Base building part 6 - Bottom line intensity

Something I keep scratching my head about in regards to what some people write or say about my training methodologies, is the lack of volume in my training, or my training principles.

Every time I read this, I am completely confused.  Perhaps because I am dumb founded by the fact that a guy that thinks he did 15 singles (15 total reps), thinks he trains high volume, then calls my training "low" or "moderate" volume after a workout in which I have done 200+ reps.

I think volume can be a very misunderstood thing sometimes.

Volume isn't just sets, or just reps, it's about the total volume of work done.  It's everything.  It's both the weight lifted, the  intensity used, and the amount of sets and reps used in those intensity zones.

We could get really confusing an throw in frequency as well, but I don't want to do that.  Let's just stick with volume.

I think what you have to distinguish is, where does "volume" start?  If you're a 500 bencher, does your 135 warm up count?  No?  Why not?  Most people say "because that's too light".

I'd tend to agree.  So the answer is, where does the weight on the bar become relevant enough to be considered worthy of helping us get stronger?

The myth of 1 top set -

For many years, I did the "one big set" thing.  It works.  Let's get that out of the way right now.  I hate it when people say that you can't train that way and get big and strong.  You can.  Period.  It's tough for sure.  I don't train that way any more because eventually going balls out on one top set will start to suck the life and love of training out of you.  Well, it did for me.  Especially if you don't know how to manage your real intensity, or perceived intensity.  Doggcrapp was a very productive way of training for me for a two year period.  However after I took my last break from it, I was never able to "get up" for that kind of training again.  I dreaded it more than Adam Lambert dreads vagina.

The real issue is, is 1 top set REALLY 1 top set once you get to a decently strong level?

Let's take a look at a couple of bodybuilders training routines, from video.

bodybuilder a - 
Incline Press -
155x8
245x8
335x6
415x6

Hammer Strength Press-
1x6
1x8

Incline Flyes -
2 sets

Cable Crossovers -
1 set

bodybuilder b -
Flat Bench -
135
225
315
405
500x5

Incline -
225
315
405x9

Decline -
225
315
405x10


Bodybuilder A is of course, Dorian Yates.  Bodybuilder B is Ronnie Coleman.  Yet Ronnie had the rep for being a really high volume guy, and Dorian the ultimate low volume guy.  However, throughout training discussion people consider you a "low volume guy", if you only do 1 set with your heaviest weight.  This makes ZERO sense to me.  Ronnie did "3 top sets".  Dorian did 4.

Let's clear up some nonsense.

Your total volume isn't defined as something as simple as how many sets you did with your heaviest weight.

Both Dorian and Ronnie worked up to 1 "top set".  However Dorian really minimized his warm up sets.  Ronnie did a lot of warm ups, especially rep wise (I didn't list his reps because he did so many and I didn't feel like counting).

So while they both did one set with maximum weight for a movement, Ronnie undoubtedly did more volume work than Dorian.  You know why?  Because those "warm up" sets count.  At some point they start counting, anyway.

Capt. Kirk said that he generally did 1 working set during his heyday.  However, on the days he was working up to 800x1 for his max single with no belt, no wraps, how did he get there?

Just a guess, but maybe.......

135x10
225x10
315x8
405x5
500x3
585x2
675x2
725x1
750x1
800x1

So, for the "he's a low volume guy", they only count the 800x1.

"Well if he were a high volume guy he would have done a bunch of singles with X amount of weight."

So does only the top set count?

Where to start counting volume?

The key in understanding volume, I think, lies in a pretty gray area.

Namely, total tonnage and intensity.  Both real and perceived.

Kirk based a whole part of his meet prep on working up to a max set of 8.  His best single was 800x1, and his best set of 8 no belt, was 655.

That's 82% for 8 reps in a top set.

On the flip side of that, you have Sheiko, the Russian powerlifting method.

So where do you start actually counting what is "work" and what's just warming up?  This is the question not a lot of people ask when they start talking about what counts towards volume, and what does not.

One thing I do not like, and have tried many times, is "technique work" for lots of volume using really light weights.  Like 50% and less.  In other words, that "speed" shit you hear about.  I'm not a fan.  I don't think you can "get faster".  I know, I know.  Some other coach disagrees.  That's fine.  If you can get faster, I think it will really be negligible.   

Jason Pegg and I had a conversation about this a few times, and he noted "I'm fast.  If I make a lift, it looks fast and easy.  I can't grind shit."

Of course, someone who knows better would want to tell Pegg that "well you need to practice grinding".

Ridiculous.

Some people are grinders, and some people are fast.  I honestly don't think you can transform your very maximal lifts into one or the other.  In fact, some people grind everything.  While others like Pegg, make everything look fast.

I think it's a waste of your time, to work on trying to make yourself become something your body is not wired to be.  Like the Samoan who has 9" wrists and is strong as fuck trying to become an Ironman athlete.  Much like the Johnny cochran Chewbacca defense, it makes no sense.

Go with your strengths.  When you concentrate on nothing but improving all of your weaknesses, at best, you can make your weaknesses mediocre, while your strengths take a dive because you've been neglecting them.  Use your strongest tools to become a champion.  Don't waste all of your time trying to bring your weaknesses up to average Joe status.  Because that's about all they are going to be.

If you're a fast lifter, you're going to be fast.  If you're a grinder, don't spend hours and hours doing needless "speed work".  Just get stronger.  This keeps shit simple.  You should be using all of your "warm up" sets to practice being as explosive as possible anyway.  If you're not doing that, start doing it.  Then you save yourself one of those ridiculous "speed days" in the gym.  That's good training economy.

Back to volume........

In Sheiko, you squat and press twice a week and pull once a week.  Generally speaking.

In Shekio 29 for example, you squat twice a week every week.  Over the course of a month you use anywhere from 70% to 85% for multiple sets of reps.  No singles ever (how do those Russians get so strong not working at 90+% and not living on singles?).

To add to this equation, let's add in Prilepin's table.

According to the table, below 70% STILL has some merit.  So can we get stronger using less than 70% of our 1RM?

My immediate answer would be "yes of course".  However, it would all depend on how you trained that particular intensity zone, what movement, and the volume you used.

This is not any different than the higher the reps get, the less they generally come into play with your 1 rep max.  Going from 22 reps max to 28 reps max may not have a very big carryover to your 1RM for that movement.  Going from 6 reps to 10 reps will undoubtedly have tremendous carryover, unless you're some kind of strange twitch mutant.  Anyone that turns 85% of their 1RM (roughly 6 reps) into roughly 75% of their 1RM, got stronger.  Strength training is that simple.

In that same vein, training below 70% may get a little iffy in terms of what you can do with that, to increase your very top level strength.

So where I am going with this is, the less than 70% zone probably has merit in some way for getting stronger.  But for kicks and grins we can safely say 99% of the time, that 70% is the bottom line for what will always be enough (minimally) to use in order to get stronger.

Prilepin lists the 70% range as needing 24 reps for being optimal.  Since I'm all about being optimal 24 reps can be split in a lot of different ways.  But just to keep shit easy, it's 25 reps.  Hey that's 5x5.

What did Sheiko do with 70% when it was used?

Week 1 - note - in Russia it's 60%5repsx2sets

day 1 - Squat - 50% 5x1, 60% 5x2, 70% 5x5 (lookie!)
day 3 - Squat - 50% 5x1, 60% 4x1, 70% 3x2

Week 2 -
day 1 - Squat - 50% 5x1, 60% 4x1, 70% 3x2
day 3 - Squat - 50% 5x1, 60% 4x1, 70% 3x2

Week 3 -
nothing on day 1
day 3 - Squat - 50% 5x1, 60% 4x1, 70% 3x2

Week 4 -
day 1 - Squat - 50% 5x1, 60% 4x1, 70% 3x2
day 3 - Squats - 50% 5x1, 60% 4x1, 70% 3x2

Now this is kind of disingenuous because outside of week 1 and day 1 of week 3, there is always work done after 70%.  We won't go into that because what we are trying to find here, is the bottom line on volume.

I think it's clear from both Prilepin's table and Sheiko, that the 70% is in fact countable towards "strength building".  If that is what we are after, then it's probably important in the grand scheme of your programming, to take your 70% work into account towards your actual volume.

Treat your 70% work as REAL work.  I'm not sure where the idea that strength work only happens after 80% when 70% and 75% see as much love as the 80+% range in the Sheiko programs.  So understand the value of 70-75% in your programming.  Not only can you get stronger using that range, but it is probably less impacting on your recovery.

So back to Kirk's totally made up sequence for working up to 800x1.

If he did something like that, warm up wise, anything at 70% or over could be considered as meaningful work.  Well 70% of 800 is 560.

Thus.........


585x2
675x2
725x1
750x1
800x1

All "work".  So if you buy in to what I'm selling here, then Kirk was still getting good solid strength work for 5 sets here.  Not one.

Is he meeting Prilepin's table for optimal?  No.  But working up to a true 1 rep max isn't really strength building for the most part.  It's strength demonstration.  But when you look at all the work that Kirk put in for weeks leading up to that, he clearly spend most of his time in the 70-85% range for reps.  He's probably not going to meet the "optimal" range for volume, however he made up for it with perceived intensity.  In other words, he worked his ass off.

Some people might want to debate the semantics of this back and forth, and that's fine.  The mental masturbation crew has to have something to do for the day.  The point of it all, is to understand the starting point for where you can train, and still get stronger without having to "wing shit" in the gym, or wreck yourself recovery wise.  Not having a plan is never a good idea.  Understanding that for the majority of us, the bottom line of where we can get strong, is incredibly important in programming design.

The most important part of all of this however, is deciding what speaks to your training soul the most.  Some guys really love working up to a single ball busting set, and trying to break rep PR's week in and out.  Other guys really like hitting the volume and sort of milking their way up the strength ladder.

Let's get some bullshit out of the fucking way here.  They both work.  Science can suck my dick.

Are there big, strong, jacked dudes that train low volume with high PI?  Hell yes.

Are there big, strong, jacked dudes that train high volume with intensities all over the map?  Hell yes.

However drawing a bottom line for your "base training" can be very helpful because you can line up months and months of productive training, without needing a layoff or deload because of physical aches and pains.  I think most people eventually need mental breaks from the gym, however the body should always feel GOOD.  You should not be digging yourself out of a recovery hole because your body is always beat down.  

For the guy that competes twice a year, the 70%-75% can be an area for the great majority of the months would be incredibly ideal.  The other great part about this is that when prepping for a meet, even less time would be required to peak.  Possibly 4 weeks instead of 6-9.

But that's an entirely different article.  Hah!