20 rep squats..... page 2

[Mac]

That's called a widow-maker. Sometimes I'll finished up my squat workout with 20 reps @ 315 pounds.



31" thighs here and I'm hoping they stay that way. Most people here want to look like Mark Sisson, some don't, me included. I like being big, sorry.

I used to want to be big - "black and huge" to be exact (any GWAR fans?) I spent a good number of years as a 5'-10" 215lb bodybuilder. It sucked now that I look back on it. I really like being lighter these days at 186 lbs. Clothes fit much, much better (I still have trouble finding clothes though because of the large difference between chest and waist measurements) and I don't feel like a lumbering hulk.

[Fury22]

Agreed with Jokaman: The Widowmaker

It's called the Widowmaker because you're actually supposed to be using your 10 rep max to start and moving on from there. Using a "light" weight really isn't the original idea. On the other hand, if you are doing a 20 repper as the last set or something, then you probably won't be able to do your 10 rep max anyway. I still think it should be moderately heavy though, at least heavy enough so that @ 20 reps your lungs are on fire.

'Super Squats' was written to be done for ~6 weeks, workouts 2-3 times per week with a 20 repper every training day. You start with your 10 rep max and increase the weight from there.

@Mike: Again, not everyone wants to be small and "fit". Some people want to be big. Not everyone gives a shit about function. I've seen that argument a lot: "ZOMG it's not functional" to which the response by the bigger, stronger person usually answering the comment by someone small and weak "I don't care, and you're still small".

It could be argued that Olyympic lifting isn't all that great either, but I like doing it. Some people don't want to be just average bro. Some us lift, grunt, yell and otherwise look like we are murderously possessed when we train. Again, not everyone wants to be average.

[Vick]

Fury I love your attitude.

You have defined goals of what you want your body to be and a plan to get there.

Are you following much of Pavel Tsatsouline's concepts?

[arthurb999]

Agreed with Jokaman: The Widowmaker


@Mike: Again, not everyone wants to be small and "fit". Some people want to be big. Not everyone gives a shit about function. I've seen that argument a lot: "ZOMG it's not functional" to which the response by the bigger, stronger person usually answering the comment by someone small and weak "I don't care, and you're still small".

It could be argued that Olyympic lifting isn't all that great either, but I like doing it. Some people don't want to be just average bro. Some us lift, grunt, yell and otherwise look like we are murderously possessed when we train. Again, not everyone wants to be average.

Bigger doesn't always equal stronger. But I agree, training hard is awesome

[Fury22]

Fury I love your attitude.

You have defined goals of what you want your body to be and a plan to get there.

Are you following much of Pavel Tsatsouline's concepts?

Thanks man! TBH I've never read much of his stuff, just what's available online. I want to read Power to the People just to get an idea of how exactly his systems work, and because it's been used by others to make similar training systems for different areas of fitness.

Bigger doesn't always equal stronger. But I agree, training hard is awesome

Totally agree and I never said it did. There's a lot of guys out there who are huge but not anywhere near as strong as they look, but then again they probably don't care. For bodybuilding, no one really cares how much you can deadlift, just how you look onstage and how you present your physique there. In powerlifting and weightlifting, no one cares how you look, just how much you can lift. Strongman as well, although recently there has been a turn towards more aethestic strongmen for the marketing factor. Back in the day, most strongmen were fat and really unpleasing to look at, whereas now most are still enormous but much easier on the eyes (take Marius Pudzianowski, Phil Phister, even the Scandanavians like Magnus or Sven Karlsen). But overall it's all about what you want. Outside of MDA, a lot of guys (and sometimes girls) want to be bigger or stronger than average and stronger/bigger than necessary.

That's why I hate it when people start whining about it not being functional or whatever, since it's usually small and weak people doing the complaining. I'm not big, at all. In the least. 5'11" ~165 last time I checked (maybe about 170 now), but I'm still pretty strong and usually anybody who does weightlifting stands out (most people have never seen it in person outside of the Reverse Power Curls in high school (usually called hang cleans there). Is it necessary?? No. Would I be better off now as a 2nd Lieutenant (as of yesterday!!) to do something that may translate better in military fitness? Probably. But I like it, so I'll do it regardless of real world application.

Although it could be said that O'lifting does have a good bit of real world translation.

[arthurb999]

lol... where are you hanging out where people even talk about things "not being functional".... just slap them and move on.

[Jason VT]

I did a 10x10 (225lbs) once, with extensions and ham curls afterwards. Walking for the next few days was not fun. Another not-so-fun routine I did once was to rep out the weight (135lbs=135 reps).

Really though, what is the point of squatting high reps? I've never gained strength or mass by doing so. I know the magazines all say 15-18 reps is ideal for leg mass, but I think if you're going over 12 reps on any set but your last you're just wasting energy. The first handful of reps won't do anything more than mildly stimulate fibers while the middle range reps will only start to pump lactic acid throughout the legs; the last few reps are where you get your benefit, but since the reps were so high you'll only work the slow twitch muscle fibers while the massive fast twitch fibers were barely warmed up.

Since going Primal I've taken a new approach to exercise and understanding the body. It seems to me that the pain associated with a lactic acid buildup is meant to tell us to stop what we're doing. That doesn't mean that I don't try to build muscle still, afterall; bodybuilding is my first fitness love. What my newfound awareness does mean is that I try to stimulate strength first then work on chasing the pump. I've found that burnout sets meet this goal admirably. Another method I use frequently is to use a medium rep range (6-8) for a large number of sets to fully exhaust the muslces. The trick with this technique is to go as heavy as you can with each set, but lower the weight as needed to maintain reps.

You should join the weightlifting community; there are more knowledgeable people there than I.

[MikeEnRegalia]

^ another thing I've been doing: on a schedule of two workouts per week in the first workout do 5x5 with the heaviest weight you can manage with good form, and in the second workout use half the weight or less (1/3) and simply do as many repetitions as you can - and possible a second set like that if you feel like it. So in one workout you train strength, and in the other you train endurance.

[primalclubber]

@fury, at 50 years old, I'm more concerned about being functional, which led me to drop my weight from a peak of 200 lbs (5'-8") when I was living in the gym, down to 165-170 lbs, which is the "smallest" I've been in 10 years. My primary tools are kettlebells, clubs, and my 33 lb mace at home, but I still go to the gym every couple of months to do some deadlifts to check my strength. Three weeks ago I went to the gym on a whim, and pulled 315 lbs for 5 reps (365 lb is my 1x max at this BW), and did a weighted pull up with 90 lbs strapped on to me, and I think these are decent numbers for this AARP member. Since I consider myself "small" (middleweight?) I don't get how wanting to be functional equates to being small and weak.

[Fury22]

@fury, at 50 years old, I'm more concerned about being functional, which led me to drop my weight from a peak of 200 lbs (5'-8") when I was living in the gym, down to 165-170 lbs, which is the "smallest" I've been in 10 years. My primary tools are kettlebells, clubs, and my 33 lb mace at home, but I still go to the gym every couple of months to do some deadlifts to check my strength. Three weeks ago I went to the gym on a whim, and pulled 315 lbs for 5 reps (365 lb is my 1x max at this BW), and did a weighted pull up with 90 lbs strapped on to me, and I think these are decent numbers for this AARP member. Since I consider myself "small" (middleweight?) I don't get how wanting to be functional equates to being small and weak.

It doesn't equate with being small and weak. That's not what I said or meant. I simply said that it's usually the smal and weak people who do the most complaining about things not being functional, usually as an excuse to why they are small and weak. By small, I mean low amount of muscle mass. I don't necessarily mean small as in stature or body type. Again, because I am small especially compared to a lot of other guys in my gym.

I'm not criticizing anyone who wants to train "functionally", with that term meaning whatever someone wants it to mean. For me, functional is being good at Olympic lifts. For you, it's probably overall fitness for better overall health.

Awhile back, I Kanye'ed a friend of mine on Facebook (He's avidly Primal). He made a status about his workout or something, and I posted "Hey bro, I'm really happy for you, and Imma let you finish, but Arnold had some of the best workouts of all time!!" He IMMEDIATELY launched into a "not functional blah blah blah" response instead of just getting a joke. However, it represents an attitude I can't stand: That somehow you're better than a pro bodybuilder (who is not the governor of my friend's homestate and has become an American icon and symbol of the American dream in every sense) because you train for "function" whatever that means.
1.) I doubt Arnold cared about function as he was a bodybuilder (one of the greatest and most famous)
2.) I doubt Arnold cared about function because he was pretty much the man, lived the life and frequently engaged in the reproductive act with more women he will probably ever admit to and more frequently than most men ever dream about
3.) I doubt Arnold cared about function as bodybuilding was really responsible for his awesome career, not the Primal Blueprint, Paleo-eating, or "functional" training.

Anyway, this was more of a rant than anything else, I just hate seeing that "ITS NOT-FUNCTIONAL"/"WHY WOULD YOU WANT SUPER LARGE QUADZ????" responses. Some people want to be big, others don't.

No hate, plus compared to most people your age, you and Vick seem to be doing quite well. Although 50/early 50s is still young, most people you see around there are out of shape/over weight/unhealthy.

The rant was more aimed at the "why would you want huge quads" comment.