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

[kanahan]

This is the proposition made by Jordan in this post: Instagram

What do you guys think? If true then it would seem to exclude 5s from one's program, unless (maybe) done just under 80% for many sets?

[Murelli]

This is the proposition made by Jordan in this post: Instagram

What do you guys think? If true then it would seem to exclude 5s from one's program, unless (maybe) done just under 80% for many sets?

5@80% is a real fucking grind, and I believe is not recommended by anyone after you finish LP. I may be wrong though.

[manveer]

5@80% is a real fucking grind, and I believe is not recommended by anyone after you finish LP. I may be wrong though.

That's like RPE 7.5. Not a grind.

[Cody]

That's like RPE 7.5. Not a grind.

This.

Andy Baker uses that % range plenty. 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.

[Murelli]

That's like RPE 7.5. Not a grind.

This.

Andy Baker uses that % range plenty. 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.

Yeah, I totally was wrong and that surely was a brain fart. Even PPST:3 shows that 5@80% is considered a medium effort. Heavy would be 8@80%, or around 5-6@85%.

[Mosin Warrior]

5@80% is a real fucking grind, and I believe is not recommended by anyone after you finish LP. I may be wrong though.

5 @80% is a 7.5-8 for me which isn't a grind, but isn't easy. I've found 80% is a good place to cap a 5x5 for an accumulation block.

[kanahan]

. Jordan's position is specific to "high frequency" training.

I'm not sure it is... he actually refers to "in general", "non novice" lifters.

[Cody]

I'm not sure it is... he actually refers to "in general", "non novice" lifters.

"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..."



Here's the deal with statements like this post: most people aren't looking for "optimal". Really. Most people are looking for "what can I do given my life constraints".

For example, if squatting 1x a week is suboptimal but you only get 2x per week to lift, there's a decent chance you'll only squat 1x/week. Suboptimal vs 3-4x week of squats? Boo hoo.

[Chebass88]

... Here's the deal with statements like this post: most people aren't looking for "optimal". Really. Most people are looking for "what can I do given my life constraints".

For example, if squatting 1x a week is suboptimal but you only get 2x per week to lift, there's a decent chance you'll only squat 1x/week. Suboptimal vs 3-4x week of squats? Boo hoo.

Suboptimal programming just means slower acquisition of results than optimal programming. You can do VERY well with suboptimal programming, provided there is consistency and rigid insistence on progression.

[Meshuggah]

80%+ is where strength is built. If the bar ain't bending, you're just pretending.