waterbury's set/rep bible

[gnheil]

can someone explain in detail what waterbury's set/rep bible is all about.? i'm having a problem with comprehending exactly what he's getting at with the 24-36 reps ( 80-90% 1RM) 36-50 reps ( 70-80% 1RM) thing.?

[JoshDunn]

I haven't looked at it in a while but Chad talks in total reps not a set rep prescription.

So 24-36 reps total with 80-90% of your max would be a fat loss focused training from memory. So you could do 2x12, 4x6, 10x3, 3x10, or whatever floats your boat.

[Cynic]

Also keep in mind, the load you would use for a 8x3 would be different than you'd use for a 3x8 or 4x6 or 6x4.

The general consensus is the low reps per set at high loadouts (90% and above) induce neurological activation for strength development. Moderate reps set set at moderate loadouts (70-85%) tend to induce more hypertrophy.

Lower weights with higher reps are more metabolic blasters.

Cross reference what Waterbury says with Robertson's "Program Design 101."

TESTOSTERONE NATION - Program Design 101

[PowerManDL]

Anything heavy enough can create hypertrophy

It's more about how much total volume/TUT you can rack up, and how often you can repeat it.

[StuWard]

Originally Posted by gnheil

can someone explain in detail what waterbury's set/rep bible is all about.? i'm having a problem with comprehending exactly what he's getting at with the 24-36 reps ( 80-90% 1RM) 36-50 reps ( 70-80% 1RM) thing.?

70-80% 1RM would normally limit you to the 4-8 rep range and would be suited for general strength. 80-90% would normally limit you to 8-12 reps and would be most suited for hypertrophy. The total reps determine the volume required in order to achieve the desired training effect.

So, he's just rewriting it a bit. It's the load and volume that is important, not the reps and sets. The reps and sets are chosen to match the load and volume you need. For example if you are working for general strength you could do 4 sets of 8, 5 sets of 5, 10 sets of 3 but not 2 sets of 12. Notice you can go lower reps but not higher. That said, if you are a slow twitch kind of person, 12 reps might be in your 80-90 range.

I hop I haven't made it more confusing.

Stu

[mrroach]

Originally Posted by StuWard

70-80% 1RM would normally limit you to the 4-8 rep range and would be suited for general strength. 80-90% would normally limit you to 8-12 reps and would be most suited for hypertrophy.

I think you've got those a backwards; I can generally lift the heavier stuff fewer times

I think the general idea is that the various set/rep/load schemes represent points on a continuum from strength-focused (neural) to myofibrillar to sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

Since hypertrophy comes from a combination of load and repetition (volume/tonnage) going too heavy compromises your ability to get reps in, and getting too many reps in compromises your ability to get the heavier loads. Somewhere in the middle (probably many different places in the middle) is just right.

[PowerManDL]

Originally Posted by mrroach

Since hypertrophy comes from a combination of load and repetition (volume/tonnage) going too heavy compromises your ability to get reps in, and getting too many reps in compromises your ability to get the heavier loads. Somewhere in the middle (probably many different places in the middle) is just right.

That's about the gist of it yes. There's also some pretty ill-defined fatigue/rate of work and eccentric stretch factors that tie into this

The biggest deal is the ability to create a sufficient tension-time overload regardless of the weight used

It just happens that the mid-range weights tend to optimize for this on their own. Go heavier and you also can't train as frequently.

[StuWard]

Originally Posted by mrroach

I think you've got those a backwards; I can generally lift the heavier stuff fewer times

You're right, senior moment.