5x5 - physiological basis

[dissection]

I was sent here by a friend that could not answer this question. He is a fan of the 5x5 training system and said in his experience it is superior to other programs in terms of gaining muscle mass.
Actually i am a bit more into the physiology behind strength training and out of my view it is suboptimal for gaining muscle mass. I really would like to hear the opinion of an expert about this.

To my knowledge the physiological basis for muscular hypertrophy can be basically seen in microtrauma, thus the strain on muscoskeletal apparatus is determinant of the amount of mass gain.

As i understand the physiology, most gain in muscle mass can be achieved when the amount of force on passive muscular elements (the sarcolemma) is maximised by time which is maximising the TUT. It is to note that the actual force on the sarcolemma is important for the hypertrophic response and this is increased with muscular failure due to shortcomings in energy supply (ATP) / loss of intra/intermuscular coordination. This is the reason why most of the hypertrophic response gets generated in the excentric phase of the movement with declining ability of the sarcomeres to counterwork the forces on passive muscular elements.

It is very popular to assume a "hypertrophy" range of repetitions at 15-20reps, normally done in 3 sets. I know that these models of maximal strength, hypertrophy and strength endurance training do not represent the physiological basis very well, but until recently i thought i know, why these subjective experiences are in line with the physiological basis behind it. I also know that one cannot reduce optimal training to one training regimen because keeping one regimen is equal to keeping the challenge similar - which according to the SAID-principle is not desirable.

To my understanding the aim in gaining muscle mass as said before ist maximising the time under tension. Maximising the effect on hypertrophy considering the physiological basis mentioned before therefore means having a load sufficient enough to challenge the muscle on the whole while keeping the time under load maximal to exhaust it. According to Hennemanns size principle i want to achieve a full activation of all motor units plus keeping the time under tension maximal. If you look into the literature you can see that the point of full recruitment of motor units is at a load 60-85% of 1RM which perfectly fits into the "hypertrophy rep range" mentioned before.
(reference here http://www.springerlink.com/content/k705x5058633748h/ )

The 5x5 system has its weaknesses in causing optimal hypertrophy because in my opinion it is too conservative in terms of adaptation to different stimuli (SAID again, when training only 5 reps your body only adapts to 5 reps)
The second, main point i see is that it disregards the "time" factor in TUT, keeping the time under tension in one set very low.


Maybe i am wrong with my current understanding of the basic physiology of strength training. Is it correct you experience optimal gains with this program? To my recent understanding it could not be that simple. I would really like to hear your opinion about this.

What is the determining factor in causing hypertrophy? How to implement it into training? To keep it simple - would the best hypertrophy regimen be doing 45 sets with 1RM instead of 3 sets with 15RM, if this could be managed by the nerve system? I thought that 5 reps mainly lead to neural adaptations, disregarding the hypertrophic effect.

If you can give me any scientific papers into this topic i would be very thankful.

P.S.: English is not my native language, i think its readable, if you discover mistakes you now know where they?re from

[Mark Rippetoe]

Your English is better than mine. But your understanding of adaptation is not. First, I don't care about hypertrophy as a primary goal. I care about strength, which always has hypertrophy as a side-effect, especially for novice-intermediate lifters. Second, all this HIT nonsense ignores the fact that the adaptation to any program is dependent on the adaptive history -- and thus the adaptive ability -- of the trainee. If a novice is subjected to a linear increase in loading, he will get stronger in a linear fashion, and this is always facilitated by a gain in lean mass along with a little fat. The question for him is what kind of program makes him strong the fastest, and that program uses 3 x 5. Five sets has proven to be too much volume for rapid recovery, and one set isn't enough.

The thing your high-rep-to-failure dogma ignores is the fact that you can't do it with significant amounts of weight relative to 1RM, and thus can't get strong doing it. And if you can't get strong, you can't get big. Strong = Big, if you eat enough to continue to improve your strength. If you don't your gains stop. If the mechanism for hypertrophy was simply microtrauma acquired during time under tension with loads of 60-85% of 1RM, programming would be ridiculously easy and everybody that did this would be ridiculously hyooge, which they aren't. And there would be no way to explain how everybody that eats correctly and goes through a linear progression with 5s gets big and strong, which they do. If we start a novice on light weights and high reps to failure, they will not grow, as thousands of guys reading this board will attest.

The bottom line is that muscular growth is a complex phenomenon that is accomplished through several adaptive mechanisms, but it is always a result of a stress that requires the body to be bigger, such as a linear increase in weight done in a rep range that permits both myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, and a method of adequate recovery that permits the adaptation to occur. And that is best accomplished with sets of 5 and lots of food and rest.

[Andy Baker (KSC)]

I don't want to get out of my league here getting into the science of things, as that is not my strong suit. But here is my opinion on the viability of 5x5 as an option for training both size and strength which is a common goal for most lifters.

5's tend to work well because they are placed right in an intermediate rep range which allows their almost continual use year round; maybe not on every exercise, and not always for 5x5, but almost all the strength programs that I design for my clients and athletes have 5's in there pretty much year round.

10's for example are good for training size but if you stick with them too long, you are too far away from the neural end of things to keep strength gains coming and progress will halt.

singles, doubles, and triples are perfect for strength but most people can't train this close to the neural end of the spectrum too long or they will burn out. Additionally, 1-3 reps is not so good for hypertrophy and training at this end too long will result in some loss of hypertrophy which is mostly sarcoplasmic, but can in the end still affect a lifters leverage, especially in a sport like powerlifting.

Mike Conroy, a coach who I reference often, likes to say that for the slow lifts - 80% of the time you should be training at 80%. Well, 80% happens to be a percentage that lends itself well to sets of 5. Hmmmm.... So I guess the other 10 percent of the time you can devote to really heavy neural work of singles, doubles, and triples, and the last 10% you can devote to higher rep stuff, like 10-15 reps. These numbers aren't absolute, but something to think about.

I have nothing to back this next statement up besides experience, but I believe the whole TUT theory is a bunch of BS. I think what matters for size is systematic increases in the total amount of stress (tonnage) being placed on a muscle/group of muscles. 5x5 happens to be a really good way to get in alot of work during a session. It seems to be just the right balance of both volume and intensity to drive both size and strength.

So what about 3x8 or 8x3? Same volume as 5x5 right? Both rep ranges are okay in their proper context, but again, (in my opinion) I don't think you can stay with either rep range as long as you can 5x5. 3x8 is too far away from the neural zone, and 8x3 is too close.

[Rich_S]

I wonder - if you took two people with the same genetic potential, put them on the same diet, and the same training program, with the exception that one person did sets of 5 and the other did sets of 10, what difference in hypertrophy you'd see between the two individuals. My gut tells me not very much at all, hell the guy doing sets of 5 might even end up bigger since sets of 10 even if not taken to failure tend to burn you out (or at least burn me out) quicker in a cycle than sets of 5.

If you look at pictures of top physiques from the 1940s-1950s and compare them to top physiques from the 1960's-1970's and compare those to the top physiques of today, the difference between each is orders of magnitude. I'll leave the determination of the responsible parameter as an exercise to the reader, but suffice it to say it isn't the fact that rep ranges have changed over the years.

[dissection]

First, thank you for the fast reply.

Maybe i should explain what my goals are at first. I came out of pure training for body shaping reasons and got to a point where this aim still is important (except i look good already ) and now i train for 1. fun and 2. general increase in fitness, which means a good mixture of developing different strength skills. So whom you talk with is no hardcore-Bodybuilder-Mentzer-lover but someone with a goal to get further hypertrophy and getting an overall skill improvement trough training.

I actually do work in the field of science and molecular/cell biology, therefore i am very interested in the physiological basis behind a training program that seems to work well in the experience of some people. I am deep enough into the scientific material concerning molecular and cellular mechanisms of hypertrophy to know an argument about the "true" background of Hypertrophy and the "optimal way" to achieve it with a perfect training program is pointless.
But i want to ask you - which aims does the Madcow 5x5 schedule have? Does it aim primarily to improve neural drive for maximum strength by using multiple high intensity sets? What is it based on? Is it pure experience? (and i do not want to question the value of the experience a strength coach long in the business has) Or can you give some basic explanation whats behind this program in terms of physiological adaptions?

Did i understand right you ramp up weights by 10% until the 5th, top set? So basically the other sets have the function to maximize neuromuscular excitability and not to fatigue?

Actually i want to simply try this prgram to make my own picture of it.

But I do have left a little concern about this program i would like to discuss with you. It basically is the low variance in load. To my understanding the neuromuscular apparatus has to make distinct adaptations to distinct demands. Basically spoken its not that easy that you can say strength is strength, more strength is more strength. Actually strength is the ability to use the neuromuscular apparatus in a way to contract the muscle most efficiently against a resistance. This is different in terms of neuromuscular activation pattern and therefore (besides cellular biochemical factors that of course do influence the result too) every kind of activity can be considered as a quite distinct "skill" to be mastered.
Therefore my concern is - if i will use the 5x5 program, restricting my variance of demands to the 3-5x load intensity, will it result in loss of skill regarding other strength skills? At the moment i do follow a kind of crossed waving protocol, intensity up, reps down in simple. By this method i have covered a range of intensities rather than focusing on one (deconditioning the other). So how specific will my adaptation in terms of task specifity be?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Man, that's a lot of scientific-type questions. Sounds like you need to read PPST.

[Andy Baker (KSC)]

First, thank you for the fast reply.

1. Maybe i should explain what my goals are at first. I came out of pure training for body shaping reasons and got to a point where this aim still is important (except i look good already ) and now i train for 1. fun and 2. general increase in fitness, which means a good mixture of developing different strength skills.

2. But i want to ask you - which aims does the Madcow 5x5 schedule have? Does it aim primarily to improve neural drive for maximum strength by using multiple high intensity sets? What is it based on? Is it pure experience? (and i do not want to question the value of the experience a strength coach long in the business has) Or can you give some basic explanation whats behind this program in terms of physiological adaptions?

3. Actually i want to simply try this prgram to make my own picture of it.

4. Therefore my concern is - if i will use the 5x5 program, restricting my variance of demands to the 3-5x load intensity, will it result in loss of skill regarding other strength skills? At the moment i do follow a kind of crossed waving protocol, intensity up, reps down in simple. By this method i have covered a range of intensities rather than focusing on one (deconditioning the other). So how specific will my adaptation in terms of task specifity be?

Dissection,

A couple of points if I may,

1. Your whole problem is in your first paragraph. You are training for "fun, general fitness, and different strength skills." This doesn't leave you with a very good template to design training programs. This is a common problem with alot of trainees. A map doesn't do you much good if you don't have a destination. So, is a 5x5 program good for you, or lots of singles, of sets of ten, or what exercises, how many times per week???? Who the fuck knows, because nobody knows what the hell you are training for. See what I mean?
A powerlifter trains differently than a weightlifter who trains differently from a bodybuilder who trains differently than a strongman, etc, etc. These things are all pretty obvious, yet I fear you are overlooking them because you are worried about what your mitochondria are doing during a set of 5.

2. The madcow program was posted by that dude ( I have no idea who he is) as an example of how one might organize training. Read PP for a better explanation of why it works.

3. A good idea

4. I kinda get what you are asking - maybe. My answer would be this. Training with 5's will not just increase your ability to do 5's. Push your 5x5 PR up 30 lbs and you will have improvements in both 1rm and 10rm, I guarantee you.

Also, are you related to science by any chance??

[frank.taeger]

As I have been the one that brought you here, it might be interesting to note that I personally do not think too much of variations in load too much in terms of multiple strength skill development.

The reason is that I believe that other strength skills apart from explosive and limit strength (Olympic Lifting & Powerlifting) as speed strength, strength endurance and speed in general do require a totally different training regimen than one can acquire by simply varying load. (Louie Simmons will disagree with this in the regards of having speed days in Powerlifting, which is specific training for this sport, where in this absolutely works.)

For example varying the load in terms of speed strength does still bring with it the problem of having to stop the load at its highest point. Especially if in the bench press or press. You just cant throw the barbell up and catch it again. (You could... but...) In powerlifting this is no problem as you need the high rate of force development at the moment where you pull. In Martial Arts this would be different. A dumbbell shot put in a complex pair combination with isometric holds would therefore be a better way to train speed and rate of force development in that field. Simple variation of training parameters doesnt work here.

Deceleration/Force Reduction training and plyometrics are as well a very efficient way of training speed and rate of force development. The skill as far as I know is very specific.

As for strength endurance... see Crossfit or Kettlebelllifting. Both use different approaches but create athletes with ridiculous strength endurance and GPP/work capacity. Doing 25 reps of an exercise just doesnt cut it in terms of efficient time use. Doing 400 reps of 4 different exercises (Angie WOD) or several very demanding strength lifts in a row (King Kong WOD, who in his vanity invented this one? I cant even pull off one round, im not strong enough) on time on the other hand, might.


As for the debate in strength skills :
Every skill is unique. Every skill has a unique set of coordination effort that needs to be trained. To get better at a skill, one has to train the skill, that is obvious. The training for the underlying physical modalities is different though. In linear periodization for example one would have accumulation and transmutation phases. One to increase general strength and conditioning and the other to actually get the new horsepowers to be used efficiently. Such efficiency can from what I have experienced not be transmutated by the simple variation of training loads. It has to be done by skill training accompanied by training for the underlying skills. There are levels, where more strength isnt more strength, I believe so too. For example Vladimir Zatsiorsky has written on this topic in "Science and practice of Strength Training." There are strength levels at which point the training for rate of force development leads to more improvement in explosiveness than the increase of limit strength itself. That is a level I can not really think about of though, as it is quite in the future for me. And it is way beyond a 120kg squat.

[dissection]

Okay, thanks for the advice, i think i will read your book. I might just try 5x5 by myself as well. And i will come back her if questions arise/remain.

What do you consider "advanced lifter" and what "intermediate"? My experience in resistance training is approx. 4 years now, but i switch exercises a lot, so the basic lifts BP,DL and SQ were not necessarily in my program all the time. If you do mean by advanced "competitive" that surely isnt the case for these exercises. Physiologically i am advanced, concerning these exercises not really - which of them should i try?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Read the book.