Originally Posted by
Alexander Dargatz
I have seen your opinion on this a few times now. I value your professional opinion very highly, thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience here!
I want to add my personal take, because I believe there is a caveat for your method, at least for some people (like me).
I have had three muscle tears in recent years, two small to medium (pectoralis and adductor) and a large one (adductor, on the other side). I have used the Starr protocol very successfully (fast and complete healing) each time, so my inclination to try a different method is low, even if it might be even better.
The potential problem I see with your method, if I were to try it, that I would not trust myself to pick the correct weight and not re-injure myself. "The highest weight tolerable" for me would be to see how far I can go, which would likely result in going too far. Or, knowing myself, I'd maybe be too cautious and pick a weight too low.
With 25 reps on the other hand, I can feel if the pain stays the same, increases or decreases during the set. Granted, you need the ability to focus on form for 25 reps, which is the problem with this method. I think I can do that. I can definitely do that better than estimating the correct weight for doubles. I believe you when you say higher weight and lower reps work better, but then I think you (personally) can better judge what weight to use than I or maybe other lifters could. In the absence of a coach, for me training at home, I think the Starr protocol works well and safely.
Hm. Do you think it would make any sense to start with 25 reps as in the Starr protocol, but increase weight faster and decrease reps sooner, sort of a mix between the two methods?