Sustainable Progression and Deadlifts

Quote:

alright, i got all that down. but lets say i wanted to use double progression, alright? does this mean that since i did 265x3 this workout, next workout i do:

Quote:

265 lbs x 5 reps x 2 sets ? does this equal double progression because if it does then ill do that (im assuming you'd want me to do that because we used to do something similar when i was on the upper-lower, right?)

Ok, let's go over this again.

There are three main ways to progress we are looking at. Of course there are more than three ways to progress in general, but we are focusing on the three basic ways to go stronger, or at least somewhat stronger because there comes a point where everyone has to focus on that one "ingredient" in order to see changes in absolute strength. But for now you, and most everyone, will see great progression with double or triple progression.

So the three ways:

1. Add weight to an existing number of sets and reps

2. Add reps to an existing number of sets (call this increasing density/volume. Adding any number of reps to any or all sets is progression. Of course if you can barely add two or three reps to a given volume it begs the question whether you are plateauing, just like anything else.

3. Add sets. Remember that adding a set alone is single progression even if that added set isn't the same number of reps as the previous sets. Now, you have to use logic here. If you were doing 3x5 and you added one more set of two, that would be less progression, lol, than adding two reps to the first set of five. You see? Becasue of the rest and recovery involved. But if you added an entire set of 5 that would represent what? A 30% increase in volume? That's a big leap in volume. Just like adding a couple of reps to each set is a big leap in volume.

I'm not good at math. I think you are probably better at this but it's useful to just simply count the reps and then look at any added reps as a percentage of the starting reps. This helps keep you reasonable because in fact many times we are making very big additions in volume without even realizing it. It doesn't seem much just looking at it but in pure mathematical terms it is in fact very large.

If you started with one tough set of 5, say very near a 5 rep maximum and then next time tried to add another set of 5....it's not gong to happen. so we can talk about fatigue and nervous system this and that all day...but look at the simple hard math. If your set of 5 is a near maximal effort, meaning you couldn't do another set even after a good rest, then adding a second set the next time around represents a ONE HUNDRED percent increase in abiltiy, at least one aspect of ability. And as far as progression goes that ain't likely to happen. Now, I bet you've never thought of it that way.

That is just something to think about when the weights get very heavy. For right now, we assume you always have plenty in the tank so that big increases have much less impact.

However, with your example, going from 265x3X1(?) to 265x5x2 begs the question of why you would do so little with 265 the first time if you have the ability to do so much more the next. Chances are, leaving that much in the tank could be a detriment just as easy as it could be a 'conservative' approach. You need to look at ways to get a training effect, or in other words, actually challenge the body, but actually creating an environment of sustainable progression.

By that example, it looks like you still haven't let go of this "waved" idea. This is really, imo, something that looks like bodybuilder mentality. Let's "shock" the body and then rest the body. In order to progress you have to have progressive overload but not overload to the point where you overwhelm recovery. So what is "waving" then? Just a way of producing a training effect less often then you would otherwise be capable of.

Instead of doing very low volume one week (very little training effect) followed by a huge increase in volume the next (big training effect with big recovery deficit) why not do a moderate volume followed by just enough additinal stimulus to create a training effect without overloading recovery. Plus you use a mixture of stimulus over time so that you are not overwhelmed by one stimulus.

So, to make all that into a real world example:

If you did 265x3 this time. It would make more sense to do, say, 265x5 or 6 and then following that with another set of 265 with whatever seems reasonable. So basically add more reps...up to 8, i'd say before adding sets. That will actually create more of a challenge but at the same time it will increase density and volume moderately together instead of increasing volume alone much more than anything else. Low rep sets don't mean much with what you are doing because you are using "submaximal" weights.

I don't know if I'm making sense so let me just give you an example of what I would do based on your last deads session.

225 lbs x 5 reps
245 lbs x 5 reps
255 lbs x 5 reps
245 lbs x 3 reps
225 lbs x 3 reps

I’d assume the 225 was really nothing much more than an acclimation. So I’d start with 255 (I’m basing this on what you said you could do, if I remember it correctly), base my warm-ups and acclimation on that, and then do one set of 255 basing the reps solely on how it was moving. If 255 felt light I would add reps to it. So last time it was 255x5 and this time it may be 255x8. But whatever reps I do it will not be too close to failure. Then

Depending on how all that felt I would decide if I wanted to add one low volume set of 265 or if I wanted to stick with 255 for another set of whatever feels comfortable.

So, just sticking with the next few workouts I might do something like this:

255x8, 265x3 to 4, backoff set
265x6x2 (so see how it’s more weight and reps but a little less dense, this is the kind of thing that creates that “environment of sustainable progression”.

The reason I would do it that way is because you had so many sets going up and down. I have no way of knowing from that what the working weight should really be. So you of course would have a better idea, but this example I think represents a reasonable “idea” from which to proceed. I don’t see any point at all of just doing 265x3. Better to proceed based on what you did before. So that would be a way of establishing a starting point while still achieving a training effect, rather than just doing 265x3 which probably wouldn’t really accomplish much other than more or less giving you a place to build from. Also remember that you are at a place that shear quality and speed, density, volume, load…it is all going to help you get better.

I can’t begin to tell you how important I think this idea of sustainable progression is. I know that you are pretty dedicated to that concept but it is abundantly clear to me that 70 percent of more of the writers base everything on the fastest possible progression. If you are a seasonal athlete then that may be the only way to go. But for you or me, we are free to do whatever the hell we want to or need to. That even means that the concept of beginner, intermediate, and advanced is really completely unique to our individual training model. So keep that in mind…..those individual training models, such as Rips concepts of beginner, intermediate, and advanced, are really only at their most useful in explaining Rip’s way of programming, and even then the individual changes everything. Another coach could have the opposite approach in programming and this a whole ‘nother general training model which would be just as useful in explaining his programming and just as potentially effective for the audience it’s aimed at. That doesn’t mean that the models are wrong or right because we both know that there is not wrong or right there is only ‘works well for me’ or ‘doesn’t work well for me’.