How did the DENSITY BLOCK experiment end?

[Rob-UK]

John, are you familiar with max-stim or myo-reps at all?

Max-Stim was a protocol dreamed up by Daniel Moore, a poster on the Hypertrophy Specific Forums - is basically the clustered singles you didn't like the idea of a few posts back! Overall idea was more load with less fatigue = can lift more frequently.

Myo-reps was from a Norwegian BB coach who goes by 'Blade' on the above forum and Lyle's forum. It was more an attempt to ensure high MU recruitment at lighter weights by doing an 'activation' set of 8-12 reps and then cluster sets after that.

Just wondering as they are the two protocols I am familiar with for density/cluster type training. They're both BB focussed rather than strength training orientated.

Cheers
Rob

[John Hanley]

John, are you familiar with max-stim or myo-reps at all?

Max-Stim was a protocol dreamed up by Daniel Moore, a poster on the Hypertrophy Specific Forums - is basically the clustered singles you didn't like the idea of a few posts back! Overall idea was more load with less fatigue = can lift more frequently.

Myo-reps was from a Norwegian BB coach who goes by 'Blade' on the above forum and Lyle's forum. It was more an attempt to ensure high MU recruitment at lighter weights by doing an 'activation' set of 8-12 reps and then cluster sets after that.

Just wondering as they are the two protocols I am familiar with for density/cluster type training. They're both BB focussed rather than strength training orientated.

Cheers
Rob

No idea who they are. Daniel Moore's general idea makes sense...though I think he's taking it to a poorly-considered extreme.

Regarding the second. Meh. Smells a little voodoo-y.

[Rob-UK]

No idea who they are. Daniel Moore's general idea makes sense...though I think he's taking it to a poorly-considered extreme.

Regarding the second. Meh. Smells a little voodoo-y.

Yeah, I think Dan is basically attempting to do the same thing as you (if I'm understanding you correctly - load x volume with minimal fatigue). I've always liked them for chins because there's no set up, just a case of grabbing the bar, and I can do 20 reps of a higher weight than with straight or cluster sets in a similar timeframe.

The feeling afterwards is weird, like you've done good work but feel surprisingly fresh (and no pump - boo!) - I suspect the feeling after your density blocks is similar?

For Myo-reps, I was looking at some RTS videos today and lo and behold noticed this one -

YouTube

So if it's voodoo then Mike T came under it's spell!

I've always liked them for any bb higher rep type stuff just because 12 + 6x3 is more fun than 3x10 (I hate higher rep sets).

I guess my concern with not utilising higher reps in some way for the hypertrophy (after the heavier sets) is would I be missing out on some element of growth inducing 'stuff' that higher rep sets or systems like myo-reps cause? Borge (=Blade) citing occlusion studies is an interesting point - presumably the occlusion studies show there is an element at work there that would be missed out on without inducing fatigue?

I guess you feel that either you're not missing out or the benefit of reducing fatigue and being recovered quicker outweighs any potential con?

If you are at all interested here's an explanation of myo-reps with the sciency stuff up front that led him to develop the system.

Myo-reps in English – Borge Fagerli

[Bryan Dobson]

Great thread.
We are all constantly evolving and learning from each other’s ideas.
It is so easy to slip into grinding. But most work should be far from it. There is a reason why prilepins chart has much lower sets as the intensity increases. It is more fatiguing and harder to recover from.
But work in the low %70s for many sets @7 or even less is easy to recover from and has a profound mechanical effect.
The density sets seem like a good idea for limiting total work. But limiting load and keeping rpe far from grinding with 3or more reps possible allows a lot of volume to be completed. 30-40reps @70-74% vs 25 @80-85% the former is more work with better recovery. The latter can fry a lifter in consecutive weeks.

Johns recomendations are spot on.My lower body recovery is feeling good with 3 day a week template,
1-low bar squat, deadlift assistance
3-split squats or front squats. (Less back work on this day)
5-comp deadlifts and high bar squat variation.

Upper body I still struggle with shoulder tolerance to volume. I have not figured it out for me.

[John Hanley]

The myo-rep link is interesting.

I think the second paragraph about recruitment is wrong. On a set at 70%, I believe I’ve recruited and cycled through my high-force MUs on the first couple of reps. IOW, I’ve hit cumulative 100% recruitment with those early reps.

A marked decrease in bar speed suggests that in later reps in a set, simulataneous recruitment of high-force MUs actually decreases.

I think “fatigue” is way overrated.

At light loads, total mechanical work done with “quality”, fast-reps reps seems more important to me. Especially for 1rm peeps, I think

[Rob-UK]

The myo-rep link is interesting.

I think the second paragraph about recruitment is wrong. On a set at 70%, I believe I’ve recruited and cycled through my high-force MUs on the first couple of reps. IOW, I’ve hit cumulative 100% recruitment with those early reps.

A marked decrease in bar speed suggests that in later reps in a set, simulataneous recruitment of high-force MUs actually decreases.

I think “fatigue” is way overrated.

At light loads, total mechanical work done with “quality”, fast-reps reps seems more important to me. Especially for 1rm peeps, I think

Do you think the speed/explosiveness of the movement could be the missing variable that explains the difference between what he is saying and you are saying? I.e. if trying to move the weight as fast as possible it 's more likely that all muscle fibres will be recruited more quickly? And also then a bigger difference in bar speed in later reps?

Also at heavier loads do you prefer to limit fatigue at all versus the more common type of programming? For instance if doing 3 sets of 5 at 8ish RPE / ~7rm would you prefer to do 5 sets of triples?

Thanks for your time/input btw, read a lot of your posts across here and the other forum and found them very helpful/though provoking.

[Rob-UK]

Reading back through the thread I think you've already answered the last question - you want some cycling of high threshold MUs and you don't want to be bored?!

[John Hanley]

Do you think the speed/explosiveness of the movement could be the missing variable that explains the difference between what he is saying and you are saying? I.e. if trying to move the weight as fast as possible it 's more likely that all muscle fibres will be recruited more quickly? And also then a bigger difference in bar speed in later reps?

Maybe. I honestly haven't seen any bar speed data from bodybuilders. But even with those bros, single-rep recruitment of high-threshold/high-force MUs simply has to drop off as they fatigue and reps slow. Even if "absolute recruitment" isn't falling off, then only an absolutely fucked recruitment pattern/coordination could explain the drop in speed . I don't want to train "absolutely fucked" recruitment patterns.

Also at heavier loads do you prefer to limit fatigue at all versus the more common type of programming? For instance if doing 3 sets of 5 at 8ish RPE / ~7rm would you prefer to do 5 sets of triples?

Depends. 7RM is 80%-ish 1rm, yeah? I'd probably cap my sets at 80% at 3 reps. Over 85% I'd probably stick to doubles and singles. But I'm years past "intermediate". 5s @8-10 certainly have a place in novice-intermediate programming.

Thanks for your time/input btw, read a lot of your posts across here and the other forum and found them very helpful/though provoking.

Cool. I've fucked up quite a bit and struggle to understand things. That combo has proven surprisingly helpful.