Submaximal training or not.
Submaximal is a term relating strictly to strength. I use the term to describe the act of doing a set with fewer number of reps x
Many have the understanding that linear increments in weight load would always be submaximal as long as you don’t go to failure. This is true, assuming failure always occurs precisely at that number of reps which represents your previously established RM with that specific weight load. But like we said earlier, your 10RM on one day might be your 8RM on another, or even a 12RM yet a different day. It would also be really impractical to try to find your RMs for every conceivable number of reps (and weight increment).
Let’s go back to the idea that there is no “on/off” switch for growth assigned to a given number of reps. 1 long rep (essentially just holding onto a weight for a long time) will make whatever muscles being stretched grow larger (initially). At the same time, making a muscle do 50 consecutive high-force eccentric reps will also make it grow. So it isn’t critical to do a specific number of reps “per set”, although a minimum number of reps per “bout” will be required to achieve the minimum amount of time under tension required to stimulate growth. This "minimum time" changes up (or down as in SD) as your muscle becomes more (or less as in SD) conditioned to the load.
I follow the 15>10>5>eccentric rep progress. I always make sure I hit the target reps on the first set, but I don’t worry about falling short on the second set when I close to my RM. With sufficient rest betweens sets it usually isn’t a problem though.
- Bryan Haycock
Zrodlo:
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.info/cgi-bin/ib314/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=13;t=4616
Reasumujac idealne byloby takie ustawienie planu zeby ciezar wzrastal a malala liczba powtorzen.
Niestety nie jestesmy w stanie okreslic tej liczby powtorzen bo zmienia sie ona np na skutek zmeczenia, samopoczucia itd.
Dlatego powstala rozpiska
15,10,5, negatywy zeby ludzie wiedzieli w jakim zakresie powtorzen sie znajduja i zeby nie zniechecali sie przetrenowaniem i niezrozumieniem HST.
Gdyby nie zmiany samopczucia i innych czynnikow moznaby sobie pomierzyc maksy dla kazdego zakresu powt zaczynajac od powiedzmy 20 dochodzac do 5. Wtedy kazdy trening bylby na granicy zalamania (taki jest w ostatnich 2dwoch tygodniach kazdego minicyklu) bez zigzakow.
WIec jesli sie nie przesadza z treningiem, ktory wlasnie uskuteczniam wszystko jest jak w idealnym HST.
"Many have the understanding that linear increments in weight load would always be submaximal as long as you don’t go to failure."
A jak bedzie w rzeczywistosci to sie zobaczy:).
Sam autor pisze, ze ciagnie pierwsza serie zawsze do zaplanowanej liczby powt. co nie jest latwe pod koniec minicyklu. Dopiero w drugiej odpuszcza jak nie moze.
Ja ciagne do konca takze w kazdej serii na kazdym treningu.
Pisze tez cos o tym, ze niewazna jest liczba powt ale czas trwania napiecia miesni.
Gdybym w to wierzyl to rzeczywiscie doprowadzanie do upadku jest bez sensu.
Wiec staram sie jechac do konca ale nie przesadzac.