|
|
T NATION
Moderator
Join date: May 1998
Location:
Posts: 10307
|
|
Four Weeks to a New Max
by Tim Henriques
07/12/10
A simple, methodical way to hit new PRs on all the major lifts in just four weeks.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
 |
|
|
andrew_live
Level 4
Join date: Dec 2008
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 2703
|
|
Thanks Tim. Another will put together article. Just dying to try this program. Especially so I can try all three max lifts on the same day.
I just want to finish up the last few weeks of your Rep Increase Program from "3 Kick-Ass Programs For a Better Bench". I think I'll jump right into this once I finish week 10.
GOD DAMN! Where you stalking me or something?
Sunday: Off (not an option. Stay away from the gym, you addict).
Well I wish I had some intelligent insightful question about this program but you really did spoon feed it to us. The program does sound like advanced deloading though. Muscle adaptation and all that...
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
JSMaxwell
Level 4
Join date: May 2003
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 372
|
|
Hello,
First, I would like to thank the author for taking the time to write an article and providing it to all of us for free. Anything that lays out a progressive, incremental approach to improvement is a win. I will absolutely keep this article in my "knowledge" file. That being said, I must call out some B.S. on the percentages.
72.5%? 87.5%? Really? We are down to calculating half percentages now? Lets look at some numbers...
Say someone has a max of 300. According to this article we should use training weights of 217.5 pounds and 262.5 pounds. Now some may say that we should just round, but if we are going to take the time to calculate a load down to half of a percent, shouldn't we use the same level of detail when we get the result? Time to break out those fraction plates. Therefore, the author is suggesting that 216 pounds (72%) would be too light to produce the desired training effect, but that 219 pounds (73%) would be too heavy.
Really? Seriously? If the force produced by the athlete under 216 pounds is significantly lower than the force produced by the athlete under 217.5 pounds, then I must be utterly ignorant of the level of understanding we have about the human body.
Look, I know I am nothing special. I don't hold any powerlifting titles, I've never won a bodybuilding show, and I never will. I am just a public school teacher. But this kind of stuff smacks of putting details in just for the sake of details. Just to show that this program is unique because, after all, I use decimal points in my calculations.
So again, thank you for the time put into the article and for giving us a template for progress. I just wanted to make my observations.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
ikan twin
Level 0
Join date: Aug 2008
Location:
Posts: 17
|
|
JSMaxwell wrote:
Hello,
First, I would like to thank the author for taking the time to write an article and providing it to all of us for free. Anything that lays out a progressive, incremental approach to improvement is a win. I will absolutely keep this article in my "knowledge" file. That being said, I must call out some B.S. on the percentages.
72.5%? 87.5%? Really? We are down to calculating half percentages now? Lets look at some numbers...
Say someone has a max of 300. According to this article we should use training weights of 217.5 pounds and 262.5 pounds. Now some may say that we should just round, but if we are going to take the time to calculate a load down to half of a percent, shouldn't we use the same level of detail when we get the result? Time to break out those fraction plates. Therefore, the author is suggesting that 216 pounds (72%) would be too light to produce the desired training effect, but that 219 pounds (73%) would be too heavy.
Really? Seriously? If the force produced by the athlete under 216 pounds is significantly lower than the force produced by the athlete under 217.5 pounds, then I must be utterly ignorant of the level of understanding we have about the human body.
Look, I know I am nothing special. I don't hold any powerlifting titles, I've never won a bodybuilding show, and I never will. I am just a public school teacher. But this kind of stuff smacks of putting details in just for the sake of details. Just to show that this program is unique because, after all, I use decimal points in my calculations.
So again, thank you for the time put into the article and for giving us a template for progress. I just wanted to make my observations.
I think you missed this:
Other Notes
â?¢ I realize the weights in my example don't always match perfectly with the percentages, and that's okay. Simply round to whatever works for your gym equipment or your personal level of obsessive-compulsivity. In other words, it's acceptable to use convenient loads, just try to pick weights that are at least close to the listed percentages.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
popupwindow
Level 0
Join date: Jan 2010
Location:
Posts: 82
|
|
JSMaxwell wrote:
Hello,
First, I would like to thank the author for taking the time to write an article and providing it to all of us for free. Anything that lays out a progressive, incremental approach to improvement is a win. I will absolutely keep this article in my "knowledge" file. That being said, I must call out some B.S. on the percentages.
72.5%? 87.5%? Really? We are down to calculating half percentages now? Lets look at some numbers...
Say someone has a max of 300. According to this article we should use training weights of 217.5 pounds and 262.5 pounds. Now some may say that we should just round, but if we are going to take the time to calculate a load down to half of a percent, shouldn't we use the same level of detail when we get the result? Time to break out those fraction plates. Therefore, the author is suggesting that 216 pounds (72%) would be too light to produce the desired training effect, but that 219 pounds (73%) would be too heavy.
Really? Seriously? If the force produced by the athlete under 216 pounds is significantly lower than the force produced by the athlete under 217.5 pounds, then I must be utterly ignorant of the level of understanding we have about the human body.
Look, I know I am nothing special. I don't hold any powerlifting titles, I've never won a bodybuilding show, and I never will. I am just a public school teacher. But this kind of stuff smacks of putting details in just for the sake of details. Just to show that this program is unique because, after all, I use decimal points in my calculations.
So again, thank you for the time put into the article and for giving us a template for progress. I just wanted to make my observations.
I think the precise percentages make people take them more seriously (actually calculate rather than just guessing approximate values. It's sort of like when you tell someone to meet you at 1pm they take it as between 12:50 and 1:10 (give or take 10 mins), but if you said you needed to meet them at 1:03pm, they would be more likely to be on time.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Enders Drift
Level 2
Join date: Oct 2009
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1377
|
|
Thanks for the program, I have my days worked out fairly well but haven't really been using any good system of percentages or reps so I think I'll give this a try.
Would it be bad to do this 4 weeks on, 1 week deload then repeat this program again?
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Enders Drift
Level 2
Join date: Oct 2009
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1377
|
|
In addition to my above comment (not editing because its not appearing yet) I'm also wondering if on that Shoulder Day we could use a similar percentage scheme on either Strict Overhead Press or Military Press instead of the Dumbbell work or is it to taxing on the shoulders to go for a new shoulder PR and new bench PR at same time or something?
p.s.
Since I'm going to be giving this program a try I made a spreadsheet for it. If anyone is interested I dropped it on my server here:
http://endersdrift.freeiz.com/...am_Issue635.ods
Just change the 1RM to your own maxes and then print it out and you're good to go for a month.
It's in OpenOffice / NeoOffice because I hate Microsoft. If you don't have OpenOffice its free and better so go get it.
If Mr. Author says shoulders will work I will probably go back and add it as well so it covers the 4.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
biglifter
Level 1
Join date: Aug 2008
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 1392
|
|
Great article, Tim. Always a big fan of the stuff you put out.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Henriques
Level 3
Join date: Dec 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1193
|
|
JSMaxwell wrote:
Hello,
First, I would like to thank the author for taking the time to write an article and providing it to all of us for free. Anything that lays out a progressive, incremental approach to improvement is a win. I will absolutely keep this article in my "knowledge" file. That being said, I must call out some B.S. on the percentages.
72.5%? 87.5%? Really? We are down to calculating half percentages now? Lets look at some numbers...
Say someone has a max of 300. According to this article we should use training weights of 217.5 pounds and 262.5 pounds. Now some may say that we should just round, but if we are going to take the time to calculate a load down to half of a percent, shouldn't we use the same level of detail when we get the result? Time to break out those fraction plates. Therefore, the author is suggesting that 216 pounds (72%) would be too light to produce the desired training effect, but that 219 pounds (73%) would be too heavy.
Really? Seriously? If the force produced by the athlete under 216 pounds is significantly lower than the force produced by the athlete under 217.5 pounds, then I must be utterly ignorant of the level of understanding we have about the human body.
Look, I know I am nothing special. I don't hold any powerlifting titles, I've never won a bodybuilding show, and I never will. I am just a public school teacher. But this kind of stuff smacks of putting details in just for the sake of details. Just to show that this program is unique because, after all, I use decimal points in my calculations.
So again, thank you for the time put into the article and for giving us a template for progress. I just wanted to make my observations.
What I did with the percentages was work backwards. I wrote out the weights for my training partner as you saw them. He did the program and it worked great. Since it worked well, I decided to get the percentages from the weight lifted and not the other way around. I thought about rounding to the nearest common denominator and thought that part was covered in the article. But I will say that unless you always use increments of 5% you will get some weird numbers on the bar and that is a big jump once you are up around 85%, and 2.5% is enough to make a difference in whether one is successful or not, so I went with what worked. Hope that makes sense.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Henriques
Level 3
Join date: Dec 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1193
|
|
Enders Drift wrote:
Thanks for the program, I have my days worked out fairly well but haven't really been using any good system of percentages or reps so I think I'll give this a try.
Would it be bad to do this 4 weeks on, 1 week deload then repeat this program again?
This program is not really designed to build strength so I would not follow it indefinitely, it is designed to get you to peak with short notice. I think the volume is too long for most lifters to do for long term improvement. I would not repeat more than 3 times max, even if you love it. You could do something else for a while and then come back to it.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Henriques
Level 3
Join date: Dec 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1193
|
Enders Drift wrote:
In addition to my above comment (not editing because its not appearing yet) I'm also wondering if on that Shoulder Day we could use a similar percentage scheme on either Strict Overhead Press or Military Press instead of the Dumbbell work or is it to taxing on the shoulders to go for a new shoulder PR and new bench PR at same time or something?
p.s.
Since I'm going to be giving this program a try I made a spreadsheet for it. If anyone is interested I dropped it on my server here:
http://endersdrift.freeiz.com/...am_Issue635.ods
Just change the 1RM to your own maxes and then print it out and you're good to go for a month.
It's in OpenOffice / NeoOffice because I hate Microsoft. If you don't have OpenOffice its free and better so go get it.
If Mr. Author says shoulders will work I will probably go back and add it as well so it covers the 4.
Thanks for making that spreadsheet. You can do it with shoulders or any large exercise, although it might be tough to peak for a bench max and a military press max at the same time but I am not opposed to trying it out. Let me know how it goes for you.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Henriques
Level 3
Join date: Dec 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1193
|
|
biglifter wrote:
Great article, Tim. Always a big fan of the stuff you put out.
Biglifter - thanks for the kind words, it is appreciated.
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Henriques
Level 3
Join date: Dec 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1193
|
andrew_live wrote:
Thanks Tim. Another will put together article. Just dying to try this program. Especially so I can try all three max lifts on the same day.
I just want to finish up the last few weeks of your Rep Increase Program from "3 Kick-Ass Programs For a Better Bench". I think I'll jump right into this once I finish week 10.
GOD DAMN! Where you stalking me or something?
Sunday: Off (not an option. Stay away from the gym, you addict).
Well I wish I had some intelligent insightful question about this program but you really did spoon feed it to us. The program does sound like advanced deloading though. Muscle adaptation and all that...
Glad you liked it - Tim
|
|
| |
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread has reached its maximum number of replies. Click HERE to start a new topic.
|
|
