Why does a 5x5 routine seem, to me at least, noticeably more intense than a 4x6 routine? The workout itself seems a bit tougher, but the recovery is the killer. The volume is so close. Is it just my own training status (experience and ability to handle it)?
I figured that. :p But, actually, I didn't really think properly about the math. I was simply thinking one additional rep and a bit higher weight. But, when calculating total volume of weight moved, I guess it can add up.
I suppose the jump to 5x5 ends up being significant. However, I was also wondering about physiological/neural adapatation and fatigue issues, and how they progress by "simply" moving from the 4x6 protocol to the 5x5. Would a similar greater intensity (i.e., affect on the body) be expereinced in moving from a 5x5 to a protocol with higher weights and lower reps? I imagine it all boils down to total volume and the %RM one is using. I've never trained with a, say, 8x3 program (I pick that to keep the total work sets comparable) with high intensity/weight, so I cannot compare there.
Are you lifting the same load for all sets in the 5 x 5 and the 4 x 6, or are you adjusting the weight for each subsequent set to take accound of fatigue and reduced energy stores etc?
Also, in the context of a single workout, are you doing the 5 x 5 and the 4 x 6 for all exercises and for all movement patterns (horiz/vert push/pull, quad/hip dominant)?I'm hinting at the cumuclative volume and fatigue.
Are you lifting the same load for all sets in the 5 x 5 and the 4 x 6, or are you adjusting the weight for each subsequent set to take accound of fatigue and reduced energy stores etc?
Also, in the context of a single workout, are you doing the 5 x 5 and the 4 x 6 for all exercises and for all movement patterns (horiz/vert push/pull, quad/hip dominant)?I'm hinting at the cumuclative volume and fatigue.
The exercises are the same, except when I switched to 4x6, I added one accessory exercise. In both cases, I held load constant, using a 6 and 5 RM (the best I could tell) respectively, so there was rep drop off starting about in the third set, generally. I each case, I debated reducing the load in later sets, but took the simple way out to start with. (aside: in the 5x5, the plan was to stay at 5 reps until I could do five in all sets; in the 4x6, I currently plan to max on out reps until I can do 6 in the last sets, so I might end up with something like 7-7-6-6).
I'm starting the 4x6 with one oly type exercise done at 5 sets for 5 reps max, with rep drop off.
I did three workouts at 5x5, ate a lot, slept a bit more, consciously. But with extra martial arts training on off days, I felt like I shouldn't keep it up. I could just tell. So I changed it up a bit to a 4x6 routine. The workouts felt noticeably easier, and recovery better.
Sorry Chris, I couldn't quite work out fully how the workouts panned out
However, in going from 4 x 6 to a 5 x 5, the intensity is increasing and so is the volume. I think the same would hold true whether you kept the load constant or reduced the load for each subsequent set.
Factor in that you do this for all, or most, exercises in a single workout, and then extrapolate this over a week or two, and you can begin to see why a 5 x 5 is proving to have a different effect than 4 x 6.
I think most people would look at 4 x 6 and 5 x 5 and see 24 reps versus 25 reps and conclude that there isn't a lot of difference. I would probably still feel that the training effect is close but that the recovery is something else, as you have shown.
Why? 5x5 compared to 4x6
:p But, actually, I didn't really think properly about the math. I was simply thinking one additional rep and a bit higher weight. But, when calculating total volume of weight moved, I guess it can add up.
Maybe it's because I typed that in the middle of night when I took the dog out, and decided to drink a protein shake.
Linear Mode
