this is my outline for it

i believe warmups should require as little effort as possible in order to preserve energy for the ONE all out set.

so, using arbitrary numbers

if your working weight is 250

warmup 1 100 pounds x10-15 reps

warmup 2 150 pounds x6 reps

warmup 3 200 pounds x3 reps

working set 250 pounds


for a higher working weight the setup is the about the same, although you may want to do an additional warmup so instead of 3 warmups you may do 4 or even 5 which will also depend on your joint health as poor joints require more warmups IMO.



so i just thought id put this up because i saw a thread in bodybuilding about it but i often feel like im wasting my time trying to talk to people there because i cant tell how serious they are. also since more and more people are moving into the the "one all out set/pyramid" type training i figured id offer an outline on how you should warm up for it that way people arent doing sets of 10 of a weight only 40 pounds lighter than their working weight.

anyone else can feel free to drop their own warm up styles if they wish. this is just the way i like to do it and it really works for me.

If (if) one wants to do things on the philosophy you have described, personally my method for doing so is as I've described elsewhere recently and you've probably read:

1) Extremely light weight, such as 15% RM, for sets and reps that seem appropriate. Not taken to the point of being fatiguing. Sole point is to get blood flowing and some warming. I often do about 30 reps total (might be just one set, might be two or three. Quick rest.) It need not be exactly 15% -- somewhat heavier is fine but the point is not to be doing anything at all fatiguing, but rather to get in a good amount of reps and motion with essentially no draining effect at all.

2) 50% 1RM for 5 reps.

3) If weight is substantially over 60% 1RM - then 60% 1RM for 1 rep

4) If weight is substantially over 70% 1RM - then 70% 1RM for 1 rep.

5) If weight is substantially over 80% 1RM - then 80% 1RM for 1 rep.

This is not so different from yours really. I don't know what percent 1RM your example working set is at: let's say it's 80%.

If so then your first warmup is at 32% 1RM. Personally I think that is more than necessary for the initial task at hand but if it suits you, then no need to change. But I would be doing it with the empty bar in this example, or with a dinky 10 lb plate on each side. (Seriously - though I know it looks comical.)

Your second is very close to my 5 reps at 50%. Basically the percentage is about the same but you do one more rep. Again, if that suits you, very good.

You then go up in an increment of 50 lbs. I'd go up about 30 lb in this example. For example I'd probably have done 155 for 5 (in the example where the 250 lb was 80% 1RM), then 185 for 1, 215 for 1, and then done the set at 250. So I'd have had more individual sets leading into it, but the same total reps, actually.

Definitely in the same general category.

Now, that is if the situation is one of aiming for the philosophy you describe. In many instances I think it's productive for the working-up sets to also be hard enough to themselves have training effect, not just warming-up effect.

Incidentally, the parts that I describe from 50% 1RM on up are not original to me, but are unaltered from the old-time great, Doug Hepburn.

The extreme light weight initial warmup is in the event of it being the first exercise for the muscle group, and then only if thought beneficial. It is not as if I do this (or the rest) for every exercise. It is for when the philosophy you describe is what is being aimed for, AND when a warmup seems called for. Which often isn't the case, particularly when doing following exercises for the same bodypart. E.g., I warm up thoroughly for deadlifts, but then not at all for Romanians, but then do the Hepburn-type warmup for good mornings, but it does not need the high rep initial step, as the muscles are already pumped.

If I was doing 250 on a movement, there's no way I'd start at 100 lbs, unless it was my very 1st exercise and I'm using it to warm-up in general.

C_C Pmed me today about this, and I use smaller increments.

Going by your 250 example here's how I might do it, assuming 8 reps is the goal.

175x8

200x8

225x8

250x8


to me starting lower isn't a challenge at all, I don't feel I'm waring myself out this way either. I'm open to feedback though.

What you describe is a fine and productive way to train but is not under the same philosophy.

Or if that philosophy is what you want to do, then personally I don't think your plan is in accord with that philosophy. You are doing more work in the warmup than is required for best performance in the final set with 250. And if 8 reps was all you can do with 250, then 8 reps with 225 also has training effect in its own right, IMO. (As, to a dwindling degree, at least some of the other sets performed.)

Your increment size is about the same as what I would do. But to prime the muscles and nervous system for the weight that will ultimately be handled, I do think Hepburn was right that, past the 5 reps at 50%, and assuming being warm and the blood flowing going into the 50% warmup, singles are all that's needed in subsequent working-up sets. I wouldn't expect substantial training effect from them though. So for this reason it's entirely reasonable to not want to do that.

However, I can do more total exercises with a warmup such as I've described than I could with what you've described. I could probably do half again as many exercises for same effect on recovery. So there's a non-zero cost to doing 8 reps for each of those warmups.

Personally, with adequate rest I could do the same reps in the work set either way.

But I could do more exercises for the bodypart with the type of warmup I described, each getting one all-out work set. I would be used up quicker -- in terms of number of exercises that could be done -- with jehova's approach.

That isn't to say that it isn't also completely valid to not want to do the more exercises, and to leave it at the fact that jehova's approach also gave additional real work on the way up. Which is a benefit in its own right, and not a small one.

i can list actual numbers from my workouts

for a decline bench press i will use something like this

135 x10-15 (depends how i feel)

185 x6 OR 225x3-5

225 x4

275 x6-8


for a deadlift

225x5-8 ( i dont like going high reps on deadlifts for warmups)

315x5

405x2

455x7


=================================================

i would also like to add that i train on a system where i do TWO diffrent lifts for each muscle group. on the first lift i will use a warmup but on the second i will not. this is because the goal of prepping the body in terms of blood flow, CNS prep and joint/tendon activation have been achieved.

By way of further illustration:

And to be clear, this is just illustration. The method I described is derived from practice, not from the below or any other math-or-reasoning type approach. But there's a possibility that the analysis might help illustrate why the method I described allows doing more exercises than the method jf described.

As an imperfect approximation, all else being equal, doing more lb-feet of work means more for the body to recover from. Now, if we're talking different exercises, sure, some are more draining for a given amount of actual, literal work (weight through total distance) and there's a difference between say doing 10 sets with 80% the weight one could have used for those reps vs doing 8 sets with 100% of the weight that was possible for those reps, but as an approximation the "Power Factor" approach does illustrate workload.

So how much actual work is done in the approach I described? Let's say the ROM is one foot. And let's say that 8 reps will be done in the workset (which probably means it was a little lighter than 80% 1RM but we won't change my warmup figures as the difference would be small.) Let's also say that the extreme light weight pumping set wasn't necessary, as is fair to say because jf in his example showed no need for it.

The total work then, with the method I described is:


(150 x 5) + 180 + 210 + (250 x 8) = 3140 ft lb

The total work with the method jf described is:

(175 x 8) + (200 x 8) + (225 x 8) + (250 x 8) = 6800 ft lb

Is it any wonder then that I can do half again or perhaps even twice as many exercises with equally hard and thoroughly worked top sets for same recovery ability?

Yes the calculation method is imperfect. It is only illustrative. The important thing is the fact that more exercises can be done with the Hepburn-style warmup.

However, as previously said, IMO there was training effect in the jf approach that is lacking in the approach I described. So it's not that the extra ft lb of work went to nothing -- while fewer exercises can be performed, more was gotten out of this one exercise done this way than would be the case with the approach I described. Want a biological reason? Perhaps because there was more microtrauma to muscle fibers in the more traditional ramping approach jf described. (Of course, one could get it instead from the more exercises one is now enabled to do. Different philosophies.)

This is pretty much the same way I go about warming up, except mine is possibly even less fatiguing.

Arbitrary numbers, working weight say 250;

40 x 20-30

100 x 5

150 x 2

200 x 1

225 x 1

250 x 5 (or whatever)

The first set to just generally get myself prepared, and help my joints "wake up". Then I tend to hit singles on the way up to my working set, just to get myself ready mentally and physically for my working weight, without exerting barely any effort.

Yup, same philosophy, and as you say should be even less of a draw on resources.

The extreme light pumping set is the same, and the singles are essentially the same. The difference is your doing the 5 reps at about one-third 1RM rather than about one-half, and then doing a double at the approximate 50% 1RM point. That indeed is less actual work.

The reason I use the specifics I do really is simply that of trying the method of Doug Hepburn, liking it, and leaving it at that. I wouldn't be surprised if on trying your method I might think it better for me, at least for some exercises. I will try it.

Well, you all probably know what I do for warm-ups anyway...

For a hypothetical 405*8 as my work-set on some random exercise if it's the first exercise for that muscle-group in that particular session:

Bar*12
135*8
225*5
315*3
work set (405*8) or another warm-up like 355*1 if I feel the need.

Often it's 8, 5, 3, 1 (keep doing 1 rep sets or doubles until I reach working weight), but sometimes I do 1-2 reps more per warm-up... That totally depends on how I feel that day.

I tend to start additional exercises off with higher weight (around half or so of my working weight) as I'm already warm then... Unless it's a completely different muscle-group or so.
All pretty basic stuff.

I originally kept reps on warm-ups roughly the same, but I found this more pl-like method to be easier to progress on.

And of course the amount of warm-up sets and reps depend on how much weight I'm using on that exercise and how easily the muscle-group is injured (hamstrings get more warm-ups in general, so do triceps if I'm doing any kind of extension/pullover... Shoulders also get a little more).


I've tried other approaches... And found them less suited to my needs.

Many only seem to do one or two warm-ups at half or so of their working weight... Maybe ok for a beginner, but I can lift way more on my working set(s) when using the method outlined above and it also simply feels a lot better.

looks like while our methods may be slightly different they are all about the same in a broad sense.

all contain 1 light weight high rep set to start

and work downwards; as weight increases reps decrease

The science behind my warm-up protocol for chest day.

Step 1: Sit in truck playing hard hitting music. After a "Come on motherfucker!" I walk towards the gym with a mean look on my face

Step 2: Stretch

Step 3: Throw 135 on the BB flat bench and rep it out for 20, then 16 or grab the 70lbers and rep them out at the same rep range

Step 4: Working sets. 100,110,120,130lb DBs and sometimes when I take a "good" dose caffeine and I'm in the zone I go for a quick burial with the 140s.

I tend to err on the side of doing too few warmups instead of too many. As long as the first one or two get the area going I don't stress about it.

Any more than five jumps in weight means you lift stupid heavy or you're fucking around too much. Trying to bust PRs in terms of reps or weights is far more important than having lots of "working sets" UNLESS it's a second/assistance exercise on a neglected bodypart.

For example, chest/shoulders/tri's were-

BB (LOW PIN) BENCH
135x12
200x6
245x11 RP

SEATED DB PRESS
35x10
70x18 RP

WEIGHTED DIPS
BWx12
BW+45x21 RP

I tend to be quite daring in my weight jumps on all but the most technical of exercises.

Yea - I keep it pretty simple too. I agree with JF and Live - I just throw on more weight when I can hit a certain # of reps before failing. And I definitely ramp up in a similar way to an all out work set.

Nothing wrong with working from percentages and 1RM - heck, I'm meticulous in chem lab and love to geek out on numbers and science - however, I don't think that the approach Live uses necessarily indicates that he's incredibly stupid, as Bill suggested....

The approach did not. I thought I was quite clear in my response to his initial post that I treated his posted approach quite respectfully and had a good opinion of it.

It was his response as well as other posts of his that convinced me that he is stupid.

I very, very rarely accuse anyone of it, but it does happen that some people actually are.

Not that this was the major thing that convinced me, but, boo-hoo, it's too fucking mentally hard to cut an actual or estimated 1RM in half, then for working up from there, add increments of approximately 1/10th of the 1RM value? E.g., if 1RM is about 315 then start with say 155 and go up in increments of say 30 lb?

That's just the beginning of the hopeless dumbness. No need to go on about it, though.

And he is in no position to object that remarks concerning the author of a post are out of place or inappropriate. That would be hypocritical if he did. And so there's no reason to worry that he was treated unfairly -- though in general even if a person were demonstrating obvious and clear stupidity I would address only the points, not point out the more general cause. But he had chosen a different path which I believe merited the response I gave.

'Nuff said; I really don't want to argue this one. In fact the guy is the sole dweller in my Ignore list precisely because I don't want to go back and forth on it, and have no interest in reading further meritless arguing from him. Not worth it.

But your reading it as that I was calling his warmup method stupid just was not what it was about, so I wanted to clarify that.