80-90% of 1Rm: no-man's land?

[Tim K]

Jordan's position is specific to "high frequency" training. I would say that the majority of people aren't going to lift 6x per week, so no, it doesn't exclude using 5s from your program, especially you are lifting on a 4-day push-pull or a 3-day full body program. If that's you, the 80-85% range will probably make up a whole lot of your volume.

I don't think he was talking about 6x/week programs, I think he was making the point that 1x/week on the main lifts (such as 5/3/1) is not enough frequency and it's better to have more volume spread out over the week at lower intensities then just going balls-out once a week. A 3-day full body accomplishes this and seems to be included in what he is recommending here.

He also doesn't seem to be saying to never train in the 80-90% range despite the snippet form the caption. In the actual video his example includes working up to a heavy set of five once a week while having a light day in the middle. He is basically advocating something like a TM template or HLM with ramping sets or top set+backoffs on heavy day, not saying to never go over 80% and train 6 days a week.

[Cody]

You could could consider that on a unit of work basis, you can do more in the same time @70-80 % than at 85 or 90. More intensity at a higher rpe means you have to take more time between sets. Not that intensity doesn't have its place.
What moves the weight and how do you get more of it?

That could be true for a "normal" length training session, but it's not really true for long sessions. There's some kind of per-session fatigue limit. When training frequency is limited, you can't just ignore the 80-90% range. That range is a staple for stimulus/adaptation in that circumstance.

[Cody]

I don't think he was talking about 6x/week programs, I think he was making the point that 1x/week on the main lifts (such as 5/3/1) is not enough frequency and it's better to have more volume spread out over the week at lower intensities then just going balls-out once a week. A 3-day full body accomplishes this and seems to be included in what he is recommending here.

He also doesn't seem to be saying to never train in the 80-90% range despite the snippet form the caption. In the actual video his example includes working up to a heavy set of five once a week while having a light day in the middle. He is basically advocating something like a TM template or HLM with ramping sets or top set+backoffs on heavy day, not saying to never go over 80% and train 6 days a week.

"I will find that people automatically assume they can't squat 2 or 3x a week- or more."

"Low volume, low frequency... Train more frequently... Suboptimal results with respect to frequency..."

"Should not be the bread and butter..."


Look, if you're doing a push/pull 4-day program or you're on a program with 2 sessions for an overload opportunity, 80-90% (more specifically, 80-85%) is a very potent stimulus, and super effective at training multiple adaptive qualities simultaneously.

[marcf]

My knee jerk reaction would be to say "85 - 95%" is the money zone.

Hmm. You sure about that? How much volume can you possibly do in a week when your working weights are at 85-95% of 1RM?

Say your squat 1RM is 405. If you were doing triples of 365, I'd think that after 3-5 work sets you'd be spent. If you were doing fahves at 315, you could probably do 5-7 sets and feel ok enough to squat again 2-3 days later.

[MBasic]

"I will find that people automatically assume they can't squat 2 or 3x a week- or more."

"Low volume, low frequency... Train more frequently... Suboptimal results with respect to frequency..."

"Should not be the bread and butter..."


Look, if you're doing a push/pull 4-day program or you're on a program with 2 sessions for an overload opportunity, 80-90% (more specifically, 80-85%) is a very potent stimulus, and super effective at training multiple adaptive qualities simultaneously.

yeah, but in the example Jordan gave was "a heavy set of 5 on Friday".

[Tim K]

"I will find that people automatically assume they can't squat 2 or 3x a week- or more."

"Low volume, low frequency... Train more frequently... Suboptimal results with respect to frequency..."

"Should not be the bread and butter..."


Look, if you're doing a push/pull 4-day program or you're on a program with 2 sessions for an overload opportunity, 80-90% (more specifically, 80-85%) is a very potent stimulus, and super effective at training multiple adaptive qualities simultaneously.

I have no idea why you're bolding the "or more" part. If you read the entire caption and watch the video the context makes it clear that what he's talking about as "low frequency" is something like 5/3/1 or some other program where you only squat once a week. People think they can't squat more than once a week, but that's because they haven't considered spreading out the volume and lowering the intensity on the additional days. He does in fact recommend a heavy set of 5 once a week in the video which would be in the 80-90% range. He's advocating for something like 3x a week with just one heavy day and lower intensities on the other days in his example. As for a 4 day split with each movement done 2x, I think that still falls under his recommendations, albeit perhaps on the lower end, since again it's 2x a week more than a low frequency program. Maybe he will stop by here and further elucidate his thoughts on the matter.

[marcf]

I have no idea why you're bolding the "or more" part.

Because earlier in this thread, he said that most people aren't looking for optimal results, and instead are trying to squeeze in what they can given life constraints. Not everyone can lift 4, 5 or even 6 times a week. Some people are so busy and constrained that they can only get to the gym once or twice a week if they're lucky.

[Tim K]

Because earlier in this thread, he said that most people aren't looking for optimal results, and instead are trying to squeeze in what they can given life constraints. Not everyone can lift 4, 5 or even 6 times a week. Some people are so busy and constrained that they can only get to the gym once or twice a week if they're lucky.

Yeah, and Jordan's example in the video is a 3x/week program. So why the fixation on higher frequencies when that isn't even the point he is making? He's comparing lifting 4x a week but only doing 1 lift per day (5/3/1) with 3x a week for each lift (which can be done on a full body 3 day/week program).

[Cody]

Yeah, and Jordan's example in the video is a 3x/week program. So why the fixation on higher frequencies when that isn't even the point he is making? He's comparing lifting 4x a week but only doing 1 lift per day (5/3/1) with 3x a week for each lift (which can be done on a full body 3 day/week program).

Didn't watch the video, just reading the caption.

First, the most common 531 is BBB on opposite days. You do each lift 2x/week this way. It looks very similar to the 4-day TM. (note: I don't like 531, mostly because the average intensity is too low). Not sure why everyone uses 531 as 1x per week.

Second, a push-pull setup is typically a good bit quicker per session than a full body session. So again, if per-session time constraints are relevant, "optimal frequency" is of little consequence vs real life constraints.

I highlight the "or more" part because it really emphasises the slant of his comment - Jordan is talking about people who want "optimal". Optimal is not a realistic goal for the average person with a full family, etc. If you want "optimal" and you are single with 1 job and no kids, fuck yeah, lift as often as necessary, do 2-a-days, etc. Competitive athletes have to do that, because they have to seek "optimal".

To Chebass's point, not-optimal =/= bad. Any setup that isn't totally retarded but is stuck with consistently and has the basic principles of overload and specificity managed will lead to positive results and progress. So what if you only put 80lbs on your lift this year instead of 110. Or 30 instead of 40. Most people are happy enough to just continue to see progress. If you're a competitive athlete in the barbell sports, you need to seek optimal. That's not most people.

Finally, a single set of 5 at 80% once a week 1. hardly qualifies as heavy, and 2. neglects things like triples and doubles in the 80-90% range as very viable and effective loading strategies for a portion of your volume.

Don't misinterpret this as me saying that all your volume should be in that range, just that it can be quite appropriate and effective to use that range as a part of your volume, and that it has effects that training with lighter weights don't have but also isn't as hard systematically as singles and doubles over 90%. All this stuff lies on a continuum.

[Tim K]

Didn't watch the video, just reading the caption.

That explains why you misunderstood and misrepresented his point.

First, the most common 531 is BBB on opposite days. You do each lift 2x/week this way. It looks very similar to the 4-day TM. (note: I don't like 531, mostly because the average intensity is too low). Not sure why everyone uses 531 as 1x per week.

Whether Jordan's characterization of 5/3/1 is a strawman or not has been debated ad nauseam in other threads, but regardless his model of the program as laid out in his recent critique is the main lifts just 1x a week plus assistance movements. So it seems obvious to me that that is what he is thinking of when he calls it a low frequency program, not the each main lift 2x/week variants.

Second, a push-pull setup is typically a good bit quicker per session than a full body session. So again, if per-session time constraints are relevant, "optimal frequency" is of little consequence vs real life constraints.

Sure, but your first post in this thread said the following:

Jordan's position is specific to "high frequency" training. I would say that the majority of people aren't going to lift 6x per week, so no, it doesn't exclude using 5s from your program, especially you are lifting on a 4-day push-pull or a 3-day full body program.

Seems like you really did think he was talking exclusively about lift frequencies greater than 3x/week, again because you didn't listen to what he said in the video.

I highlight the "or more" part because it really emphasises the slant of his comment - Jordan is talking about people who want "optimal". Optimal is not a realistic goal for the average person with a full family, etc. If you want "optimal" and you are single with 1 job and no kids, fuck yeah, lift as often as necessary, do 2-a-days, etc. Competitive athletes have to do that, because they have to seek "optimal".

To Chebass's point, not-optimal =/= bad. Any setup that isn't totally retarded but is stuck with consistently and has the basic principles of overload and specificity managed will lead to positive results and progress. So what if you only put 80lbs on your lift this year instead of 110. Or 30 instead of 40. Most people are happy enough to just continue to see progress. If you're a competitive athlete in the barbell sports, you need to seek optimal. That's not most people.

I agree with all of this, although it seems unrelated to Jordan's point about greater frequencies being better and lower intensity work being necessary to accomplish that.

Finally, a single set of 5 at 80% once a week 1. hardly qualifies as heavy, and 2. neglects things like triples and doubles in the 80-90% range as very viable and effective loading strategies for a portion of your volume.

He doesn't specify a percentage but I am assuming that a "heavy set of five" basically means a new 5RM ala Texas method. You can of course add backoffs to that to increase volume, at which point it's pretty much the same as the typical HLM templates. In that case if the heavy set is ~85% and your backoffs/medium sets are 90% of that, then the medium sets would be ~76.5%. I have seen you personally advocating this exact setup in a few threads within the last year... do you no longer feel that it's a good approach?

As for triples and doubles in that range, it's a good point and hopefully Jordan will stop by and clarify his thoughts on that aspect.

EDIT: Here's the post I was thinking of. It's actually a couple of years old now, not from the last year as I thought. Also you do multiple 90% sets of bench but the squat programming is as described above. Anyway you said that you made great progress on it, so I'm wondering how your views have changed and why. Also, not stalking you, I've just spent some time searching old threads for ideas recently while trying to figure out a gameplan for my own programming.

http://startingstrength.com/resource...ml#post1197901