I think Alexander Bromley has talked about a martial arts style "belt" system for athletics and how most people would benefit from a more rigid training system that gives them a path to progress other than just a bigger total. When you were talking about the stages of athletes, it made me think of that.
The 3-7 protocol comes from Emmanuel Legeard. There are two versions of it, the flat one (the one you talk about) and the undulatory one (which I used a lot with athletes).
I use VBT since 2014 with pro athletes, young athletes and Uni students, there is no rule about grinders, I've seen weak students able to grind a bench press at .07 and strong athletes able to grind at .10. Then strong athletes with 1RM or minimal threshold velocity at .20. Same for the squat and military press. There are many parameters to look at : limbs length, FT/ST muscle fibers dominant, exercise experience, mental. Also I've seen differencies between minimal velocity threshold and RIR velocities depending on the % of 1RM. Last 5 reps velocities of a 5RM are different than last 5 reps of a 20RM. And I agree with Will about females velocity drop.
I redid the numbers from my last comment to make them less confusing. What I meant was doing sets of n of at around ~75% of your n-rep max. So sets of five at around ~70-75% of your five rep max. I use my 1-rep max for everything but technically speaking its not accurate because of the conversion. It works out to be about 70-75% of the rep max for the number reps you are using in the set. I'm thinking 14-18 sets a week in that 70-75% of rep max range per movement type, and then another 5-10 sets to play around with based on your goals. The total sets for the week would be around 20-28. I would count front/back/single leg/pause squats in the same group of 14-18 sets. Then, for example, if you care about your max back squat, you would also have 5-10 sets of higher intensity and lower rep back squats. So the total sets for the week would be around 20-28 (probably lower rather than higher). Only 10-16 sets would be back squats and the rest would be some other kind of squat. I see hypertrophy as a side effect of increasing performance at a given rep range and exercise. I'm not really a hypertrophy guy. I think the topic confuses people and makes information harder to communicate. Large % of the hypertrophy researchers are also not very good at lifting. If I needed to care about hypertrophy, then I would work on making the 8-12 rep max number go up.
I realize when working out that if I attempt to move a bar as fast as I can I can’t perform the same amount of reps as if I were move the weight as I normally would. If I’m still reaching close to failure on both, let’s say 1 rep RIR, am I building just as much muscle/same type of muscle with each lifting style? When would you suggest using either one of these styles?
Worth noting, the authors of the paper that Chris cites say that Chris misinterpreted their paper. Even reps that are 15 reps away from failure build muscle. That being said, I’m assuming you’ve read all of Chris’s posts and articles. It’s hard to disagree that doing all of your training to failure with 88% of 1RM wouldn’t be effective. I just question who can do all of their training at 88% of 1RM and taking every set to failure.
God, you know you're really getting deep down the rabbit hole of athletic training when you can hear these guys reference other researchers in the field and you are familiar with their work.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Sign Up FREE for 7 Days to our Athlete Strength Training App - Peak Strength 🥇
👉 www.peakstrength.app/?YT&Video&APP&WillRatelleEP2podVideo
get blaine mcconnell on the show
I think Alexander Bromley has talked about a martial arts style "belt" system for athletics and how most people would benefit from a more rigid training system that gives them a path to progress other than just a bigger total. When you were talking about the stages of athletes, it made me think of that.
Will Ratelle is if goals were a person
😂 fax
Nice - enter the 36 just chilling on the back desk
Dane has an incredible understanding of training…
will ratelle is the best
Good talk
The 3-7 protocol comes from Emmanuel Legeard. There are two versions of it, the flat one (the one you talk about) and the undulatory one (which I used a lot with athletes).
I use VBT since 2014 with pro athletes, young athletes and Uni students, there is no rule about grinders, I've seen weak students able to grind a bench press at .07 and strong athletes able to grind at .10. Then strong athletes with 1RM or minimal threshold velocity at .20. Same for the squat and military press. There are many parameters to look at : limbs length, FT/ST muscle fibers dominant, exercise experience, mental. Also I've seen differencies between minimal velocity threshold and RIR velocities depending on the % of 1RM. Last 5 reps velocities of a 5RM are different than last 5 reps of a 20RM. And I agree with Will about females velocity drop.
I redid the numbers from my last comment to make them less confusing. What I meant was doing sets of n of at around ~75% of your n-rep max. So sets of five at around ~70-75% of your five rep max. I use my 1-rep max for everything but technically speaking its not accurate because of the conversion. It works out to be about 70-75% of the rep max for the number reps you are using in the set.
I'm thinking 14-18 sets a week in that 70-75% of rep max range per movement type, and then another 5-10 sets to play around with based on your goals. The total sets for the week would be around 20-28. I would count front/back/single leg/pause squats in the same group of 14-18 sets. Then, for example, if you care about your max back squat, you would also have 5-10 sets of higher intensity and lower rep back squats. So the total sets for the week would be around 20-28 (probably lower rather than higher). Only 10-16 sets would be back squats and the rest would be some other kind of squat.
I see hypertrophy as a side effect of increasing performance at a given rep range and exercise. I'm not really a hypertrophy guy. I think the topic confuses people and makes information harder to communicate. Large % of the hypertrophy researchers are also not very good at lifting. If I needed to care about hypertrophy, then I would work on making the 8-12 rep max number go up.
I realize when working out that if I attempt to move a bar as fast as I can I can’t perform the same amount of reps as if I were move the weight as I normally would.
If I’m still reaching close to failure on both, let’s say 1 rep RIR, am I building just as much muscle/same type of muscle with each lifting style?
When would you suggest using either one of these styles?
Worth noting, the authors of the paper that Chris cites say that Chris misinterpreted their paper.
Even reps that are 15 reps away from failure build muscle.
That being said, I’m assuming you’ve read all of Chris’s posts and articles. It’s hard to disagree that doing all of your training to failure with 88% of 1RM wouldn’t be effective. I just question who can do all of their training at 88% of 1RM and taking every set to failure.
The video wasn’t edited like Will asked
God, you know you're really getting deep down the rabbit hole of athletic training when you can hear these guys reference other researchers in the field and you are familiar with their work.
Guys, timestapms :)
I thought Mike was Shane Hunt 😅
FREAKS!