Old School 5X5 Squat Workout

[Will Brink]

What's your professional background?

Besides the various companies I do consulting work for in the bbing/fitness industry?

I have been a writer for almost two decades and have been published in a wide variety of publications, including: Muscle Media, MuscleMag International, Lets Live, Muscle n Fitness, Life Extension magazine, Muscular Development, Townsend Letter for Doctors, IronMan, Inside Karate, Tactical Response, Exercise for Men Only, Physical, Power, Body International, Oxygen, Penthouse, Fitness RX, Big, as well as others over the years and in many different languages. I had a monthly column in MuscleMag International called “The Intake Update” for a decade.

Many of my articles can be found on the major fitness/health/bodybuilding web sites, such as bodybuilding.com and hundreds of other sites. Go to the homepage of this site: http://www.ironmagazine.com/

Scroll down a bit, and there I am...

I travel to speak as an invited guest at conventions and scientific conferences. For example, I spoke at the GNC convention about processing issues of whey proteins and the contaminants found in creatine (see articles on the BrinkZone site for more info on that). Prior to that I was in Canada speaking about the medical benefits of whey protein at the University of Alberta at a symposium on functional foods. I have been interviewed on a variety of topics for Fox News and other networks over the years.

Although I don’t consider myself a researcher in the classic sense (as I don’t work at a research oriented lab) I have been involved in some research, including:

Brink W. Task specific supplements for Special Operations Forces and law enforcement tactical teams. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. 3 (1)S1-S29, 2006. (www.theissn.org))

J.Antonio, C.M. Colker, G.C. Torina, Q. Shi, W. Brink, and D. Kalman. “Effects Of A Standardized Guggulsterone Phosphate Supplement on the Body Composition in Overweight Adults: A pilot study.” J. of Current Therapeutic Research. Vol. 60, Number 4, p220-227, 1999.

D.Kalman, C.M. Colker, J. Antonio, G.C. Torina, W.D. Brink, Q., Shi. “Effects Of A Guggulsterones Extract-Phosphate Salt Based Product on Body Composition And Energy Levels In Overweight Adults.” Medicine n Science In Sports n Exercise. Vol.31, Number 5 (S), 1999.

Antonio J, Kalman D, Colker C, garza T, Brink W, Swain M. “Effects of Creatine-Pyruvate vs. creatine monohydrate on exercise performance.” J.Strength Cond Res . 1999;13(4):a422.

C.M. Colker, D. Kalman, W.D. Brink, L.G. Maharam. “Immune Status Of Elite Athletes: Role Of Whey Protein Concentrate.” Medicine n Science In Sports n Exercise. Vol. 30, Number 5 (S), 1998.

Along with Karils Ullis MD, Tim Ziegenfuss PhD, Rick Cohen MD, Bill Roberts, and yours truly, we had a Letter to the Editor published in JAMA regarding our criticism of a study done on the controversial supplement androstenedione. See:

K. Ullis, T. Ziegenfuss, B.Roberts, WD.Brink, R. Cohen, “Letter to the Editor: Androstenedione.” JAMA. February 9th, p 742. 2000

Chapters Written:

“Diet” ( Chapter 5 ) of Sports Supplement Encyclopedia (Edition One) edited by Jose Antonio PhD and Jeff Stout Ph.D. Published by Nutricia Institute of Sports Science 2001. Data based chapter on how athletes can structure their diet to gain lean body mass.

“The Supplement Pyramid” (Chapter 11) of the Sports Supplement Review 3rd Edition by Bill Phillips. An up to date chapter on various supplements for sports and bodybuilding nutrition used by athletes and how to prioritize them in order of importance. Published by Mile High publishing. 1997

That's a small sample of my background. How about you sport?

Make a statement like

Like what, that I think the statement he made, that he didn't support, is wrong?

that and prepare to back it up....or did they not teach you that in ACE course book?

Again, the most basic tenet of science: the burden of proof is on those who make the claims which you either ignored, or didn't understand. His statement/claim is wrong, and the burden is on him to support it, not the reverse. That's basic science 101.

Can't deal with that, move on.

 

[juggernaut]

mememememeememememeememememememeemememememeememememeemememememeeeeeeee.

Fixed.

 

[juggernaut]

I still think you're full of shit, simply because you haven't disproved any of your allegations.

 

[Will Brink]

Fixed.

Ah, so you asked a specific question on my background, got an answer showing it's extensive (far more so then yours no doubt) and the best you can do is the above? Your parents must be proud.

Good luck kid.

 

[juggernaut]

cant argue with your me-theories.

 

[Gazhole]

I think taken literally the statement "any rep range" is misleading. I don't think anybody is claiming the extremes of 1x1 and 100x100 are any good at all. I think what Phineas meant was that the traditional "use ONLY 3x6-12 for mass" gym advice isn't true either.

I have no data either, but like i said - i've gained mass on 3x5, 4x15, 3x3, and 8x4. So long as you are progressively overloading your system in SOME way, and eating in a surplus, adaptation (and therefore mass) will occur.

Besides, just saying a rep range doesn't tell you shit about the intensity, tempo, or other variables relevant to that rep range.

5x5 at your 15RM probably wont build muscle either, but what if you extend the tempo to 6x6x? Now each rep is lasting about 14 seconds and a set of 5 is gonna be over 2 minutes TUT - something that has been shown to have a great impact on growth stimulation.

Its reasons like this that are behind statements like "rep range isn't so important", because to a certain extent its only a piece of the stimulus thats actually causing the growth.

Now lets stop the bitching and name calling for fucks sake.

 

[Will Brink]

I think taken literally the statement "any rep range" is misleading. I don't think anybody is claiming the extremes of 1x1 and 100x100 are any good at all. I think what Phineas meant was that the traditional "3x6-12 for mass" gym advice isn't true either.

I have no data either, but like i said - i've gained mass on 3x5, 4x15, 3x3, and 8x4. So long as you are progressively overloading your system in SOME way, and eating in a surplus, adaptation (and therefore mass) will occur.

Besides, just saying a rep range doesn't tell you shit about the intensity, tempo, or other variables relevant to that rep range.

5x5 at your 15RM probably wont build muscle either, but what if you extend the tempo to 6x6x? Now each rep is lasting about 14 seconds and a set of 5 is gonna be over 2 minutes TUT - something that has been shown to have a great impact on growth stimulation.

Its reasons like this that are behind statements like "rep range isn't so important", because to a certain extent its only a piece of the stimulus thats actually causing the growth.
.

All fair and accurate comments and I agree with the above. Rep ranges are only one of many variables (albeit an important one...) to increasing strength, LBM, etc. There's no magic rep ranges, but, there are rep ranges that appear more effective for getting a specific response, and a well designed program/programs will incorporate the rep ranges that fit the goals of the trainer best. Ergo, a person looking to increase muscular endurance wouldn't do a program that called for 1RMs all the time, and the person looking to gain strength wouldn't follow the program designed for muscular endurance, and so forth.

 

[juggernaut]

I think taken literally the statement "any rep range" is misleading. I don't think anybody is claiming the extremes of 1x1 and 100x100 are any good at all. I think what Phineas meant was that the traditional "use ONLY 3x6-12 for mass" gym advice isn't true either.

I have no data either, but like i said - i've gained mass on 3x5, 4x15, 3x3, and 8x4. So long as you are progressively overloading your system in SOME way, and eating in a surplus, adaptation (and therefore mass) will occur.

Besides, just saying a rep range doesn't tell you shit about the intensity, tempo, or other variables relevant to that rep range.

5x5 at your 15RM probably wont build muscle either, but what if you extend the tempo to 6x6x? Now each rep is lasting about 14 seconds and a set of 5 is gonna be over 2 minutes TUT - something that has been shown to have a great impact on growth stimulation.

Its reasons like this that are behind statements like "rep range isn't so important", because to a certain extent its only a piece of the stimulus thats actually causing the growth.

Now lets stop the bitching and name calling for fucks sake.

what you said...but I like name calling, mommmmm!

 

[Phineas]

I think taken literally the statement "any rep range" is misleading. I don't think anybody is claiming the extremes of 1x1 and 100x100 are any good at all. I think what Phineas meant was that the traditional "use ONLY 3x6-12 for mass" gym advice isn't true either.

I have no data either, but like i said - i've gained mass on 3x5, 4x15, 3x3, and 8x4. So long as you are progressively overloading your system in SOME way, and eating in a surplus, adaptation (and therefore mass) will occur.

Besides, just saying a rep range doesn't tell you shit about the intensity, tempo, or other variables relevant to that rep range.

5x5 at your 15RM probably wont build muscle either, but what if you extend the tempo to 6x6x? Now each rep is lasting about 14 seconds and a set of 5 is gonna be over 2 minutes TUT - something that has been shown to have a great impact on growth stimulation.

Its reasons like this that are behind statements like "rep range isn't so important", because to a certain extent its only a piece of the stimulus thats actually causing the growth.

Now lets stop the bitching and name calling for fucks sake.

Exactly.

I didn't mean 200 rep sets would work. Then again, who knows, maybe it could???

As Gaz said, muscle growth comes from forcing your muscles to work beyond their comfort zone, but in a strategic manner. The whole "this rep range" and "that rep range" is meaningless, as, again as Gaz said, the rep range is only one of countless training variables that together determine relative intensity.

There are even some variables that can't be accounted for. You can tell someone to lift "x" weight for "x" reps and sets at "x" tempo with "x" rest intervals with "x" supersets, etc...you can make the training so incredibly complex, but what if their form isn't correct? For instance, on a bent-over BB row let's say someone was following a 3/0/2 tempo, and they slowly pull for a few inches (let's admit this is the easy part of rows) but then jerk the BB up so that they can bring their lats together for that "squeeze" newbies think is so important. Though the tempo was technically followed, I would NOT consider this a quality lift. Control is an immensely important training variable that can't be measured. Tempos can be cheated, and we all know that.

There is no one way to muscle development. There are countless paths. The common denominators, however, are (1.) progressive resistance overload, (2.) adequate recovery for muscles and CNS, and (3.) balanced diet with a caloric surplus.