Home › Forums › Main › Training and Nutrition

a unique idea for volume and intensity phases (what do you folks think of this?)

Wed, 03/03/2010 - 4:39am — Charles Izzo

I was thinking about this today. Because I read up recently about this 10 x 3 style advocated by Chad Waterbury and the science behind it. It made a lot of sense. Because the simple fact is when comparing it to 3 x 10 for example, you can get the same number of reps done in the same amount of time but with more weight and faster reps.

I tried this style a few years back and as I recall there was a few results it lead to. 1) I overtrained really really fast off it. 2) When I gave myself time to rest up I ended up gaining strength a lot faster than from anything else I had ever done. And 3) I never fully recovered and eventually started losing strength again. But I actually do believe that (3) could have been avoided probably if my diet was better and/or if I didn't make such a quick jump in intensity.

So here comes my idea around this. Because in powerlifting it is ideal to be strong, obviously. And volume is required to grow well in order to get stronger. But the problem is that high rep training such as that done for bodybuilding is what generally causes sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (muscles to be build that are more oxidative), which is not desired by powerlifters. We mainly want mitochondrial hypertrophy as well as neural adaptations.

10 x 3 is a lot of volume, but it is also very intense! So I thought why not let something on the order of 10 x 3 be the volume phase and then include something even heavier for the intensity phase. 5 x 5 didn't make any sense to me because it is of higher reps and you wouldn't necessarily be able to train with as much intensity (weight) or to necessarily be able to do the reps as fast. So I figured why not just use the same number or reps, but decrease the number of sets?

So here is my example:
Phase 1: Weeks 1-3
(80%+) x 10 x 3
Phase 2: Weeks 4-6
(85%+) x 3 x 3 or 3 x (1-3)

The volume phase is enough weight to surely stimulate mitochondrial hypertrophy. Its hard work and plenty of volume. The weight is also light enough so you can continue to move the bar fast. And because you aren't taking your sets to failure, you will hopefully be more likely to avoid CNS burnout. Obviously it doesn't necessarily have to be 10 x 3 which might lead to overtraining to some; it could just as well be 7 x 3 or something like that instead.

The intensity phase gives a lot more time to recuperate and rest. It gives time to focus on increasing the weight. And you probably don't have to take these sets to failure either so long as you just try to lift more than you did before and work through progression. So again you hopefully avoid CNS burnout. And by the time you go back to repeat phase 1 again you will be stronger. And so on.

Why did I come up with this idea? Well, I probably wouldn't have thought of it if I never heard about the 10 x 3 idea, which actually did work for me in the past. Sets of 8-12 never got me very strong. And max sets of 1-3 actually works pretty well for peaking, but its not enough volume to get you to grow real good, it doesn't give you the practice with speed, and it can also lead to CNS burnout real quick. I figured phase 1 would prime you up for phase 2, it would help you grow better, and you could keep on improving without having to max out in a workout. For powerlifting you could drop the volume phases as you get closer to the meet, and just do intensity for the last 4-6 weeks approaching. I guess the whole idea was more of an attempt to rely partially on muscle growth for strength increases, allow more work with speed, and to avoid CNS burnout. I might try it some day.

I was just wondering what you folks thought about that. I figured I'd post it up. Come to think of it, I actually used to sometimes do that much volume or more easily when I was doing shirted benching; one workout I even did roughly 20 total sets of benching. My bet is that it would also work well for raw. I can't see why it wouldn't. Some workouts have a lot of total work. And other workouts you feel real strong so you lift more weight. I guess my example was more of a structured way to show how it could be done.

‹ Transgenic acidophilus hGH makers Tendonitus above both knee caps in both legs ›
Wed, 03/03/2010 - 7:13am — harpep

Dear Charles, to start

Dear Charles, to start with:
It's a very good concept, but certainly not "unique".

Most of the underlying principles, extracted form your story, have been a staple in my training template for the last decade.

Like:

* High sets (8-20)of low reps (1-3) with weights within the 75-85% 1RM continuum.
* The Volume to Intensity tapering principle.

I really love this way of working and there are several reasons behind it's productiveness:

- The "high sets of low reps" are very near real max effort work.
Both in neuromotoric patterns - especially when using CAT - and used poundages. (law of specifity)

- The high amount of total work with relatively heavy weights (compared to what you're able to use when doing "3x10").
Ideal for eliciting the "right" type of hypertrophy (Myofibrillar) to enhance your strength potential.

You stated: "We mainly want mitochondrial hypertrophy as well as neural adaptations".

Well, both are developed and expressed in the fast strenght gains/big lifts, during the transition.
(taper from high volume/medium-high intensity to low volume/high-very high intensity.)

This phenomenon is explained by the dual factor theory, in which fatigue masks fitness during the volume fase and once this fatique gets the chance to dissipate due to the lowering of volume, you "suddenly" experience the results.
Anyway, no matter what kind of theory we are using, it seems to work out quit nice in practice.

Besides this, I've seen you wondering about "why don't powerlifters do more hypertrophy work in terms of doing sets of 8-12" (or something like that) in a former topic of yours.
Well they do indeed, particularly when you do not measure hypertrophy work in terms of a specific set/rep protocol, like "4x8-12".
Instead, I like to define this as doing "sufficient work" defined in total reps (say 20-40), "within a proper intensity range" (approximately 75-85% 1RM).

The used set/rep protocol is of minor importance and can be 5x5, 6x4, 10x, 12x2 etc. as long as it falls within the margines of the aforementioned criteria.

Furthermore, you also mentioned "overtraining really fast".

Now, I am not a Christian Thibaudeau's "I Bodybuilder" missionairy, but I do support the ideas about ramping sets and auto regulation, he has been re-lighting lately.

I ve seen that you already solved some of this yourself, but my advise nevertheless is:

- Use CAT on all your worksets.

- Very sparingly go to failure on your sets. Most of the time leave "one rep in the tank" or to put it another way, stop doing sets when the last rep gets more than a "9" on the RPE-scale.
In this way you stop the exercise, before neural activity becomes too draining on your system.

- Don't do for example 10x3 with a fixed weight like 80% 1RM.
This might force you too much to "get it done" even on the less stellar days where you should better confine yourself to 6 or 8 sets of 3.
Use ramping-up sets, with a predefined weight-percentage of your actual 1RM and start off from 50-60%1RM
To give an example, I like to use 5% jumps per set in the volume phase of the cycle and 10% jumps in the intensity/peak phase.

In this way you automatically emphasize more volume, by dampening intensity as a result of accumulating fatique.
Or just the other way round, reaching higher intensities before fatique starts undermining your performance!

As a side note.
For some interesting reasons, the rapid changing of used weights per set keeps your neuromotoric system more "fresh" enabling you do to more total work sets.
This is why I always recommend some form of ramping/wave loading instead of doing straight sets.

Stop doing sets when form detoriates, you start grinding the movement or when you are just not able to the described amount of reps.
This way you control yourself to do the amount of work you are able to do for that day, which can strongly vary of course.