Hi All,
I recently read the following article and wondered what your guys thoughts were on this kind of set up?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Test: safety bar squat
Pull accessory
Press accessory
Wednesday
Test: barbell incline
Pull accessory
Squat accessory
Pull accessory
Squat accessory
Friday
Test: bent row
Press accessory
Squat accessory
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
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment