The trick is to vary the rep ranges from workout to workout so that you don’t overload any particular rep range. Doing singles all the time could make CNS recovery tough and doing high-volume all the time can make you sore and such. The idea is to mix it up so that you work all pathways at separate times – it’s sort of a superset on a grander scale.

I typically superset squat with a pull (rows, chins) and DL with a push (OHP, dips, bench). So I do one set of DL, one set of press, then back to DL, then back to press. So it’s always done as a superset.

Definitely no fee for reading my blog! A lot of the SL guys went to http://ironstrong.org/ so check that out if you haven’t gone yet.

IronStrong looks great — I’ll be there!

Congratulations on the 500lbs deadlift!
what’s your total now?

a bunch of folks at ironstrong.org would like to know… you’d be very welcome to drop in whenever you’ve got the time to share updates…..

Yes, they are singles.

For today I did, 345lbs x 2 x 1, 335lbs x 2 x 2.. and a rough 320lbs x 1

I realized that if I go max every workout I get burned out quickly. The intensity is certainly there but the volume isn’t.. Should I do a max day once per week only?

Do you also do a squat w/ super set day and a deadlift w/ super set day?

Oh yeah, after squats, I did 175lbs x 2 x 2 push press, 165lbs x 2 x 3, 150lbs x 5, 130lbs x 5 strict press..

Thanks Keenan! Hope you won’t let me pay for this blog lol!

Sorry to hear that. Any chance you’ll join up as a gold member?

Ok, for squats you did 330x2x1 — is that two sets of singles at 330? If so, then that would be the correct progression and you’re doing the double RPs exactly right.

Also, good job on going 1,3,5 because you started with singles. 1,2,3 isn’t enough reps and usually singles burn you out anyway, so I typically go 1,3,5 on max day or even add an extra drop set of 8-12 reps at the very end.

Did you superset your squats with anything? A press or chins or something? It’s not necessary, but I personally enjoy supersetting.

That’s some great squatting, man. You’re catching up to me fast!

I’ve been banned by SL because I wasn’t gold. I really want to follow your footsteps.

I did, 330lbs x 2 x 1, 300lbs x 2 x 3 and 270lbs x 2 x 5 for squats.. am i doing it all wrong?

I think we face a very real threat from religious fundamentalists, but I think the magnitude of that threat is blown out of proportion and I also think that our foreign policy serves to provoke additional anger and retaliation above and beyond what we already would face. Certainly, we’ve lost many more Americans *because* of our forays abroad. It is much easier for the terrorists to target us there, and if we did remove all our troops from Arab lands they would have fewer targets and a much tougher time getting to us.

I don’t believe the scale of danger presented by terrorism would be absolute if we continue our policies and non-existent if we stopped. I think, realistically, our danger level is “9″ out of 10 if we keep up our policies and maybe a “3″ if we don’t. It’s not either/or — there is a range of dangers that we face.

I should also add that the things that we’re doing in terms of foreign policy directly contradict our principles. The constitution requires a congressional declaration of war, yet we don’t have one for any of the countries we have troops in. One aspect of free markets is free trade, yet we placed protectionist economic sanctions against Iran. Our founders warned us not to get involved with other countries, yet we offer military support to Israel and most of Europe.

I don’t think that if we withdrew support from Israel (who, with an elite fighting force and dozens of nukes can take perfectly good care of themselves) that the extremists would suddenly stop trying to attack us. But I believe that they would be somewhat less likely to attack us. And doing that would not be capitulating to their demands; it would be a return to what we claim to stand for. Most of all, I think that we need to end sanctions with Iran and start trading, immediately, with countries that harbor terrorists. The Cold war didn’t end due to military spending — it ended when the communists got a taste of the freedoms and prosperity that we can provide. By contrast, we’ve kept an embargo on Cuba and it’s still a communist stronghold. It’s also important to realize that extremism doesn’t do well when people are free and prosperous: http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/08/who-really-kept-us-safe-after

If we want to stop the terrorist threat, we need to immediately *reverse* our policies and begin trading and communicating with those Arab countries as much as possible. Will some still want to attack us in the mean time? I have no doubt — constant vigilance is the price of freedom. Let’s continue to be alert for domestic attacks using legal means of surveillance. But I think free trade and peace are the answers in the long run and will do far more to diffuse extremism than more aggression.

Do you think if we withdrew support for Israel (a perfectly legal and internationally recognized sovereign state) that the Islamofascists would suddenly be our friends and accept our way of life as equal and sharing the same legitimacy as their own? Or even further do you believe that if only Israel didn’t exist at all and all the Jews were magically transported to Mars the jihad set would suddenly hold hands and sing Kumbaya (what the fuck ever spelling) with all the infidels in the world?

I agree we’ve over extended ourselves militarily but I reject that this has somehow forced the actions of the Death Cult (Islam) against us. I’m all for bringing troops home, especially from all the bullshit places we provide security to (Korea, Japan, Europe, etc.) and I reject that it is our role to build nations and bring democracy to places where the culture (esp. religious culture) is incompatible with free society; but can’t we stop pretending that they don’t like us because we’re hanging out in their neighborhood? Can’t we be a bit more honest and say that it’s because their fucking religion dictates that they hate us (and all the other non-muslims and indeed muslims of other sects; see N. Africa).

Aside from this “it’s our fault” premise of yours, the rest of the piece is kick ass.

(Posted here by special request.)

From the standpoint of total limits to lifetime development, I think we should all aim to meet and then exceed the natural potential. But the truth is, most people will never come close to MEETING the natural potential projected by Butt’s formula, let alone exceeding it. Too many guys think that they are at 10% BF when they are at 15% (or even 20%) and not very strong. 10% is pretty damn lean — it’s not much more than what “golden-era” bodybuilders use to compete at, when you account for dehydration. For a 200 pound guy, 20% bodyfat is 40 pounds of fat. If he thinks he is only 10 or 12 percent, he is overestimating his muscle mass by 15-20 pounds — no wonder he thinks the limits are wrong. I think that the first goal should be to meet this limit, which is no small feat. It will take most people 5-10 years of dedicated lifting to reach their projected potential, assuming they make mistakes along the way.

If you’re an average dude (5-9 to 5’11 with normal frame size) you’ll be pulling at least 600, squatting at least 500, and benching well over 300 before you come anywhere near this “limit”. Focus on getting strong and staying lean — let the rest take care of itself.