Pyramid Reps

[tonymcclellan]

I was thinking that if Hypertrophy is best achieved around 8-12 reps and strength is 1-5 reps, then would a decreasing pyramid rep scheme be beneficial for both. I was thinking of taking one of my training days to rep scheme of 10-8-6-4 while increasing the load obviously. What are the thoughts on pyramids?

[Paradigm]

I could have sworn that one (or several) of the Ian King workouts (i.e. Limping or Super Strength) utilized these, and I remember them kicking the crap out of me. If I'm completely making up the details of those workouts, well, then I know that I've done pyramid schemes before that might have been for the same purpose. I know that NROL utilizes a staggared pyramid (for lack of proper terminology), where you go from a higher number to low rep/high weight, and then back, so I would think that the pyramid scheme wouldn't be frowned upon.

[CAchief]

I know in some of Thibaudeau's workouts he does a rep scheme of "7, 5, 3, 5, 7" for the big lifts. I tend to like that approach.

[Alcoholiday]

who said hypertrophy is best in the 8-12 range?

[Jason B]

I'm not a fan of regular pyramids much at all. I'll use them very sparingly, basically when I'm just winging it because they're easy to think up, for lighter movements anyway. But I prefer wave loading big time.

Originally Posted by tonymcclellan

I was thinking that if Hypertrophy is best achieved around 8-12 reps and strength is 1-5 reps, then would a decreasing pyramid rep scheme be beneficial for both. I was thinking of taking one of my training days to rep scheme of 10-8-6-4 while increasing the load obviously. What are the thoughts on pyramids?

First off, higher reps for hypertrophy and lower reps for strength is a gross overgeneralization. Both have their place for either goal. As for simply doing a 10-8-6-4 pyramid to cover both bases, the logic is flawed big time, it's not that simple. First off, those higher rep sets would tire you too much before your set of 4. If you're going for strength in a particular exercise (or training session), keep the reps low and the weight heavy, don't waste your effort on light stuff. If you're going for hypertrophy in a particular exercise (or training session), keep the reps a little higher, that would be more effective. Thats not to say a 10-8-6-4 pyramid can't achieve both size and strength, but it's not the ideal solution that it sounds like you think it is.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Alcoholiday

who said hypertrophy is best in the 8-12 range?

The Ass Master:

Program Design 101

Frick and frack, it didn't copy right.

I can't get the table to copy properly.

[tonymcclellan]

Originally Posted by Jason B

First off, higher reps for hypertrophy and lower reps for strength is a gross overgeneralization. Both have their place for either goal. As for simply doing a 10-8-6-4 pyramid to cover both bases, the logic is flawed big time, it's not that simple. First off, those higher rep sets would tire you too much before your set of 4. If you're going for strength in a particular exercise (or training session), keep the reps low and the weight heavy, don't waste your effort on light stuff. If you're going for hypertrophy in a particular exercise (or training session), keep the reps a little higher, that would be more effective. Thats not to say a 10-8-6-4 pyramid can't achieve both size and strength, but it's not the ideal solution that it sounds like you think it is.

Makes sense. I know long ago I did pyramids but havent attempted them in awhile. I was thinking something along the lines of 75, 80, 85, 90 percent for the corresponding rep number. I know its not as simple as that, cuz if that were the case I would be huge by now . Im not saying that I think it is, I was looking to hear some opinions on what my brain was conjuring up. I have just started reading about wave training, sounds interesting.

[dos]

Originally Posted by Alcoholiday

who said hypertrophy is best in the 8-12 range?

Just about every exercise physiology textbook in existence. The hypertrophy-strength continuum has been / is pretty consistent regardless of all the gimicky programs out there today. Greater hypertrophy gains are associated with higher volume work while greater strength gains are associated with lower volume / higher load work.

[Alcoholiday]

Originally Posted by dos

Just about every exercise physiology textbook in existence. The hypertrophy-strength continuum has been / is pretty consistent regardless of all the gimicky programs out there today. Greater hypertrophy gains are associated with higher volume work while greater strength gains are associated with lower volume / higher load work.

but how does it stack with real life?

considering the majority of people in the gym do 8-12 reps, doesn't that mean that everyone would have a significant amount of muscle?

doesn't increased strength mean greater hypertrophy? how are you going to get bigger in the 8-12 range if you don't get stronger in the 5 rep range? Let's say you can only lift 150lbs for 5, but can do 100 for 8-12. if he increases it to 200lbs for 5, do you not think that you would gain more muscle lifting 200lbs than 100?

what about multiple sets of 5 with 150? wouldn't that give you more hypertrophy than 3 sets of 8-12? You can see many people in practice, glenn's athletes for one, and everyone who's ever done a 5x5 cycle get significant hypertrophy gains from doing heavy reps.

[gobbla]

let's assume that you're average gym goer isn't using the appropriate weight or movements. they're lifting 8-12 reps with their 12-18 rep max on small movements that don't mean crap. no one will get big lifting weights that are too light...it ain't going to happen reguardless of how many total reps are done.

being stronger opens up more doors for hypertrophy gains, but that doesn't necissarily have anything to do with lifting "for strength" or "for hypertrophy". there's obviously going to be some overlap with one scheme vs another, but let's just assume that the research is correct that the primary gains in one area or another is possible. let's then assume that if you're lifting in a method that suits your goals you'll get to your goals faster. A majority of the time would probibly be spent in that range. The rest of it would be in the opposite to better facilitate the possible gains of that range (be it adding more muscle to lift heavier, or adding more strength to get bigger)

[Alcoholiday]

Originally Posted by gobbla

let's assume that you're average gym goer isn't using the appropriate weight or movements. they're lifting 8-12 reps with their 12-18 rep max on small movements that don't mean crap. no one will get big lifting weights that are too light...it ain't going to happen reguardless of how many total reps are done.

being stronger opens up more doors for hypertrophy gains, but that doesn't necissarily have anything to do with lifting "for strength" or "for hypertrophy". there's obviously going to be some overlap with one scheme vs another, but let's just assume that the research is correct that the primary gains in one area or another is possible. let's then assume that if you're lifting in a method that suits your goals you'll get to your goals faster. A majority of the time would probibly be spent in that range. The rest of it would be in the opposite to better facilitate the possible gains of that range (be it adding more muscle to lift heavier, or adding more strength to get bigger)

so who's side are you picking? haha

[BFG]

I think the number of lifts has limited bearing on the amount of muscle added its the diet, level of progression and total weight that has more bearing in my personal experience.

back to the original question tho about pyramid why have pyramid days? Why not just use it as a variant within a workout schedul that may include triads or whatever else methology? I mean some exercises you may gain more from pyramids as opposed to others? I personaly like alot of variation to avoid boredom and repetition.

Just a thought....................

[gobbla]

Originally Posted by Alcoholiday

so who's side are you picking? haha

I think you're both right

If a person truely wanted to get bigger and stronger (both of equal priority) then (IMO) they'd be best served if they devoted roughly equal priority towards both in terms of the training year, focusing on one or the other. It stands to reason that the more focused towards a goal during a period of time, the faster their results will be. After 9-12 wks give or take, make a shift.

That's NOT saying that a person can't get bigger and stronger at the same time, that lifting at moderately low reps (at appropriate load) won't increase both, or that lifting in that manner is a "bad" way to train (deppending on your goals). Just saying that the "zones" are there, because it appears to be pretty close to a fact that certain gains are much more previlent within said zone.

[drs]

Good thread. Thanks guys. I'd been thinking more about pyramids lately also. So if you were to do pyramids, what would be the best way?

[ichbinba]

it's very easy to gain size without gaining strength. a lot of bodybulders hypertrophy is due to gains in size in places other than the contractile proteins. a lot of body builders aren't nearly as strong as they should be. Tony G. had a great article on T nation a while go about the rule of 90 or something like that that touched on this

[dos]

Originally Posted by Alcoholiday

but how does it stack with real life?

considering the majority of people in the gym do 8-12 reps, doesn't that mean that everyone would have a significant amount of muscle?

doesn't increased strength mean greater hypertrophy? how are you going to get bigger in the 8-12 range if you don't get stronger in the 5 rep range? Let's say you can only lift 150lbs for 5, but can do 100 for 8-12. if he increases it to 200lbs for 5, do you not think that you would gain more muscle lifting 200lbs than 100?

what about multiple sets of 5 with 150? wouldn't that give you more hypertrophy than 3 sets of 8-12? You can see many people in practice, glenn's athletes for one, and everyone who's ever done a 5x5 cycle get significant hypertrophy gains from doing heavy reps.

Good points made in several posts.....neither of these (strength or hypertrophy) is independant of each other. Think about it though, weight class competitors (i.e. weightlifters, powerlifters) can't afford to gain anymore weight yet they need to get stronger. How do they then train? Low volume, high intensity sets. If this were the best way to hypertrophy, they would be in trouble right? Also, the example of people lifting in the 8-12 rep range yet they never get bigger comes down to intensity of the exercise. One thing that many of these 'gimmicly' routines out there these days fail to take into consideration is the almighty overload principle. When I prescribe 4 x 8, I expect #'s 6-7-8 to be a bitch. SO much of a pain in the ass that the next set might even warrant a decrease in load just to complete the 8 reps. Bottom line is that everyone from athletes to stay-at-home moms should be using some form of periodization.

As far as BFG goes, we can all say our personal experience dictates what works and doesn't but as I have always said before, think how much bigger and stronger you might be if you did it the right way.

[dos]

Originally Posted by drs

Good thread. Thanks guys. I'd been thinking more about pyramids lately also. So if you were to do pyramids, what would be the best way?

I think there's nothing wrong with various pyramid schemes as long as they are part of a bigger cycle of sets/reps. What I do see, however, is that many people who do say a 10-8-6-4 scheme will do submaximal loads for the 10-8 and then kick it up hard for the 6-4. This then lessens the effect of this pyramid. I use pyramids A LOT when in various strength/power phases....stuff like 5-4-3-2, 3-2-2-1 etc.