Adarq.org

Just for the record, i am with raptor here. Good fail or bad fail , it is a fail and it fucks up your CNS plus increases injury risks. Not that you should never fail or that your progress with that programming was not jaw-dropping anyway, but imho failing too often is not optimal. You could have achieved even more.
According to your preferred style of training, i think you could benefit a lot going kingfish-style:
Not daily, you will AREG the frequency. But whenever you train, build up to a heavy single ( 90%+ ) and try to evaluate how much more you had in you like he does. When you repeat a couple of +20lbs sessions, advance. If you need the volume, add a back-off set, but look again how much he reduces the weight, he singles 450lbs and does back-off with 315. Also look at how patient he is to get a PR, he might wait for weeks or months. Finally look how he AREGs the whole thing, carefully deloading and waiting for his body to recover when beat, constantly attacking when strong.
Just another possibility to consider

Quote from: Raptor on June 10, 2014, 01:10:18 am

Maybe weak quads?

Probably weak everything 

The difference between exercising and training is having a point. Exercise is done to waste
energy—burn calories—or to “blow off steam,” excess mental and physical energy, and tension.
Training is done in order to improve something—strength, endurance, neuromuscular control, etc.
Exercise is a singular event with an immediate goal.
The success of training can only be judged by changes over time in performance. Exercise doesn’t
have a point beyond the immediate session—if you leave the gym a sweaty mess, it was a good
exercise session or “workout.” If you show up every day and breathe hard and get tired and sweaty,
you may consider yourself to be successful at exercise. By contrast, training can only be judged as a
success if it works—that is, if after an appropriate amount of time you can clearly show improved
capacity for physical work. You may show up every day and push and pull and grunt and sweat and
even limp to your car—but be terribly UNsuccessful at training, if over time you are not getting any
stronger, faster, leaner, more agile, better at your chosen sport, etc. . . .
Swinging a weight around with the express goal of becoming extremely fatigued is what I would
do if I had a lobotomy. With a frontal lobotomy destroying my ability to plan over the long term, I
would believe that the goal of exercise was achieving a certain specific response—I would search
for the immediate effect of exercise. I would forget that as biological organisms, we not only respond
in the short term to a stimulus but also adapt in the long term to the sum total of stimuli we are
presented with—so long as we are able to recover. The idea that anything that made me horrendously
fatigued, to the point of nausea, vomiting, dehydration, hyponatremia, and even rhabdomyolosis,
would constitute an effective—or “killer”—workout would appeal to my zombie-like, shortterm-
thinking mind. I would strive in my workouts for “failure,” or forcing my body to stop working.
Fascinated by the immediate effects of exercise and unable to plan, I would work at top voluntary
intensity every time I exercised, always attempting to maximally disrupt my body functions. I would
also be unable to follow a program, so I would change exercises constantly, attempting to “confuse”
my body and prevent it from “getting used to” my exercise sessions. I would change aimlessly,
regardless of whether the exercises were useful or dangerous, choosing them solely based on how
bad they made me feel. . . .
If you want pain, learn Muay Thai. If you
want to learn about failure, play golf. If you
want to vomit, drink syrup of ipecac. If you
want to become stronger and more fit,
train appropriately.

To me, the sign of a really excellent routine is one which places great demands on the athlete, yet
produces progressive long-term improvement without soreness, injury or the athlete ever feeling
thoroughly depleted. Any fool can create a program that is so demanding that it would virtually kill
the toughest marine or hardiest of elite athletes, but not any fool can create a tough program that
produces progress without unnecessary pain.

A few years ago, I did some experiments with the college basketball
team that involved them only doing single, doubles, and
triples for whole body lifts (cleans, snatches, overhead squats,
bench press, standing press, etc). They got very strong but had
plenty of energy for playing basketball. They were in and out of
the weight room in 20–30 minutes.

Steve Baccari is a stickler for perfect form, and he discovered that
none of his fighters could do 5 perfect deadlift reps. Doubles hit the
spot. Some fighters with perfect technique are allowed to do triples.
Interestingly, 2 is the most preferred rep choice of the Russian
National Weightlifting Team.
Two or three is a great rep range to emphasize in an Easy Strength
program. Four or five is where neural training and muscle building meet, which means you could end up
with some hypertrophy. This is out of the question in sports like boxing.
Singles, doubles, and triples are pure nerve force training. Singles, however, are very demanding on the
nervous system. Do a few, but don’t abuse them. Dan John lifts ten times in two weeks. Only two of
these workouts are singles and only one comes close to his max.
Hence, doubles and triples rule when it comes to Easy Strength with zero mass gain. But if your sport
does not punish muscle gain, don’t be afraid to train with fives more often. Regardless, go easy on the singles.

Soviet weightlifting champion and authority Robert Roman demonstrated that recovery is rapid and
soreness is minimal after low-rep, low-set heavy lifting. Just what the doctor ordered for an athlete.
High-rep training can be painfully ineffective and inefficient in building absolute strength. A friend of Dan’s
undertook a valiant effort of pushing his deadlift to 405 x 20. When he tested his 1 RM, he got—425.
Strength and power gains are superior with heavy low-rep training. Dyachkov had two groups of athletes
squat. One repped out to failure with 70% 1 RM, and the other did low reps with near-max
weights. When it was all said and done, the high-rep group improved their squat by 13.7 kilograms and
the low-rep group gained twice as much: 26.,3 kilograms. The standing vertical jump was measured, as
well. The “reppers” improved by 8.7 centimeters and the “near-maxers” by 13.3 centimeters.