View Single Post
  #10  
Unread 02-01-2018, 09:02 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimike View Post
Well, I didn't know the history of this method of training to be honest there probably isn't a lot of fairness in who gets credit for what.

I was genuinely curious about whether the newer type of RPT was ok. I really enjoyed that method of training before and it ticks the boxes I like to do,eg. is high intensity, quick and simple but I found I stalled at about the lifting numbers I'm at currently multiple times doing that method so I won't be doing it going forward as a mass gaining program (I am doing it currently for a month long mini-cut but i'll stop after that for sure).

I'm pretty clueless about intermediate programming (aside from bits and pieces)and the interaction of volume, frequency and intensity in training programs so I was hoping to get a feel for what more knowledgeable folk were saying. Lots of intermediate programming templates are quite confusing I find with large 1RM percentage ranges, RPE's and tapering down volume etc. I would love RPT to be a decent option for the mid-intermediate and up as it's soooo simple to implement but I figure it's still not there from the sounds of it.

Yes, I agree IF and RPT is overrated and aren't magic but sometimes it's hard for average joe sort-of-recreational lifters to accurately weigh up the pro's and con's of various programs in comparison to one another.
Who cares. It's a way of training. It works for Martin. Maybe for his successful clients. Try it, don't try it. Low volume, high intensity burns people out. But we all know you're doing whatever you've already decided to do.
Reply With Quote