More Reps On Gripper Does Not Mean More Strength.

[mooinabc1]

If you can rep the #2 ten to 12 reps.

It time to the strengthen the gripper.

Files gripper, get the master gripper or get super master gripper.

Or use the strap holds and increase the weight each day.

Or get a gripper stronger then the one you can do reps on.

Force close the #3.

Reps are cool once in awhile but not all the times.

I conbine reps with strap hold.

And gripper stronger then the #3

My gripper is modfied and stronger then the ELite bb its cool for

gripping but failed to mention the gripper has extended handles.

[JasonL]

Hmm, 700x1 400x20 to different ball parks. I knew a guy once who could do 600x20 and he thought you could do 700x1. He tried and went down all the way and did not move!!. Reps 1-5 call on totally different motor units, etc. than the 20 rep stuff. True, both are strong, but different.

400x20 will not help one with their 1 rep max, no way. Again comes down to specialization on the nervous system. Body becomes its function. If you do high reps, thats what you will get better at and vice versa.

[willardjamessloan]

one quick question if you train to postive failure you are sore for days. then how can you participate in other sport the next day. if I am sore from lifting my judo stinks the next day. is this why the eastern block lifters do multi sets of singles. say like the bulgarians. I believe no major olympic lifting powers train to failure. why can someone explain

[John Wood]

So, in essence, we are comparing apples to oranges here. I can rep out all day long, but what is going to help me when I step on that platform under 650 pounds? And, John could do heavy weights for low reps-but he does not believe in the 1-rep max, so what will help him in the long run?

Its not as though I think about a 1 rep max like I think about the Easter Bunny, I just think that since you can in fact increase your 1 rep max by safer means, why not do so? And yes, if you are a power lifter Olympic lifter or Strongman you must train for the demonstration of 1 rep max strength because that is the whole point of competition. If you want to train with heavy singles on a consistant basis for the grip, I sure wont try to stop you, but chances are, injury will. Repping out all day long will do little for you, unless those reps are performed in such a manner as to allow growth to occur. Doing rep after rep and set after set with weights which are well within your ability level will do very little for you.

Let's look at an example. We have all seen Dr. Ken Leistner (spl?) bang out 20+ reps with over 400 pounds in the squat. While that, in and of itself, is a phenominal feat, it really does nothing to show "muscular strength" as defined above. Though Dr. Ken can do 400+ for 20 reps, can he do a single with say 700? Not likely. As a matter of fact, I would bet money that he could not. So, is he strong? Yes. However, take a powerlifter who trains exclusively for muscular strength and power. He can squat 700 in nothing but a belt. He tries 405 for as many reps as possible, and he only gets 6 or 7 before burning out. Is this powerlifter strong? Yes. So, the big question is, who is stronger, or, better worded, who has the most muscular strength?

400x20 will not help one with their 1 rep max, no way. Again comes down to specialization on the nervous system. Body becomes its function. If you do high reps, thats what you will get better at and vice versa.

All other things being equal a 20x 400 will equate to some 1 rep max number and thus increasing that performance from 20x400 to 30x400 or 20x450 will lead to an increase in that 1 rep max. If your goal is the heaviest possible 1 rep max, you must first get as strong as possible relative to the increasing the total force that your muscles are able to generate then practice to do so just like any other skill.

If you define "strength" by a 1 rep max then you are in fact attributing a great deal of "strength" to things that have little to do with the force that muscles are able to generate such as bodily proportions, technique increases and possibly neurological ability. A heavy 1 rep max does not necessarily indicate the greatest amount of force generated in any individual so it is a fairly poor indication of overall strength in a general population. But since that is how "strength" is measured in powerlifting contest, so be it. Notice that most successful powerlifters have roughly the same bodily proportions,Successful Benchpressers have short arms, successful deadlifters have long arms etc. To a high degree they are able to demonstrate heavier weights because of this natural advantage and not because they are necessarily "stronger."

Now, assuming someone increases their 1 rep max strength by any amount, with all other things being equal, sure he has gotten stronger but this can be measured in other ways and certainly more safer ways. But like our hypothetical increase from 10 reps to 13 reps, there can be no arguement that an increase in strength (or momentary muscular force) has in fact occured.

A 1 rep max as a measurment of strength is not necessary to anyone else but to a competitive lifter. As far as training, myself and many others have mentioned before that yes, an increase in reps does in fact make you stronger so again, as I have mentioned before, increasing strength in any sense of the word only has to do with making consistant progress throughout a sustained period of time.

Training heavy all the time is an excellent way to increase your demonstratable maximum ability, but as Rick has stated, it will most likely get you hurt. (though not always) Does "reps" work? It certainly works for me and my 1 rep maxes keep going up all the same.

[JamesG]

I would be interested in some of the routines where reps are used for grippers. I believe both can work if used properly. Im also wondering if reps are more effective for those who train with minimal or no sets.

[Bob Lipinski]

bla,

[Bob Lipinski]

I do believe higher rep sets can help, and do for many people.

However, the whole "demonstrating strength" argument does not seem to make sense to me. It seems that "demonstrating strength" on a weekly basis makes me much stronger in the lifts I want to do, as well as lifts resembling the lift I want to do.

[Anuwbius]

NSCA says anythign aboute 8-12 reps of your 1rm is strength endurence.

I believe (all from memory) about 5-8 is hypertrophy (muscles getting larger) and then 1-4 was strength and or power, which are two different things. They all cross over, but I believe thats basically it. If you want that Super high poundedge in a lift, dont train above 5 reps of your 1RM, but that doesnt mean doin muscular strength endurence training wont do anything. THey all count and mattter. To say one doesnt affect the other is silly. How often in the funtional world of lifting do you lift something that is your 1rm once, opposed to doing something well below your 1rm for a prolonged amount of time. I find myself, functionaly, more in the latter. This being said, I find that strength endurence training AND occasionaly power/strenght training (not hypertrophy) go very well together. My silly rant. Might have been said aliready, take it for what its worth.

[The Mac]

All this talk of "Building" vs "Demonstrating" Strength just gives me a headache - to me they are (or at least should be) one and the same thing.

Now, assuming someone increases their 1 rep max strength by any amount, with all other things being equal, sure he has gotten stronger but this can be measured in other ways and certainly more safer ways. But like our hypothetical increase from 10 reps to 13 reps, there can be no arguement that an increase in strength (or momentary muscular force) has in fact occured.

Surely this just means that the same amount of force can now be applied more times before exhaustion, rather than that MORE force can now be generated (I'm assuming that in both the 10 and 13 rep sets the set tempo was maintained)? No?

[Bill Piche]

Grip is different IMO.

I trained grip in my normal hard, brief, intense style and it got me nowhere.

Yes, I was puzzled.

Could I use my current approach to grip for squats? Heck no! I would be killed.

Just like Louis Simmons proclaims his methods are superior by always pointing out top lifters, I take it with a grain of salt. It's easy to advocate a training routine/method when you basically could do any routine and be very strong. Ronnie Coleman for example. He's super strong and I bet ANY routine you put him on he would be stronger than most. Does that make his routine/methods the best? I don't think so.

[Bill Piche]

It certainly works for me and my 1 rep maxes keep going up all the same.

John, you perform 1 rep max tests? I would have guessed not.

[jad]

Ronnie Coleman for example. He's super strong and I bet ANY routine you put him on he would be stronger than most. Does that make his routine/methods the best? I don't think so.

I agree. A buddy of mine and I have talked about this for years. How many times will you see some ridiculous routine in a bodybuilding magizine just because so-and-so does it and it works for them, when every bit of common sense tells you it's garbage and the guy just has awesome genetics.

[terminator]

Ronnie Coleman.......awesome genetics......yeah, that's the ticket.

For the record, I have seen a correlation between the reps I am able to do on an average #3 gripper and my ability to close harder grippers. If I can bang out more reps, I am ALWAYS stronger on the harder grippers.

There are a thousand ways to skin a cat. John's methods have merit, and are probably exceptionally well geared towards trainees who are more patient and don't want to get injured. My training partner Brian has been making astounding progress using reps on a #2, to the point where in one session he recently destroyed every #3 I own and damn near closed a hard Elite. All of his "training" consisted of reps on a #2 and a cut #2, never did a single negative......consider the #3 closes as demonstrations of his progress on max 1 rep strength.

[austinslater]

Pat,

What kind of frequency is your partner using when training with reps? ALso what was his max number of reps with the 2's? I ask as Im wondering if there is a cieling where reps wont transfer into a max close. is he getting 10+ reps for his working sets?

this has been an interesting thread . . .

[terminator]

Pat,

What kind of frequency is your partner using when training with reps? ALso what was his max number of reps with the 2's? I ask as Im wondering if there is a cieling where reps wont transfer into a max close. is he getting 10+ reps for his working sets?

this has been an interesting thread . . .

Austin,

I'll ask him for more specifics, but last he mentioned it was twice a week with as many sets of five as he can muster. He's getting REAL strong!

[jad]

Ronnie Coleman.......awesome genetics......yeah, that's the ticket.

Yeah, there might be one or two more ingredients but if they were the sole factor anybody with enough money could look like him and considering his Olympia streak that's not the case

[The Mac]

QUOTE (Wannagrip @ Oct 1 2004, 04:49 AM)

Ronnie Coleman for example. He's super strong and I bet ANY routine you put him on he would be stronger than most. Does that make his routine/methods the best? I don't think so. 

I agree. A buddy of mine and I have talked about this for years. How many times will you see some ridiculous routine in a bodybuilding magizine just because so-and-so does it and it works for them, when every bit of common sense tells you it's garbage and the guy just has awesome genetics

Whilst I don't disagree with this at all, I wonder if the "awesome genetics" allow them to not just "get-by" on the "ridiculous" routine but actually makes it ideal for them?

[kelby]

danny boy from the gripboard can close the number one gripper 42 times and still can't close the number twos. i rest my case that reps do not help with power and strength. ( sorry danny boy i am just trying to make a point. keep working on the low reps. and it is impressive to close number 1 42 times you can keep your strength for a long time)

[John Wood]

Human performance in anything depends on two factors, individual potential and quality of instruction. In the big picture, both are equally as important since all the potential in the world is useless without action and as far as instruction, you sure can't do it right if you don't know what youre doing in the first place.

There is absoluteley nothing anyone can do about genetic potential but the potential for increasing what we have been blessed with and the factors that can be in fact be changed (like an increase in muscular force)is astounding.

"No amount of muscle will help an athlete much if he or she lacks the skill to use it but no amount of muscle will hurt his skill either, instead increasing his strength will always increase his functional ability in any sport."

Can we all be the best? No. Can we all become damn strong or at least a hell of a lot stronger than we are at the present time? Absoluteley.

And this will only come about by addressing the the factors that allow this to occur via our training. It is common sense that you can't make any progress if youre hurt so if your training is in fact injuring you, which seems to be the case with many people here, then you are taking one step foreward and two steps back. Good luck in getting anywhere.

A guy like Ronie Coleman is a poor example of anything since he is literally from another planet when it comes to his potential and compound that with massive amounts of growth drugs and god knows what else and you have a monster in every sense of the word.

When it comes to competition, the individuals who excel, in most cases, are those with the best blend of genetic advantages ,strength and skill. Since we can't do anything, short of drugs, about our genetics, our only hope, is to train like hell and overcome it by just being damn stong. Look at a guy like Bruce White whos potential for grip training was damn near zero when compared to most of the "grip masters" throughout history. But he overcame it and you will be hard pressed to find anyone who can duplicate even one of his feats today let alone several, even those who have more genetic potential than any three of us put together.

How far can anyone of us go in the grip game? You can bitch all day long about the things you can't change or you can shut up and train and find out.

i rest my case that reps do not help with power and strength.

One single case is hardly proof of anything.

Danny seems to be a genetic anomaly. Congratulation on your #1 performance, thats more reps than I have even done on a #1 as far as full reps.

My guess is that you have an extremely easy #1 or a hard #2 but maybe I am totally off base?

Regardless of how many actual reps are performed, the fact of the matter is that an increase in reps, will allow you to get stronger so long as that increase comes about as a result of increases in muscular force and not technique. Now, assuming that is in fact the case, I would recommend a shift in rep range or resistance levels. Damn, theres that old progressive resistance thing again.

John, you perform 1 rep max tests? I would have guessed not.

No one knows what I do Bill.

[SqeezeMasterFlash]

Do reps make you stronger? Absolutely. My feeling is that it's only to a point.

Damn, theres that old progressive resistance thing again.

100% right John. That's what makes grippers different from anything else. I use the deadlift as an example. I can rep out 225 all day, but doing that will not allow me to deadlift 550. If I want to deadlift 550 I will progressively increase the weight until I can do it. With grippers it's a little tougher. Repping out a #1 will allow you to close a stronger #1, and perhaps a weak #2. But repping a #1 will never give you the strength to close a #3. Higher rep training works great for exercises where progress can be made gradually. But to rep a 195lb #2 to close a 280lb #3 is going to be difficult. Not impossible, but difficult. Reps are great if you have alot of "tweener" grippers, or with the ISG, anywhere you can gradually progress. If you've only got the 5 IM grippers, you're probably better off with techniques like overcrushes and BTR training.

Mentioned a ton of times, but as always everyone is different. Everyone builds strength differently. If we all built it the same way the debate of which method is best would've been settled years ago.

[mrzero]

$.02 from a newbie.

I have been able to rep my coc trainer 20®18(l) for a month now, but until two days ago I could close the #1. The change in my training was adding overcrushes instead of reps to my workout. Don't know if that means jack, but it's another data point.

[Incindium]

After a layoff from the grippers to the point the my #2 only one or two reps was hard I started doing reps with my #1 a week or two ago. I have quickly worked up to 35 reps in my right hand with #1. My number #2 closes went up to the 8-9 range for a good non fatigued set and I came a couple mm's from closing my #3 last night. I think that reps with the #1 can help especially if it is the pinkie strength and endurance that holds back your max gripper strength. I was going to move to mainly #2 closes but the gripper work seems to be aggravating my shoulder so I'm gonna stick to the reps with the #1(lots and lots of reps) for a while with an occasional set of #2 and #3 attempts and see how that works for me. I do not think this would work if I had not already worked hard gripper negatives in the past to achieve the base tendon strength to hold the gripper shut. But since I have and it is mainly a muscle strength thing at this point I think reps may to a better job while aggravating my shoulder and elbows less.

Edited October 1, 2004 by Incindium

[Bill Piche]

I think a few took my post about Coleman in the wrong sense.

It's what I call the reverse genetics argument. Someone will say their results are just based on what their routine or "hard work". When actually, if they had really applied their brains to their training they would be even that much stronger than everyone else (even though they already are). As John points out, "Human performance in anything depends on two factors, individual potential and quality of instruction". They have more potential, but it's not realized. I think there are plenty of examples walking around in professional sports and below.

[The Mac]

I think a few took my post about Coleman in the wrong sense.

It's what I call the reverse genetics argument. Someone will say their results are just based on what their routine or "hard work". When actually, if they had really applied their brains to their training they would be even that much stronger than everyone else (even though they already are). As John points out, "Human performance in anything depends on two factors, individual potential and quality of instruction". They have more potential, but it's not realized. I think there are plenty of examples walking around in professional sports and below.

So,

Do you apply this argument to Coleman?

[Bill Piche]

I think a few took my post about Coleman in the wrong sense.

It's what I call the reverse genetics argument. Someone will say their results are just based on what their routine or "hard work". When actually, if they had really applied their brains to their training they would be even that much stronger than everyone else (even though they already are). As John points out, "Human performance in anything depends on two factors, individual potential and quality of instruction". They have more potential, but it's not realized. I think there are plenty of examples walking around in professional sports and below.

So,

Do you apply this argument to Coleman?

Coleman is from Mars. He doesn't apply.