The grand experiment

One day last week when I was perusing posts on Fitocracy, I stumbled across a question about the 20-rep squat that had elicited a series of responses for many community members, most making the distinction between the kind of work that increases muscle size versus the kind that builds strength. As I am wont to do, I decided to play devil's advocate, and it's led me to my latest weight training experiment.

The question that prompted it was why athletes and weight training enthusiasts don't do the 20-rep squat more often. If it's supposed to be so great, the person asked, why are we doing five sets of five or three sets of five?

Good question. A link was provided to a study that concluded that performing three sets of high-repetitions was more effective at stimulating hypertrophy than performing fewer reps at a higher weight. The research article (will post a link as soon as I can find the original) sparked widespread skepticism across the various factions in the weight training/body building world. Many called the study flawed or pointed out that it drew far too broad conclusions from a very narrow test. All valid concerns, but what about a real-world application of the basic idea it presents?

Most of those responding to the Fitocracy post asserted that the heavier-weight, lower-rep scheme was better for building strength and that strength was the goal of the programs most of the Fitocracy members follow. Mark Rippetoe's Starting Strength, Mehdi's StrongLifts 5x5 and Jim Wendler's 5/3/1--all barbell programs emphasizing compound moments in the low-to-mid rep range--are the most popular. These programs, they argued were more effective for building strength than a high-rep scheme would be. I myself am currently following 5/3/1 with the added twist of the 20-rep-squat experiment. I followed the 5x5 program until I started to hit the wall and decided I needed to try something different.

I decided to play devil's advocate at this point. I can't help myself when it comes to matters like these. In the realm of weight training, far too many people adhere to conventional wisdom as if it's made up of etched-in-stone, immutable laws of nature. In the face of such unwavering devotion to any single idea, I become George Costanza and do the opposite.

It's not that I think the conventional wisdom in this case is wrong; it's that I know from personal experience that nothing works the same for everyone, and no one program can be a simple and complete answer. My best gains in terms of strength and size came when I defied the conventional wisdom and created my own unorthodox progression method. Ultimately, following 5x5, Wendler and whatever else I dig up, will lead to my designing an entirely new program that incorporates bits and pieces from all of them.

One point I tried to make in response to the high-rep naysayers was that they were talking about hypertrophy and strength as if they were mutually exclusive and entirely different ends. Hypertrophy and strength, I argued, go hand in hand. Common sense and a wealth of studies back me up on this. This study, for example, examined the effects of strength training in older men, concluding that "Strength gains in older men were associated with significant muscle hypertrophy and an increase in myofibrillar protein turnover." Though the aim of the study was not to investigate the relationship between strength and hypertrophy, the findings are proof of their integral relationship: strength = hypertrophy.

The position I attempted to defend was that if, as the other study had concluded, performing a 20-rep squat at a lower weight more effectively stimulates hypertrophy, then it is by definition as an effective method to build strength.

I qualify this position by acknowledging that the biggest muscles are not the strongest muscles, that bodybuilders are not necessarily great powerlifters. But certainly a person who has exercised and who has bigger muscles is stronger than the average person. Anecdotally, I attended college with a guy who was headed to the Marines for officer training. He didn't lift weights. Didn't even believe in it. He did push-ups, dips, pull-ups, lunges, bodyweight squats, etc. He was very big muscularly and he was also very strong.

If we adhered to the hard and fast rules of the lower-rep, higher weight ideas, this guy shouldn't have been that strong.

The whole discussion on Fitocracy resulted in my making the decision to be my own guinea pig (as usual). I'm experimenting with the 20-rep squat just to see how following a higher-rep scheme will affect my strength and hypertrophy gains. The fact is, I have skinny legs. I am a small-boned person with a petite, girlish frame. Yes, I sound dainty, but I have over the years packed on some muscle.

So the plan is this: I work out 4 days a week following Wendler's Triumverate plan. Fridays are squat days. Instead of performing the squats as prescribed by Wendler, I'm going to do 3-4 high-rep squats. The first set will be 20 reps at the highest weight at which I can perform 20 reps. I'm doing everything else strictly according to the Wendler 5/3/1 plan.

What will happen? I'm not really sure. But here's how I've thought it through: A few weeks back I did a 20-rep squat at 95 pounds, and it was tough to get those last few reps. The other day I did 20 reps at 115. If I can add 5-10 pounds per week to my 20-rep squat, obviously, I'm getting stronger. How is that any different from another plan where I add 5-10 pounds per week but only perform 5 reps across 5 sets? If two weeks from now I'm performing 20 reps at 145, that's a pretty big improvement over 20 reps at 95. Consider this: If I keep going and all I ever do are 20-rep squats, wouldn't it be better, assuming it can be achieved, to be doing 20 reps a 200+ pounds than doing 5? Based on calculations, my current 1RM on the squat is somewhere in the mid 200s.

One person countered my argument with the idea that I won't have any way to actually compare doing a 20-rep scheme to a lower-rep, higher-weight scheme because I can't do both at once to measure one against the other. True enough. The only thing I have to go on right now is how much I'd been squatting on the SL 5x5 plan. I was starting to push the 5-rep envelope pretty hard at 215. My all-time max on the squat was 310 several years ago. What I know for sure in dropping the weight is that I'll be able to perform the squat with perfect form through a full range of motion. If I can continue to add weight and maintain the form, then by the time I get into the upper 100 range for 20 reps, I'm convinced I will be better off than being able to do 5 reps at 215.

My dream, of course, is being able to do 300 lbs. for 20 reps. Now that would be something.