The Hard Part of Being Us

The Hard Parts of Being Us

We've consulted experts. We've read the work of experts. When do we become experts? 

Never. Experts sit in chairs and talk about things. That is the hard part of being us. We want to find a balance between talking about the thing and doing the thing. But I, Eric, have to talk. And sometimes my talking gets in the way of the doing. So many intangibles.

Rules

I say something, it suddenly becomes a rule. I am against methods and styles and yet I utter one sentence among a whole slew of sentences, and suddenly a method is born! Feyerabend, in "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge" said: Given any rule, however 'fundamental' or 'necessary' for science, there are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the rule, but to adopt its opposite.

I believe it, and the same thing goes for strength training. So remember, don't focus on the finger pointing the way, focus on the way.

Knowledge

The internet has created the illusion of knowledge. John Steinbech said that the gathering of knowledge does not lead to knowing. We grow into knowing through our gathering of knowledge, our synthesis of it, our experience, and our passion to reach our goals.

You can read articles and memorize facts and opinions for a thousand years without ever knowing. You can name the muscles, their positions and roles, and not know. You can criticize another's practice of strength training through your superficial knowledge of training "facts", without knowing.

The secret to knowing is to accept that we aren't grown up yet. That's the hard part of being us. When others criticize your efforts, do not let them become your enemy because you are both children and you both have growing to do. If they want to take credit away from you, give them more, besides.

Helping

When we put ourselves on a pedestal and say that we can show others, we are in danger of exalting ourselves. If we desire to help, we must be humble. We cannot teach from a height, but only eye to eye. Otherwise we are just talking and pleasing ourselves.

We are always in danger of preaching, instead of teaching. That is the hard part of being us. Remember, only a person who does not truly understand those he wishes to reach, will preach. A rich man cannot teach a poor man to live.

You've seen a man raging, and thumping his fist at the stupidity of others. Why can't others see what he sees? Wrong question. The question is, why can't he see what they see? If he could see, then he wouldn't be angry. You cannot help everybody. But you can never help anyone while judging them, and exalting yourself.

Training

Training is what you do, not what others say about it. You will never know how much weight you can lift until you lift it.

Quality Volume Training

What is missing in all this discussion and something I've repeated a few times but is seeming to be ignored is the importance of smaller jumps.

To train like this it is pretty much mandatory to have a way to make smaller jumps. If you have 2.5 lb plates use them..if not get some. Even fractional plates have a valid place for this QVT.

Everybody seems to be emphasizing 10lbs jumps. I do not understand this compulsion and staying to that kind of jump makes it much harder. So, with all this in mind, and all that has been said in mind, I am going to try to explain this one more time, the best that I can. BUT, Azzy, I want you to realize that this explanation is about "getting the most out of it" and it does NOT mean that there is necessarily a wrong way to do this if one follows the basic guidelines. So, this session looked very productive to me.

Okay, here is the part that is missing for EVERYONE:

1. QVT is not about simply building up from light to heavy as possible weights using one to three rep sets. It is about gathering as much volume in the 80% or ABOVE range while maintaining quality, etc.
2. I had said before for one to START at about 80% of a guestimated "max". If one doesn't know his max he can find a relative max on the first session and go with that..but a roundabout guess based on previous experience is fine. Because this is NOT percentage based..you just need an idea of where the weight range should be.
3. SO, starting out with some very light weight that ends up being 55% of your sorta max and then doing QVT from there is not as productive as warming and acclimating to around 80% of your sorta max and then beginning QVT.
4. This allows you not to waste volume on very light weights. You will be warming up at the beginning with slightly more reps then going to less reps, and then since you are only going as heavy as around 80% you will not need much "acclimation". However…sometimes a slightly heavier lift before one begins the actual working sets of the QVT can be helpful.
5. Once you have warmed up enough and are ready to begin at that circa 80% mark, if you ONLY use 10lbs or more increments..you will not have much room to gather volume. Okay. Smaller jumps mean MORE volume. You can build up quickly to the 85+ range and then to the 90% and a bit beyond and stay within this range for longer.
6. This is NOT about just building up to a heavy weight. You do build up to the heaviest weight you can manage with good form but that is not the goal. The goal is as a lot of volume in the 85% to 100% range. Of course, when I say that it becomes confusing because we are not really going by percentages so those numbers are projected from your guestimated max..so what we are REALLY saying is that we want as much volume as possible in the STRENGTH TRAINING Range. In other words…heavy but quality..the QUALITY doesn't just mean quality as in performance, it means quality as in intensity. Because for strength training purposes…a bunch of volume with light ass weights is not QUALITY. It's just volume.
   
   So smaller increments are good. I hardly EVER use more than 5lbs jumps for QVT.
7. The hardest thing to get is when to move one, what reps to use or not use, etc and how much volume are we going for. Well there is no set volume. When you dial it in as well as you can, the volume will always be high relative to this kind of weight range. Compare it to some typical strength training workout using rep maximums where the median intensity is 70 to 80% at most where you get 24 to 30 reps. Here if you get 18 to 24 reps in the 80% or above range..that is a LOT of volume. It's all about the median intensity. That is what your body is adapting to.

Let me harp on this a bit more because it is important to understanding why this works the way it does and how it does what it does. Like, for instance, Joe mentioned that this is a go to method for coming back to a lift after detraining it or maintaining it. Well, in fact, it can help you recover your previous levels with that lift much faster than otherwise is done. Why? Because you spend a lot of time, right off the bat in the proper range to recover that ability.

One would repeat QVT a couple to three times for this purpose. Since the "quality" is self-adjusting and you are going for good performance, not just weight on the bar, the first session will reflect where you are at at that time. And the next will build off of that and so on. So this is different than just building up from some lighter weight to your previous 1RM over a course of several weeks. You are dialing in where you stand AS OF NOW and building off that. Not guessing or dong needless backtracking.

But why this works is because of the median intensity..the overall challenge. Not how heavy the last set is.

After I hit a 515 Deadlift

Here is the deadlift plan starting with what I wrote so far which will be Tuesday's workout:

Next session work up to a relative max OR work up to at least 460 to 475. So the relative max is optional if you want to take a break from the real heavy stuff then go ahead and do so.
Then, I want you to do speed work, using doubles, with a percentage of 475. Let's use 505 as your supposed 1RM…so do speed doubles with about 375 to 380. The purpose is not really speed work the purpose is technique work. Get those shoulders squared back and really try to do some perfect lifts. But of course do them fast cuz w'ed never do them slow.
So, to recap:
Work up to a relative max OR to 465 to 475, then
375 to 380 x 2 x 8 to 10 sets (working on technique but fast)

Okay, so like I said I would like you to do some clusters but not just at random. The reason I want you to do this "speed work" is because as you work heavier and heavier I am seeing your upper back go more and more round. 

Right now it is fine but if we do not take some time to work lighter so that you can concentrate on really keeping the upper back at tight as possible you will continue to compensate with it until it start to travel down the chain to the lower back. Now, a lot of the percentage based routines that very advanced lifters do..this is the kind of things that help them…that is, all the lighter work working back up helps keep them from spiraling into injurious territory. Only they do it wrong.

So the speed work is really just a way of working back up with lighter weights with very good tecnique but at the same time working on doing it as fast as possible. However, if pulling very fast means you can't keep the back as tight then slow down.

We've gone ahead and decided that 105 will be your "max". After this first session with the 375 to 380 x 2 x 8 to 10 sets I want you to work up with percentages adding 5 percent each time. We are starting quite heavy with ~75%. So next time do around 400/80%. And then 430/85% then 455/90& then 480/95%. Obviously you will be slowing down a lot as you go up.

So you will be working up to a quite heavy 480 x 6-8 x 2 then you will be taking that and increasing the rest periods and trying for 3 reps if not more and THEN you will be taking that and doing cluster sets with it. On the first session, like I told you, I want you to warm up to a relative max if you want to OR go to 465 to 470. After that you do not need to worry about a relative max at all but it may help to warm up to a slightly heavier single or double than you plan on working with…because that may help you get more speed with the lighter weights.

Okay so here is the plan written out starting with Tuesday (next session)

1. 375 to 380 x 2 x 8 to 10 sets (working on technique but fast) 2 minutes or so rest periods
2. 400 x 2 x 8 to 10
3. 430 x 2 x 6 to 8
4. 455 x 2 x 6 to 8
5. 480 x 2 x 6

This ends the "speed work" ..then

6. 480 x 3-4 x 2 to 3 sets (using 5 minute rest period or longer as needed but cap it off at around 6.5 minutes)

Then after than after that you will be taking the 480 sets of 3 and 4 and do clusters with them..resting 15 to 20 seconds in between reps hoping to turn the 3 or 4 reps into 5 or 6 reps. So

7. 480 x 5-6 x 2 where the 5-6 'sets' are actually 5 to 5 clustered singles with 15 to 20 seconds rest between them

8. Let's see what happens in session 7 before we decide on this.

So this gets you the next 8 weeks.

Life

you'll have it when you no longer need to get it

Sudden loss of appetite....

Joe:

For you to be doing something "wrong" you have to qualify what would make it wrong. Your goals should dictate this. One diet might be correct for weight loss but incorrect for weight gain. If your goal is to gain weight then a caloric deficit is "wrong". If your goal is to lose weight then it is "right". That being said, I know your goal is to deadlift a house so I would say that having a bit of a caloric surplus is a good thing. At the same time you don't want to be the size of a house, so don't make the surplus a surplus haha. One of the beauties of strength training is that you can make decent gains without shoveling down ungodly amounts of food.

But really, if you're progressing and not getting fat I'd say your diet is fine. If you're progressing and able to cut some fat, I'd say you're doing something right.

I still object to the amount of whey you're guzzling though.

 

Eric:

Yep don't over-react to short term fluctuation in mood and appetite. Getting stressed over being stressed is not really a helpful reaction to being stressed, lol. Sometimes it is what it is. And remember regression to the mean.

Beyond that what Joe said about eating for strength versus "bodybuilding" is very important and you've heard me say the same thing a lot of times. Yes you need a lot of nutritional support for strength training but short term alterations in diet don't make that big of a difference except in performance. And that is the key…how much and for how long is performance affected? Strength training, at the end of the day, comes down to performance (rather than the size principle, eh Joe?). If you can 'perform' while dropping weight then do so. If you can perform while "eating when your hungry" then all the better, I say.

Push Pull Squat Critique

Hi All,

I recently read the following article and wondered what your guys thoughts were on this kind of set up?

Pull Press Squat

I like the fact that it includes a lot of variaty, a high frequency for each of the movement types. I also like the fact that, by virtue of it's emphasis on lower rep ranges, it is very strength focused.

I am not sure I could handle that amount of workload but I guess the only way to find out would be to try it. Just in case the link goes down here is an example month from the article:

Sample Month:

Week 1

Monday
90% – 5×1, safety bar squat
80% – 5×2, push press
70% – 5×3, hang snatch

Wednesday
90% – 5×1, barbell incline
80% – 5×2, high pull
70% – 5×3, front squat

Friday
90% – 5×1, bent row
80% – 5×2, low box squat
70% – 5×3 behind neck jerk

Week 2

Monday
70% – 5×3, safety bar squat
90 – 5×1, push-press
80 – 5×2, hang snatch

Wednesday
80% – 5×2, barbell incline
70% – 5×3, high pull
90% – 5×1, front squat

Friday
90% – 5×1, bent row
80% – 5×2, low box squat
70% – 5×3 behind neck jerk

Week 3

Monday
80% – 5×2, safety bar squat
70% – 5×3, push-press
90% – 5×1, hang snatch

Wednesday
90% – 5×1, barbell incline
80% – 5×2, high pull
70% – 5×3, front squat

Friday
70% – 5×3, bent row
90% – 5×1, low box squat
80% – 5×2 behind neck jerk

Week 4

Monday
Test: safety bar squat
Pull accessory
Press accessory

Wednesday

Test: barbell incline
Pull accessory
Squat accessory

Friday
Test: bent row
Press accessory
Squat accessory

Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Leather.

ERIC:

Look at the language in the first paragraph and then look at the last paragraph. Compare the two.

Ask yourself if the reasons given for "why" to do it have anything to do with you or strength training in general.

Here are some other questions:

1. Hard work equals success? I find doing yard work "hard work". Doesn't help my squat or deadlift. As a "formula" then that's pretty damned week

2. Being aggressive is important for success. Again, what does that mean. Notice the use of relative terms in need of qualification. Ask yourself what this has to do with "thinking" about your own strength training.

And remember that NOBODY EVER thinks they are not working hard!

Now evaluate the premises behind the routine.

Since that all seems to be more about general attitudes than about how any one person should go about getting strong, despite the presence of a template, I think this is a good accompaniement: Why Fitness, Diet, Bodybuilding, and Strength Training Programs Work

LEATHER:

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your response.

I agree that the rhetoric around the routine is annoying and of course I don't think productive strength training is anything near as simple as hard work = success.

I also agree that most of the points need qualification, for example what exactly is hard work? What constitutes agression in this context? If the percentages, reps and sets are all laid out but I don't do them with a big frown on my face am I being agressive enough?

Having said all of that… if we ignore all of the "fluff" around the routine how does the core template look to you?

If I ignore the authors reasoning and look at the routine in isolation I see the following points:

1) It provides a relatively high frequency of training for each body part/movement (higher than my current template).

2) It provides a fairly wide variaty of exercises in a given mesocycle. From reading some of your articles I understand that you generally favour using several movements rather than just limiting yourself to one or two. It also allows exercises to be switched after every mesocycle allowing for further variaty if needed.

3) The training work is concentrated at the lower rep range which I understand to be more suited to strength specific work.

4) The template attempts to manage intensity to a certain extent. I am not sure how effective this would be and it would obviously vary between individuals.

I am obviously a complete novice when it comes to evaluating things like this. Would you be able to talk me through how you would go about evaluating this routine if a client came to you suggesting it?

ERIC:

I agree that the rhetoric around the routine is annoying and of course I don't think productive strength training is anything near as simple as hard work = success.

I also agree that most of the points need qualification, for example what exactly is hard work? What constitutes agression in this context? If the percentages, reps and sets are all laid out but I don't do them with a big frown on my face am I being agressive enough?

Having said all of that… if we ignore all of the "fluff" around the routine how does the core template look to you?

Well, the point of those questions I asked weren't just to say "look at all the fluff" as if that in itself "proves" something. The point was to get you to figure out if there was any real explanation of the why's and wherefore's.

Now you pointed out the "whats" in your response and began to hit on the why's so I'll try to respond to each point:

1) It provides a relatively high frequency of training for each body part/movement (higher than my current template).

So look at the frequency x the flexibility. And think of your goals…not the goals of the guy who wrote the article. This is why I specifically wanted you to focus on the first paragraph. It tells you everything about the motivation of the article.

This is a "full body" routine. Full body routines are great to visit but you don't want to live there. That doesn't mean this in itself wouldn't be ok to do unless it was just too much too soon for you

2) It provides a fairly wide variety of exercises in a given mesocycle. From reading some of your articles I understand that you generally favour using several movements rather than just limiting yourself to one or two. It also allows exercises to be switched after every mesocycle allowing for further variety if needed.

Actually that is not true. Strongman training cannot limit itself to a few "movements" but that doesn't really have much to do with how the population at large can train. I actually favor "prioritizing" a few lifts at any one time and dong a large variety of "exercises" to support that in various ways.

I can't compare what I favor to this routine because of one very important thing..it's percentage based. If there is one thing I repeat over and over again it is that I HATE PERCENTAGE BASED ROUTINES 

3) The training work is concentrated at the lower rep range which I understand to be more suited to strength specific work.

Tends toward lower rep is good. "Concentrates on lower reps" is not very sensible. Again, everything is focused on percentages as if there is some kind of magic in that. So ask yourself, "self, why would I train my squat (or safety bar squat), my incline bench press, AND my rows, EXACTLY the same". Why? I cannot think of one good reason. What does a row have to do with a squat. How could they possibly benefit from the same exact parameters?

4) The template attempts to manage intensity to a certain extent. I am not sure how effective this would be and it would obviously vary between individuals.

Covered my feeling on that. At any given time "percentage" is meaningless for any individual because it is based on a number that at any given time is meaningless for any individual. 

Percentage is simply a reflection of some kind of maximal ability. But maximal ability is continually in flux..and to a much greater degree than most trainees tend to realize. By the time you get to the end of these types of routines you could have been spending a lot of your time training at a much lower "relative intensity" than you thought or a much higher one.

Honestly though, when it comes to talking you through it, my opinion is very simple. I do not think percentage based routines are effective for a wide range of trainees.

But the fluff…it is important. It really does tell you what you need to know. You just have to be able to see it. I mean, right off the bat, look at what you asked me about the ignoring the rhetoric. That is the big problem right there with all the routines floating around! Everybody focuses on how the routine looks on paper and wants to ignore the rhetoric. But the rhetoric is replacing any actual explanation. You mentioned my articles…do you see rhetoric or do you see explanation? Not to toot my horn but to make a point…the explanation is more important than the routine. You don't learn from routines. I know that people think you do but you don't because "doing a routine" does not set up a learning in environment. Yet, we have been taught to except and expect this while being given meaningless rhetoric! So don't dismiss it is just "a fact of life" and move on to the routine. If there was why's and wherefore's to be had they would have been given.

LEATHER:

Well, the point of those questions I asked weren't just to say "look at all the fluff" as if that in itself "proves" something. The point was to get you to figure out if there was any real explanation of the why's and wherefore's.

OK, I think I understand you here but what I was trying to say is that irrespective of the authors reasoning (or lack thereof) for this routine I was trying to look at it from the perspective of how useful it might be for me. To put it another way.. if you were to say to me that you wanted me to use this template I would look at it and ask myself why and then probably come up with the points I listed before. The reasons may differ completely from those of the author, but they may still be there.

I actually favor "prioritizing" a few lifts at any one time and dong a large variety of "exercises" to support that in various ways.

Good point - I obviously misunderstood you before. I stand corrected. 

I do not think percentage based routines are effective for a wide range of trainees.

I can see your point on this and I understand that the persons max is in a constant state of flux but I think this comes back to something we have discussed before and that I have failed to grasp… if you don't use percentage's then how do you go about regulating the intensity?
So percentages have flaws but they do provide a simple way of giving someone a rough idea of how close to their believed max at a given time. Would you mind giving me a pointer as to how you go about doing this please?

But the fluff…it is important. It really does tell you what you need to know. You just have to be able to see it. I mean, right off the bat, look at what you asked me about the ignoring the rhetoric. That is the big problem right there with all the routines floating around! Everybody focuses on how the routine looks on paper and wants to ignore the rhetoric. But the rhetoric is replacing any actual explanation. You mentioned my articles…do you see rhetoric or do you see explanation? Not to toot my horn but to make a point…the explanation is more important than the routine. You don't learn from routines. I know that people think you do but you don't because "doing a routine" does not set up a learning in environment. Yet, we have been taught to except and expect this while being given meaningless rhetoric! So don't dismiss it is just "a fact of life" and move on to the routine. If there was why's and wherefore's to be had they would have been given.

Again, great point. As stated above I was looking at the routine in spite of it's lack of explanation when I really should have been asking… why doesn't the author give the reasoning behind this? I mean he does start to by stating:

My training partners and I knew that all strongman contest events involved some kind of pressing, some kind of pulling, and lots of leg strength.

But the rest of the introduction doesn't seem to detail the end goal, but rather things like:

We also liked to train at a higher volume and wanted to squat, pull, and press more than just once a week.

OK - but just because you like it has nothing to do with the goal.. right?

JOE:

I can see your point on this and I understand that the persons max is in a constant state of flux but I think this comes back to something we have discussed before and that I have failed to grasp… if you don't use percentage's then how do you go about regulating the intensity?
So percentages have flaws but they do provide a simple way of giving someone a rough idea of how close to their believed max at a given time. Would you mind giving me a pointer as to how you go about doing this please?

In the singles scene article we regulated volume more than anything. Intensity was only regulated by 90% of the relative max, and even then it is a bit loose (does 89 count?).

The only real way to tell if you're near your max (aside from experience and how the weight 'feels') is to find your relative max for that day. This will be confusing so bare with me lol. 80% of your relative max from wednesday might not be 80% of your relative max on the day you say you're doing 80% of your relative max.

What you've listed seems to yo-yo a bit also. Some movements go triples, to singles, to doubles. I'd prefer going from 1 to 3 or 3 to 1.

I would handle this by first erasing the percentages (I would actually scrap the whole thing and start fresh but let's go with it for right now). Week 1 you hit a relative max for the respective rep range your using (so whatever weight you can handle for a triple is your relative max. I'm getting a bit loose with the term relative max now btw). Week 2 you try and work as close to, or higher than, that weight. Just forget the % of last week compared to this week and keep the loose rationale that a triple is lighter than a double is lighter than a single. Even that is not a hard and fast rule because you may lift more for a triple in week 3 than you do with a single in week 1 or a double in week 2. But in general that is how it goes.

One of the things that irks me with % based training is sticking to a weight. What if I lift 90lbs for a single in week 1 (lets assume I tested a week before and 100 was my max, so this is 90%) but in week 2 I am able to lift 90lbs (or even more maybe) for a double, why should I sacrifice intensity and lift 80lbs (80%). And maybe in week 3 I can handle 80 for triple, why would I lift 70? The argument back would probably be that my first single was low (off day or whatever), but I would argue that you have no way of distinguishing a 'good max' from a 'poor max' and that it just doesn't make sense to program a month of training based on a single static number. You could also flip this on its head and say you had a very good max and now you can't hit the 90%, 80%, or 70% in the following weeks. Are you supposed to give up the first time you can't make the % or are you supposed to employ the scared cat deadlifting technique?

LEATHER:

Hi Joe,

Thanks for your response. I think you have hit on the key thing that is puzzling me about the idea doing away with percentages when you say this:

What if I lift 90lbs for a single in week 1 (lets assume I tested a week before and 100 was my max, so this is 90%) but in week 2 I am able to lift 90lbs (or even more maybe) for a double, why should I sacrifice intensity and lift 80lbs (80%). And maybe in week 3 I can handle 80 for triple, why would I lift 70?

My question here is that you seem to be saying that you always max out with a given weight… This is what is confusing me because I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that there was some value in doing sub-maximal work. Following on from your example lets say in week 3 I can handle 80 for a triple does that always mean I should? Is there no value at all in doing work at less than the maximum number of reps I can achieve on a given day?

I thought that it was fairly common to work at reps lower than the maximum possible in order to add volume without maxing out constantly.

Am I missing something here?

JOE:

There is value in submaximal work. If you're learning a movement submaximal sets of 3 (or less) can be great. But if you have triples in your workout they are typically high intensity (high intensity for a triple anyway).

Following on from your example lets say in week 3 I can handle 80 for a triple does that always mean I should?

If they are there for the purposes of strength training, then you should be doing as much weight as you can safely and comfortably handle. Even in a deload situation the intensity is kept high, volume is dropped.

Is there no value at all in doing work at less than the maximum number of reps I can achieve on a given day?

Just to make it clear, maximum number of reps is the amount of reps you can safely and comfortably do (this includes correct form). You're not necessarily working to failure either, but I'd say you're walking the line quite a bit.

I thought that it was fairly common to work at reps lower than the maximum possible in order to add volume without maxing out constantly.

If you're referring to what is usually called "leaving a couple reps in the tank", or working to near failure, then it is generally a good idea to stop a couple reps shy of failure…..if you're talking about accessory movements (again not a hard and fast rule). When it comes to singles, doubles or triples I intend to get that number of reps, no more, and sometimes less.

Triples, doubles and singles I would throw into the maximal work category. Accessory work and whatnot generally falls into the sub-maximal category. Again, if your goal is strength why would you sacrifice the #1 priority, intensity.

LEATHER:

Thanks again for the response Joe.

But if you have triples in your workout they are typically high intensity (high intensity for a triple anyway).

Just to clarify I am referering to core movements here, not accessory work

If you were laying out a template for someone that included triples how would you guide them on what kind of weight to use, or would that be up to them to always do close to the maximum poundage they could handle for a triple on that day?

Along these lines why do they have to be triples? Or to put it another way lets say I can do 100kg for a triple and I decide to do 2 sets of triples.. is there any advantage to that over say 6 singles, or 3 doubles? You say intensity is the number one priority for strength which makes sense but I am not sure if the way that intensity is spread matters. Does it make any difference if I do 6 reps with 80kg in 3,2 or 6 sets?

If not then why do you have to go to maximal reps? I can see the difficulty with percentages but I also think that saying things like "Leave a couple of reps in the tank" is also open to interpretation.

From what you're saying am I right in that I should always be hitting the maximum number of safe reps I can do for a given exercise on a given day within a template? (that is what I am generally doing at the moment).

JOE:

OK, but if you were laying out a template for someone that included triples how would you guide them on what kind of weight to use, or would that be up to them to always do close to the maximum poundage they could handle for a triple on that day?

Intensity is number 1. If I were dealing with someone brand new to the concept I would suggest that they do quality volume (sets of 3 working up to a 'max' weight) to feel where they were at. Set a baseline. Now you have a rough idea of where you stand and you build on that. There is nothing saying that you can't change the weight throughout a workout btw. If you do 100lbs for 3 reps and its not so bad, increase it to 105 or 110 (maybe more) and do another set. If there is still more room add more weight for the next set. Feel it out. The next time you'll have a better idea of where your weight range is. Maybe you start at 105 and end at 110. It does come down to a bit of experience and experimentation in the gym.

It is absolutely up to the person. I don't know how you perceived the movement, sometimes you don't even know yourself lol. If I were there in person watching I could make suggestion based on what I see (add another 10lbs, take 5lbs off, etc.) but in the end it is up to YOU to determine how much you can safely lift.

Along these lines why do they have to be triples? Or to put it another way lets say I can do 100kg for a triple and I decide to do 2 sets of triples.. is there any advantage to that over say 6 singles, or 3 doubles? You say intensity is the number one priority for strength which makes sense but I am not sure if the way that intensity is spread matters. Does it make any difference if I do 6 reps with 80kg in 3,2 or 6 sets?

There is a huge difference between 100kg for 2 triples vs 100kg for 6 singles. There is so much more workload for the triples, the volume is the same but you cannot discount the density. The whole argument is somewhat flawed because if I can do 100kg for a triple I should theoretically be able to do more for a single (even if it is only 5lbs more). From an absolute strength standpoint you can't beat the intensity of singles. Intensity and density (volume as well) are inversely proportional, as one rises the other lowers.

From what you're saying am I right in that I should always be hitting the maximum number of safe reps I can do for a given exercise on a given day within a template? (that is what I am generally doing at the moment).

If the weight is appropriate yes. You shouldn't set out to do a triple and end up with 5 reps. This doesn't mean you should keep doing triples until you can't anymore, ending up with 10 sets.

In a nutshell, you should use as much weight as you can safely and comfortably use. Afterall, this is strength training. The mission statement is to lift heavy things, not heavyish things.

ERIC:



The kind of thing that always happens to these kinds of discussions is that they become more of a "what is the essence of strength training, grasshopper?" kind of thing rather than a discussion of one distinct aspect of training.


So I'll try to continue this by breaking it down into those distinct aspects.


The first thing that comes to mind is that what we are discussing is regulated variables and how they are regulated. Or, in other words, what things are you meas

uring or keeping track of and what do you do with those measurements?

So, percentage based routines hold intensity as the regulated variable. Right? That is what you are specifically asking about, Leather, how do I regulate intensity. OK, so to sum up what Joe and I are saying and to give a point blank answer, for the majority of trainees, it is volume and density that must be regulated, not intensity.


What Joe is saying is intensity should be kept as high as possible while maintaining quality and safety. Then you, quite rightly, ask whether this makes sense in the context of everything else. The answer is, yes, it makes sense.


Let's keep a few things in mind here. There is the intensity of the core exercise and there is your median intensity. Taking in all the workload and the sub-maximal work your median intensity is going to be kept moderate. This is the problem and is what holds people back. They are paranoid about working at too high a percentage without realizing that it represents a very small part of their overall workload. If you were doing a bunch of plyos and stuff like that you'd take that into consideration but in general the median intensity is very manageable.


From one of the ebooks:

People who are afraid of maximal weights fail to realize just how little of the workload during even a very heavy week uses intensities of 90% or greater. A busy week of singles and doubles, separated for instance between deadlifts and overhead press, would still have only perhaps 5 or 6 percent of the total work being near maximal. And the majority of the remaining work would be movements that are not that similar to the primary movements being prioritized and could be considered cross-training or even conditioning depending on the trainee’s needs.

It makes more sense to keep intensity relatively high, 85% or above while regulating volume, for the most part.

How Intensity is Spread

When asking about how intensity is spread you are misunderstanding intensity a bit. We use percentages of 1RM for a yardstick only and as a simple way of defining the intensity we are using. This does not mean that we go around calculating a number all the time. Don't confuse what we did with the Singles Scene as a modus operandi. The numbers were necessary for that particular method of training.


You asked about the difference between a triple versus the same weight for 6 singles, etc. Let's forget about all the leaving stuff in the tank and whether or not we are training to failure. That just confuses any discussion of intensity because you have to assume that you are working to monentary failure at least.


SO, that means that the weight you can do for only 3 reps in a row, a triple, is your 3RM. Okay? So from one perspective you are working at say, 87 to 90% of your 1RM and from another you are working at 100% of your 3RM. Both are measurements of intensity.


What matters, then, is how they change your way of progressing. What is the difference between using that weight for 3 reps straight as opposed to 6 singles? Not a whole lot over one workout! But what do you do next? How do you build on it?


All complications aside it comes down to this. A percentage based program has you over-reacting to a single static number, as Joe said. It has nothing to do withwhat actually happens. Joe and I are saying that this makes no sense. It's a simple as that.

Blog Posts

I think you've got a good formula going for you blog posts.


A couple of things I'd like you to remember about them (and take a look at the changes I made


1. When you have a video make sure to put "video" in the header above the video plus the exercise name, etc. This way the search engines know there is a video. Since we don't have a fancy player or means of alerting google to the video, google needs to be told. This is very important because when you go to the trouble of putting up a video you won't people to get a result when they search for say, "pinch grip deadlift video". And all it takes is putting video in the header. Since it is in a header (I.E. big @+@ or @++@) google will assign importance to it and assume that it is an important word and that a video is probably present on the page. We get LOTS of traffic this way.


2. Although this seems silly, don't just put "exercise technique" or something before the exercise performance section, put the name of the exercise again..such as what I wrote "how to perform the so and so" or something like that. See the thing is with short blog posts about exercises, it is easy to only have the exercise name in the title and nowhere else! So as always you are writing primarily to people but secondarily to the search engine. And it doesn't know anything. So the title is the most important thing of course to tell the search bot what the page is about but then when some key words from the title are not repeated at all in the article body the search bot doesn't know just how important these words are. In other words..the title could be an abstract title, right? Such as something clever or fancy that doesn't represent what the article is about. When the words are not repeated at all the bot still doesn't know for sure what weight to put on the title. But when you repeat words from the title strategically (not over and over again just strategically) suddenly the bot knows that yes, the tilte is VERY important..this page is about this particular exercise or subject. Bump it up in the search results.
Now I'm not talking about cheating and doing ridiculous things..just little tweaks to help the search bots understand the page.


So look at what I did and sort of apply that kind of thing.


Thanks!