will run further up the hill (at the same speed) before they fatigue - without having added any weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
It is possible that more sets would have a bigger effect on endurance, but this might be because you are creating more muscle motor units, with a greater volume and mass. So the 60 percent I mentioned earlier is of a larger number of motor units.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
All of the above is based on the studies I've read and the weightlifting I did when I was racing. It might not be the same for everyone, and I'm not trying to detract from the good work you and Mossdog are doing.
Their idea of endurance is not the same as mine - one set of repetitions using 50% of the 1 Rep Max in the bench press - from their illustration this involved 15 to 40 odd reps - speed endurance at best. My idea of endurance, to use a fell running analogy, is the person who runs/power walks/runs/power walks etc up long hills, so more than just a couple of minutes of running.
Press-ups (floor to lock to floor) to failure per set - 1 min recovery intervals between sets.
28 - 11 - 10 - 10 - 11
48, 48, 49, 49, 48, 48, 48, 48, 48, 48.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
Chin-ups, set + rest = 5 minutes, 8 sets: 5 - 5 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4. So 34 in total.
These were "due" yesterday, but I was squeezed for time, and a bit knackered. Press-ups tomorrow hopefully.
Chest to floor press-ups, 8 sets to failure, 4 minutes = set + rest: 22 - 16 - 13 - 13 - 12 - 11 - 10 - 10. Total = 107.
EMOM - sets of 10 press-ups, floor to lock to floor. Time in secs remaining for each min.
42 - 43 - 43 - 42 - 43 - 40 - 42 - 39 - 40 - 39
Dumbbell bicep curls. 2 X 12.5 kg. Simultaneous lifting with both arms. 2 mins break between sets, during which I did (x10) reps of floor to lock to floor press-ups. Curl Reps were to failure, per set.
22 (10) - 16 (10) - 14 (10) - 11 (10) - 11 (10) - 10 (10) - 10 (10)
Chin-ups, sets to failure, set + rest = 4 minutes, 8 sets: 6 - 5 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 3. So 33 in total.
EMOM - sets of 10 press-ups, floor to lock to floor. Time in secs remaining for each min.
43 - 43 - 43 - 42 - 43 - 40 - 40 - 39 - 40 - 39
Chest to floor press-ups, 8 sets to failure, 4 minutes = set + rest: 22 - 15 - 13 - 12 - 11 - 11 - 11 - 10. Total = 105.
EMOM shoulder press 22kg, 10x8 reps, time remaining in secs
46, 47, 47, 47, 47, 47, 47, 47, 47, 47.
Chin-ups, sets to failure, set + rest = 4 minutes, 10 sets: 6 - 5 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3. So 38 in total.
EMOM - sets of 10 press-ups, floor to lock to floor. Time in secs remaining for each min.
43 - 43 - 43 - 41 - 43 - 42 - 42 - 39 - 39 - 37
EMOM - sets of 5X 12, 5X 11, 5X 10 (attempted) press-ups, floor to lock to floor. Time in secs remaining for each min.
41 - 41 - 40 - 40 - 40
38 - 37 - 38 - 32 - 30
30 - 24 - 10 - fail - no attempt
I'm blaming the poor performance on a day spent shifting a set of heavy extension ladders around and between the cars, while putting up Xmas lights along the guttering - ho ho ho...
Chest to floor press-ups, 10 sets to failure, 4 minutes = set + rest: 23 - 14 - 13 - 12 - 12 - 11 - 11 - 10 - 10 - 10. Total = 126.
Chin-ups, sets to failure, set + rest = 4 minutes, 12 sets: 5 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 4 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3. So 42 in total.
Some of those 3s almost felt like they could have been 4, but then the subsequent 3 would probably have been a 2.
Dumbbell bicep curls. 2 X 12.5 kg. Simultaneous lifting with both arms.Eccentric lowering. 2 mins break between sets. Curl Reps were to failure, per set.
25 - 17 - 11 - 11 - 10 - 10 - 10 - 9 - 9 - 9
Great effort Mike. I've eschewed chin-ups and their like for a few weeks now. A bit hesitant after previously sore elbow injury. I'll have to try a few testers to see!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
Chest to floor press-ups, 10 sets to failure, 4 minutes = set + rest: 21 - 15 - 13 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 11 - 11 - 10 - 10. Total = 127.
Dumbbell bicep curls. 2 X 12.5 kg. Simultaneous lifting with both arms.Eccentric lowering. 2 mins break between sets. Curl Reps were to failure, per set.
26 - 17 - 13 - 11 - 10 - 11 - 10 - 9 - 10
It has been one of those hectic, discombobulated days today, and a rush to do any exercise of much note.
Still, I was able to churn out 36 floor to lock to floor press-ups this morning, to set the standard; the same at around lunchtime; and again, just now, before heading off to bed.
Not the most efficient core-ex but ticked the box anyway.
Oops - a day late - I was within minutes of starting these yesterday when my partner reminded me that I had to sort out my evening meal - oven roasted pasta with veggies - delicious, but it takes time to sort out.
Chin-ups, sets to failure, set + rest = 4 minutes, 10 sets: 5 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3. So 37 in total.
Dumbbell bicep curls. 2 X 12.5 kg. Simultaneous lifting with both arms. Steady rather than 'proper' eccentric lowering tonight and this improved subsequent sets. 2 mins break between sets, with 10 press-ups performed between each. Curl Reps were to failure, per set.-
28 (10) - 21 (10)- 14 (10)- 12 (10) - 11 (10)- 12 (10)- 12 (10)
Stop flaunting your press-up ability Mike T!!! You'll be doing them with ankle weights soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
Every time the 'monkey' on my shoulder nags me to start doing some of these again, my resolve buckles and I take the easy route and pick up some weights!
Chest to floor press-ups, 10 sets to failure, 4 minutes = set + rest: 22 - 15 - 13 - 12 - 12 - 11 - 11 - 10 - 10 - 10. Total = 126.
EMOM - sets of 11 press-ups, floor to lock to floor. Time in secs remaining for each min.
42 - 42 - 41 - 42 - 42 - 42 - 38 - 33 - 23 - 12
Chin-ups, sets to failure, set + rest = 4 minutes, 8 sets: 5 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 3 - 4 - 3 - 3. So 30 in total.
I suspect I need to change the stimulus - a backpack with some light weights in it?
Some thoughts on resistance exercise from my recent reading - factors affecting benefits include the following:
Volume of work done - the more the better, but with lots of provisos.
Sets must be done as close to task failure as possible to obtain maximum benefit.
First sets - to failure - provide as much benefit as the next 3 - 5 sets.
Task failure is a decision - the relevant muscle could do at least 1 more rep, but we decide that the effort involved is not worth it.
It is not necessary to cause muscle soreness to benefit.
Training when muscles are still sore provides little if any benefit.
Training frequency at a given volume: up to a point higher frequency is better as then more first sets are done.
Muscle soreness is not due to tears in the muscle - it is due to Calcium ion movement which in turn incites an inflammatory response and the inflammation is what causes damage - followed by repair.
The benefit of repeating the same number of sets and reps will soon plateau - a change in stimulus is needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
I don't disagree with anything you've said but do you have references for the above extracts from your post, as there seem to be implications for running here? ThanksQuote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
Have a look at Chris Beardsley and Brett Boettcher on X. Lots of interesting stuff.
Thanks Mike
For those who are trying to learn something from this thread, here is a link to some words of wisdom from Brett Boettcher
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...397234205.html
For those who don't like clicking on links, here's a few points from it:
5) Not taking your sets to failure
If you aren't getting within 2 reps of failure, the set isn't helping you build muscle. Don't just exercise. Train.
6) Doing too many exercises and sets
Volume can be effective, but you get more out of 2 hard sets taken to failure than 4 sets just going through the motions.
and this one might be bad news for those of you doing EMOM
7) Not resting long enough between exercises
If you are running around the gym like a chicken with your head cut off it will be hard to get stronger.
Resting at least 90 seconds between lifts means more tension on the muscle during the next set. More tension means more growth.
Dumbbell bicep curls. 2 X 12.5 kg. Simultaneous lifting with both arms.Eccentric lowering. 2 mins break between sets. Curl Reps were to failure, per set.
26 - 17 - 12 - 11 - 11 - 10 - 10 - 9 - 9 - 10
Chest to floor press-ups, with a weighted pack on my back, total weight 4.1 kgs, 8 sets to failure, 4 minutes = set + rest: 18 - 13 - 11 - 10 - 10 - 10 - 9 - 9. Total = 90.