MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
One Rep Increase Method
Author
Rating
Options

hit4me

Florida, USA

right now I am just going for the pump, get as much blood into the muscles...light weight for 3 sets of 20 reps...full body 20 exercises(takes about 90 to 120 minutes), no failure or not even close to failure...hardly breaking a sweat...but for the past week, I definitely feel the pump and soreness (I plan on doing this for a couple of months)

while I was doing this today at the gym, I was thinking of a method of training that I never heard of..and that is "one rep increase method" for a lack of better words...

pick a bunch exercises, full body, 3x/week and start with a weight that you can perform 3 sets of 8(no failure) on Monday...on Wednesday when you train again, you perform 3 sets of 9 and on Friday you perform 3 sets of 10...and so on until you reach 3 sets of 20 or 25...when you reach that goal, you increase the weight by 5lbs and start over again (do not train to failure and do not worry about cadence, just control the rep)
has anyone ever heard of this or has anyone ever trained in this fashion..if so, ho did it work?

















Open User Options Menu

MDieguez

yes, that method has been around forever and is a perfectly viable one. You may opt for an even slower approach where you only add one rep to one of the sets each time you train. This method was often used by the great Doug Hepburn, one of the strongest human beings of all time.
Open User Options Menu

perrymk

I've done similar, often right after vacation. My thought process has been that building (or re-building) slowly is less likely to result in injury and more likely to result in surpassing previous levels when possible. However I don't think we can gain forever regardless of training protocol.
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

MDieguez wrote:
yes, that method has been around forever and is a perfectly viable one. You may opt for an even slower approach where you only add one rep to one of the sets each time you train. This method was often used by the great Doug Hepburn, one of the strongest human beings of all time.


thx, i will have to google him....and you make sense in only increase the reps in one of the sets each time

Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

perrymk wrote:
I've done similar, often right after vacation. My thought process has been that building (or re-building) slowly is less likely to result in injury and more likely to result in surpassing previous levels when possible. However I don't think we can gain forever regardless of training protocol.


agree on the not gaining forever, which is why i like to switch routines up a few times a year

Open User Options Menu

NewYorker

New York, USA

I am actually thinking of doing something similar with fewer exercises and A, B and C routines.
It's real old school. It works. Is oddly fun and is probably a healthy way to train.
It was my first training method in the 70s.

One suggestion. Focus on form and when you plateau considering changing exercises or sets/reps instead of breaking form.

When I was a teenager. I worked from 6 to 12 reps. Adding 2 reps every other workout. But, whatever suits your preference and needs
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Yes, the general concept is just called the double progression method.
Many routines were setup that way, one older book I have suggested to do it like
8,8,8
9,8,8
10,8,8
10,9,8
until you get 3x10, add weight go back to 3x8
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

Nwlifter wrote:
Yes, the general concept is just called the double progression method.
Many routines were setup that way, one older book I have suggested to do it like
8,8,8
9,8,8
10,8,8
10,9,8
until you get 3x10, add weight go back to 3x8


I like this, thx
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Nwlifter wrote:
Yes, the general concept is just called the double progression method.
Many routines were setup that way, one older book I have suggested to do it like
8,8,8
9,8,8
10,8,8
10,9,8
until you get 3x10, add weight go back to 3x8

hit4me wrote:
I like this, thx


Unfortunately, such small increments --- while very sustainable --- will NOT elicit much growth.

Stick with your plan:
8,8,8
9,9,9
10,10,10... When the 3rd set is an all-out effort, continue the progression with smaller increments for maybe 1 or 2 more reps (where you do NOT make the reps on the 3rd set).

Take a week of active rest and then start back at one more rep than when you started last time.
______________

To make this more sustainable, use a weight where that 8,8,8 is quite easy. And while the weight is easier, you can 'up' the difficulty by using very short rest periods between sets (I use number of breaths to gauge my rest periods).

As you add more reps, and it gets more challenging, then you can increase the rest periods gradually.
8,8,8 (5 slow deep breaths between sets)
9,9,9 (6 Bs)
...
12,12,12 < 3rd set to-failure
13,(12 + 1 RP),(10-11 + 2-3 RP)
Week Off
Start Back at 9,9,9*
(* for myself, I'd actually change exercises at this point instead of just doing the cycle again with the same one)

Best,
Scott
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

simon-hecubus wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
Yes, the general concept is just called the double progression method.
Many routines were setup that way, one older book I have suggested to do it like
8,8,8
9,8,8
10,8,8
10,9,8
until you get 3x10, add weight go back to 3x8

hit4me wrote:
I like this, thx

Unfortunately, such small increments --- while very sustainable --- will NOT elicit much growth.

Stick with your plan:
8,8,8
9,9,9
10,10,10... When the 3rd set is an all-out effort, continue the progression with smaller increments for 1 or 2 more reps < Where you do NOT make the reps on the 3rd set.

Take a week of active rest and then start back at one more rep than when you started last time.

To make this more sustainable, use a weight where that 8,8,8 is quite easy. To make it challenging, use very short rest periods between sets (I use number of breaths to gauge my rest periods).

As you add more reps, and it gets more challenging, then you can increase the rest periods gradually.
8,8,8 (5 slow deep breaths between sets)
9,9,9 (6 Bs)
10,10,10 (8 Bs)
11,11,11
12,12,12 < 3rd set is failure
13,(12 + 1 RP),(10-11 + 2-3 RP)
Week Off
Start Back at 9,9,9*
(* for myself, I'd actually change exercises at this point instead of just doing the cycle again with the same one)

Best,
Scott


well, that program was a sample from a book. Adding weight has nothing to do with growth, growth though has everything to do with being able to add weight.

Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Nwlifter wrote:
Adding weight has nothing to do with growth, growth though has everything to do with being able to add weight.



This needs to be a be sticky at the top of the web site. :)
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Nwlifter wrote:
Adding weight has nothing to do with growth, growth though has everything to do with being able to add weight.


Please define "growth".

If you meant hypertrophy, then know it will not come to advanced trainees with incremental advances.

That was my main point, despite all the other long-winded stuff.


HeavyHitter32 wrote:
This needs to be a be sticky at the top of the web site. :)


Followed by the caveat: "If only it were that simple, since may add weight but experience no apparent growth/hypertrophy."
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

simon-hecubus wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
Adding weight has nothing to do with growth, growth though has everything to do with being able to add weight.

Please define "growth".

If you meant hypertrophy, then know it will not come to advanced trainees with incremental advances.

That was my main point, despite all the other long-winded stuff.


HeavyHitter32 wrote:
This needs to be a be sticky at the top of the web site. :)

Followed by the caveat: "If only it were that simple, since may add weight but experience no apparent growth/hypertrophy."


Define growth?
Hypertrophy, increases in muscle hypertrophy, via additions of myo-fibrils, increases the strength of the muscle.
You train monday, if what you did causes 'growth' (hypertrophy) you will be stronger FROM that the next time you train and will be able to use more load for the same reps, or get more reps with the same load. You don't increase the load 'to get' bigger', you increase the load 'because you got bigger'. (neural causes strength increases too of course).

Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

simon-hecubus wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
Adding weight has nothing to do with growth, growth though has everything to do with being able to add weight.

Please define "growth".

If you meant hypertrophy, then know it will not come to advanced trainees with incremental advances.

That was my main point, despite all the other long-winded stuff.


HeavyHitter32 wrote:
This needs to be a be sticky at the top of the web site. :)

Followed by the caveat: "If only it were that simple, since may add weight but experience no apparent growth/hypertrophy."


I see what your saying now, but load increments have nothing to do with it, the increment is done AFTER what you did 'today', if today caused growth, it caused growth, then next time you increase 'as needed'. If you raise the load a big increase on May 25th, that isn't going to affect the growth potential from the workout you did on May 21st.
Open User Options Menu

Bill Sekerak

California, USA

I think you could call it " Double Progressive Resistance Exercise ".
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

Nwlifter wrote:
...I see what your saying now, but load increments have nothing to do with it, the increment is done AFTER what you did 'today', if today caused growth, it caused growth, then next time you increase 'as needed'. If you raise the load a big increase on May 25th, that isn't going to affect the growth potential from the workout you did on May 21st.


Of course it won't affect the growth potential from the previous workout. I'm not looking at the last workout, I am concerned with the growth potential from the entire cycle.

Let me ask this: How do you KNOW that the previous workout caused growth?! I put it to you, that going into the next workout you do NOT know and will not know until you attempt the exercises with any Rep or Weight increases you have in mind.

If you have a problem with automatic/prescribed rep & weight increases with each workout, I can understand that. BUT, the book routine that you provided was indeed one of those routines and I just ran with that concept.
____________

With the caveat that we are talking about a Prescribed Increase Routine*, I am here to tell you that micro increases will not break your body out of any homeostasic rut that it may be in. You must make the increases a bit meatier --- without sacrificing good form.

The feedback here comes when you fail to hit the prescribed increases.

Best,
Scott
(*as opposed to a I'm-Really-In-Tune-With-Every-Aspect-of-my-Body biofeedback routine)
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

simon-hecubus wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
...I see what your saying now, but load increments have nothing to do with it, the increment is done AFTER what you did 'today', if today caused growth, it caused growth, then next time you increase 'as needed'. If you raise the load a big increase on May 25th, that isn't going to affect the growth potential from the workout you did on May 21st.

Of course it won't affect the growth potential from the previous workout. I'm not looking at the last workout, I am concerned with the growth potential from the entire cycle.

Let me ask this: How do you KNOW that the previous workout caused growth?! I put it to you, that going into the next workout you do NOT know and will not know until you attempt the exercises with any Rep or Weight increases you have in mind.

If you have a problem with automatic/prescribed rep & weight increases with each workout, I can understand that. BUT, the book routine that you provided was indeed one of those routines and I just ran with that concept.
____________

With the caveat that we are talking about a Prescribed Increase Routine*, I am here to tell you that micro increases will not break your body out of any homeostasic rut that it may be in. You must make the increases a bit meatier --- without sacrificing good form.

The feedback here comes when you fail to hit the prescribed increases.

Best,
Scott
(*as opposed to a I'm-Really-In-Tune-With-Every-Aspect-of-my-Body biofeedback routine)


I do see what your saying, but I'm sure at least IMO, isn't exactly true.

Your saying, a small increase in load isn't enough to stimulate over the previous.

Here is why that isn't quite accurate.

If you do, for example 100x8 on Monday, then do 105x8 on Thursday, and both have the same RPE, that means you accomodated exactly the increase you had from the previous workout. If you were to increase to 110, then you' only get say 6 or 7 reps. So 110x7 would be the same stimulus as 105x8.
You can't do more than you 'can do'.

Also, the volume and actual work is the 'stimulus' not the load increase. It's load x reps x volume.

Your assuming the person 'could do' 110x8 but limited things to 105x8. If that is what happened, then yes, the stimulus would be lesser. But the next workout after would be 110x8 , so it would only slow gains down, but over time, the person would still get there.

It's exactly how so many people got a LOT stronger , albeit slowly, with John Christy type setups.
Open User Options Menu
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy