Author Topic: Failure: yes or no?  (Read 3870 times)

Mawse

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2585
Re: Failure: yes or no?
« Reply #25 on: June 14, 2015, 10:51:19 AM »
Hey,cut the shit bro,when you can do the 150`s for a good 5 X 5 give me a call!   ;)

dammit wes, stay awake at the back

joon.jpg


Van_Bilderass

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16661
  • "Don't Try"
Re: Failure: yes or no?
« Reply #26 on: June 14, 2015, 10:57:08 AM »
Top Platz is an passionate advocate of beyond failure training.

Tom trains like an idiot, sorry to say. Worst form ever seen. The problem is the form,
not the intensity. But what are you going to say, when he had legs like that. :D

Mawse

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2585
Re: Failure: yes or no?
« Reply #27 on: June 14, 2015, 10:58:20 AM »
I will admit that the 30 seconds got a little elastic at the end. Haha. I would be willing to go higher, but my DBs only go to 120s and it's a royal PITA to muscle the DBs into position alone. And no spot, etc.

ironmasters? I was going to get some but the 120lb max put me off... but TBH going over 120 always feels disproportionately dangerous getting into place, so maybe its sensible to stay at that load.

I ended up getting an insane online deal on a high school weight room sell-off with something like 1500lbs for $50 so I have up to 170's now but I almost never go over 125

wes

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 71209
  • What Dire Mishap Has Befallen Thee
Re: Failure: yes or no?
« Reply #28 on: June 14, 2015, 11:11:16 AM »
dammit wes, stay awake at the back

joon.jpg


;D

_aj_

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17641
  • The Return of the OG
Re: Failure: yes or no?
« Reply #29 on: June 14, 2015, 11:35:50 AM »
ironmasters? I was going to get some but the 120lb max put me off... but TBH going over 120 always feels disproportionately dangerous getting into place, so maybe its sensible to stay at that load.

I ended up getting an insane online deal on a high school weight room sell-off with something like 1500lbs for $50 so I have up to 170's now but I almost never go over 125

Yep. They do have another extension setup to go out to 165s. It on the list.

cephissus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7599
Re: Failure: yes or no?
« Reply #30 on: June 15, 2015, 04:48:30 PM »
115# DBs.

Sets 7-8 were murder.

The transition to BW exercises -- ring dips, v-bar dips, weighted ring push ups -- felt like a vacation.

This is sorta what I was getting at.  These post-'work set' sets at light weight... Are these more valuable than the 'work sets' themselves?  I'm suspicious... Starting to think so.

_aj_

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17641
  • The Return of the OG
Re: Failure: yes or no?
« Reply #31 on: June 15, 2015, 05:23:28 PM »
This is sorta what I was getting at.  These post-'work set' sets at light weight... Are these more valuable than the 'work sets' themselves?  I'm suspicious... Starting to think so.

Maybe, but if DOMS = more muscle (which is debatable), I am more sore today than I have been in a while and the difference is the 8x8.

cephissus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7599
Re: Failure: yes or no?
« Reply #32 on: June 15, 2015, 05:58:46 PM »
Maybe, but if DOMS = more muscle (which is debatable), I am more sore today than I have been in a while and the difference is the 8x8.

I used to be obsessed with DOMS.  After nearly half a decade of almost no DOMS, I kinda got over it, though ;D

I read long, long ago that DOMS usually followed when you tried a new exercise, and wasn't necessarily important for growth.  I'm not sure about that, and scoffed at it at the time, as I was getting brutal DOMS after every workout and growing like crazy.

Now, however, this idea strikes me as a little more reasonable.  Nowadays, I never consistently get DOMS, but when I do, it's seemingly after trying something I haven't done in a long time.  I did some lunges last week and tried a new running technique.  I'm not sure which (if either) is responsible, but I haven't felt this much hamstring soreness in years.