so, im taking this from Mark Rippetoe's book Practical Programming and im gonna add some stuff in it which i think might apply in addition to my thoughts. Credit goes to Mark Rippetoe.
THE TEXAS METHOD
Introduction
This method uses a sharp contrast in training variables between the beginning and the end of the week. High volume at moderate intensity is used at the first of the week, a light workout is done in the middle for maitenance of motor pathways, and then a high intensity workout at very low volume ends the week.
This simple program is probably the most productive routine in existence for trainees at this level. It is usually the first program to use when simple linear programming doesnt work anymore. The trainee is transition from a novice to an intermediate is unable to make progress with either a workoutload he can recover from enough to do 2 to 3 times per week, or conversely, a workload that is stressful enough to produce the stress/adaptation/supercompensation cycle that he cannot recover from quickly enough to do 2 to 3 times per week.
In-Depth Coverage With Examples, Modifications, etc etc etc
In the Texas Method, the workout at the beginning of the week is the "stress" workout, the lighter midweek workout comes during the recovery period, and the last, higher-intensity/lower-volume workout is done when the trainee has recovered enough to show an increase in perfermance. The total weekly training volume and training stress is low enough that as each week begins the trainee has no accumulated fatigue from the previous week, yet the one "stress" workout on Monday is high enough in volume to trigger an adaptation, and the heavy single set on Friday provides enough intensity that neuromuscular function is reinforced without fatally upping the volume.
A classic example of this variation would be a squat program where, after warm-ups, Monday's workout is 5 work sets of 5 across, Wednesday's is lighter - perhaps 5's at 80% of 5RM, or front squats for a variation in exercise technique - and Friday's is a single heavier set of 5. It looks like this:
Monday
Squat, 5 sets of 5 reps
Wednesday
Squat, 2 light sets of 5
-or-
Front Squat, 3 sets of 3
Friday
Squat, One heavy set of 5
Here is another example of this basic intermediate template, this time for pressing exercises:
Monday
Push Press, 6 sets of 3 reps
Wednesday
Press, 2 sets of 5 reps
Friday
Push Press, 1RM, 2RM, or 3RM
Most intermediate trainees will be able to spend months making progress on programs set up like this one. Different set and rep schemes can be used, as long as the basic template of a volume workout, a light workout, and an intensity workout is followed.
The Monday workout should be stressful enough to cause hemeostatic disruption. The second training session should be enough work that the muscles involved are used through the range of motion, but at a load that does not add to the disruption caused by the first workout. The third day should be an attempt at a personal record.
When a program like this is started, the goal is to make progress on both Monday and Friday, just as in the novice program. When all the prescribed sets and reps on Monday are accomplished, raise the weight for the next week. If a new 1RM is set on Friday, next week try for a new 2RM. In essense, linear progress is still being made, but the line is now being drawn between Monday and Monday and Friday and Friday, instead of between Monday and Wednesday.
Very often, after 4 or 5 weeks of the progress with personal records getting more difficult on Friday, what is needed to keep the cycle running for a few more weeks is nothing more than a slight reduction in Monday's workload. Cut back the number of sets, or even the weight on the bar a little, and progress on Friday's workout can usually be sustained. The object is to make Monday's workout stressful enough to spur progress, not so stressful that it interferes with Friday's PR.
If progress simply stalls, with no reduction in the ability to complete Monday's workouts but an absense of personal records on Fridays, the stress needed to spur progress is probably not being applied on Monday. Often an increase or slight change in Monday's workout will restore progress. Adding a set is a good idea. Or, holding the total number of reps constant while using more lower-rep sets with a slightly higher weight also works well.
If however, actual regression occurs, not only in Friday's workout but with staleness carrying over into Monday, then usually the workload on Monday is too high, and residual unrecovered fatigue is creeping in. Possible solutions could be to drop a set or two from the sets across, reduce the work-set weight, or reduce the reps in the work sets - from 5 sets of 5 with 300 pounds to 5 sets of 3 with 300 for example.
SPEED SETS
A valuable training tool that fits very well into this template is speed sets, as popularized by Louie Simmons in his Westside method. High intensity training, the utilization of a very high percentage of force production capacity, is very productive but difficult to recover from in large doses.
When beginning this type of training, it is normal to continue to use 5 sets of 5 on Monday and replace Friday's workout with speed sets. usually u do a 3 week cycle in Westside.
Week 1: 12 sets of 2 reps @ 50% of 1RM
Week 2: 12 sets of 2 reps @ 55% of 1RM
Week 3: 10 sets of 2 reps @ 60% of 1RM
this cycle is then repeated many many times.
The object is to really explode under the bar and complete each set as quickly as possible. It is normal to take 2 to 3 workouts to get adjusted to this system. If even the last rep of the last set slows down, the weight is too heavy. In fact, the first time this workout is used, the last set of 3 should be noticeably faster than the first. The speed workout is substituted for the PR workout on Friday, with the high volume workout remaining as the primary stressor on Monday.
Recap
The Texas Model works in 3 sessions:
High Volume / High Intensity Session
Low Volume / Low Intensity Session
Low Volume / High Intensity Session
In summary, this is how it is outlined:
Monday
High Volume / High Intensity Session
Squats 5 sets of 5 reps across
Bench Press 5 sets of 5 reps across
JS Rows / Power Cleans 5 sets of 5 reps across
Wednesday
Low Volume / Low Intensity Session
Squats 2 sets of 5 reps @ 80% of Monday
Press 3 sets of 5 reps
Deadlift 1 set of 5 reps
Friday
Low Volume / High Intensity Session
Squats 1 set of 5 new PR
Bench Press 1 set of 5 new PR
Pull-ups 3 sets to failure
the last program is a mere example and can be modified in many many ways.
Please buy the books.
-------------------------------x--------------------------------
discussions...
Posted by Eric3237:
It's very effective. I'd highly recommend it. It can also be easily merged with other intermediate programs.
The only thing I would suggest is to not get too caught up in the progression on Monday and Friday thing. Starting out of course the goal should be progression on both but as long as you are progressing on Monday and not REgressing on Friday you'll see great results. Those are good guidelines that MR gives of course on how to gauge the interplay between MON and FRI but it can be very difficult to predict since things can change so much based on outside things. Certainly just because you don't get a new PR on one Friday you wouldn't want to change Monday. And even a regression can turn out to be temporary. With this kind of training you need to be patient, that's for sure.
Friday's workout, for the most part, is about reinforcing the gains made on Monday. What you do on Friday is really not enought, in itself, to result in a whole lot of new fitness. If it were the volume would be too high and this would be a different program
In general progress on Monday and try for PR's on Friday but don't expect them one hundred percent of the time. Give it time and if you see a complete lack of progression on Friday for a good period then consider changing Monday. That's really the same thing MR says of course but the way he puts it I think may lead people to overemphasize and thus overdo Friday. It should tend toward progression but Monday progress is the main point.
---x---
Eric3237:
I'm wondering why there is not more activity and interest in this in general. There seems to be more interrest on other boards but some of it seems to have went down a winding path or two. But since there is bound to be an inevitable comparison being made to the ONLY other intermeditate 5x5 template that many have heard of (Madcow's) I wanted to clear up some very bad misconceptions.
One. This is not Madcow's except for Monday being 5x5 sets accross and Friday being working up to a RM pr...lol. They are completely different in some fundamental ways.
I think that many people might choose not to do this because they think it is a higher volume version of Madcow or something. Nothing could be further from the truth. What is important is that on this program the Monday and Friday workouts are NOT tied together from a linear progressive standpoint. What happens Friday is not decided by what went on Monday but rather by your ability AT THAT TIME. That's why it's called a "PR". Or, I should say, based on my philosophy, an attempt at a PR but at least no regression from previous perfomances. Call it a single heavy set.
Mondays are tied to Mondays. That is the fundamental progression. Very simple. Wednesday is somewhat a recovery day and can and should be manipulated to suit the needs of the trainee at any given time. Deads on Wednesday, even at one set, are a wild card when it comes to recovery but if you don't get too caught up in making fantastic PR's each and every Friday it will work out fine. I've seen other examples with deads of Fridays.....
But deads can be put on Friday for those who can pull it off as Rip himself has said. I have placed deads on Friday very successfully also. This allows Wednesday to be a true recovery day. But I had just as much success with placing deads on Wednesday so I may not be the person to go by, especially since deads are my best exercise and will move when all else fails. Frankly, I don't see too many making consistent "progress" on max sets doing deads, squats, and bench all on one day.
Fridays can be tied to Fridays but need not have a "progression". As a matter of fact it may be better to think of Friday as a max attempt rather than a PR. Hence my "may or may not be a PR" guideline. But if you look at Sentinel's journal you'll see that he basically added a rep to a 1RM every Friday for a while. So every Friday was a PR for most of it. I couldn't have done that but it speaks to the effectiveness of this simple setup and I reckon how full of piss and vinegar he is.
I DO NOT however, recommend that to someone just coming off SS or who is new to very high intenstiy. They would be better off sticking to 5RM's for a while on Friday (like the writeup says) and later on maybe going for a 4 or a 3. Switching it up after that.
And that leads me to another question. Isn't the 1x5 on Friday the same as Madcow's except you do 5 reps instead of 3? Well, no. I've already laid out the difference in progression so that should really be enough but there seems also to be confusion surrounding the difference between ramped sets (which some people erroneoulsy call pyrammiding) and a max set with warm ups.
The ramped sets can be thought of as a kind of warm up leading up to a higher top set but the primary difference between that and your typical warm up is that the ramped sets COUNT. They are part of the workload and if you added them all up you'd come up with a certain relative intensity for the entire work group. But the top set while being much higher than 5x5 sets across is not likely to be a MAX set. The warm up should be (drum roll please) what works for you, albeit given some basic parameters and common sense.
So, for instance, if I were going for a max Friday set of 350X5 on squats I might do something like this:
Empty Bar X5X2 (I always start with empty bar)
150X2
175X5
260X2
280 to 290X1
350 working set
That is what I might do. If it looks a little weird to you that is because you are not me. Some people might do better with having their last warmup set being a little closer to their working set than I did here. Some people might need to stay further away. I'd say start with your last warm up set at about 75% though, and go from there. Generally I don't use any more reps in a warmup than I intend to do in my working set. And remember the specific warmup for a movement is to get you prepared for that warmup. Your body should already be "warm" before that and there are better ways to do that then 2 sets of 10 to 12 on squats...
If you are a person who warms up for a max attempty using the same increments as you would on 5x5 ramped sets then you are really selling yourself short. The build up or warm up for the attempt should just be enough to prepare you for it. It shouldn't tax you or tire your out. This should be obvious. Only the max attempt "counts" on Friday. Just one set.
On Friday of the TM you could adopt ramped sets if you wanted but the volume would be raised and therefore the whole thing would be thrown out of kilter. Friday is simply a single heavy set. The volume needs to be much lower.
Again the progress is Monday to Monday and Friday to Friday. The stimulus from Monday should spur the PR on Friday but that is the only connection.
I personally don't make a big thing about continued progress on Friday being the be all and end all. Rippetoe stresses Friday progress in PP but it really seems like a perfect world scenario. Perhaps is you have Rip himself guiding you it would be easier. But your ability to make new PR's even with the most perfect training routine hinges on too many variables to expect it to be full speed ahead the whole time.
Maybe if you are perfect and always get more then enough sleep and eat like a perfectly tuned nutrition machine than perhaps but for those of us who don't actually make a living from training we should stick to this universe. It's also very easy to say "make PR's" when you are only talking about one exercise as per Rip's example in the book. That's not a criticism, just saying that Rip needs to give more example for intemediates....maybe in the next book. I could personally do with 100% less graphs and 500% more specific recommendations (albeit to a generalized audience). But he seems to be writing more for coaches so maybe they find the graphs useful, lol.
So the fundamental thing for me is if you are making continued progress on Monday, bringing your deads and such along on Wednesday and not actually regressing on Friday then you are damn sure making progress. Every attempt should be made to make pogress on Friday but I wouldn't start fixing things that ain't broken on the other days to do it. A PR on Friday can cement the gains made and even spur the ability to make new ones, but a PR in itself is not likely to result in much new fitness. It is too transitory. To put it another way, you might hit 500 on dead tommorow and that is good and will do a lot for you but it ain't going to guarantee you doing 510 the next time.
The other question bound to come up is "why 5x5 sets accross on Monday". Why not something else? Well, because 5x5 sets accross works really good
and it sounds better than 4x6. Go ahead and try 4x8 and we can compare notes later. Perhaps someone else can do 10X3. No, anything is possible but it's hard to find a better way than 5x5 sets accross. You get enough volume to spur progress but at a nice high relative intensity. At least until progress halts then the something else that works becomes "better".---x---
Riddick2112:
i for one appreciate the info on the TM because when my linear progress dries up that is definitely what i'll be moving on to.
theoretically i totally agree with Eric3237's thoughts on the purpose of Friday's session. As far as my understanding of the method goes, the purpose of Friday's session is to display increases in performance brought about by the high volume-high intensity session on monday and the recovery that was allowed by the light session on wednesday. The idea is to keep volume low so that very little homeostatic disruption occurs which would allow one to be fully recovered for the next Monday's session, the "stress" session.
i can see that there are positive and negative aspects to Deadlifting on either wednesday or friday and it is something to experiment with for sure. Even with my current A-B-A, B-A-B style program i've dropped deads now to only once a week to help ensure adequate recovery.
i also agree with the idea that Rip should have included a couple of complete examples just to get an idea of how HE applies the TM to his own trainees. Most likely he didnt because he was afraid people would just do the routine without actually thinking or understanding WHY they were doing it.
anyway, thanks for the info!
Eric3237:
^^^^Completely agree with everything you said. And also thank you for your post, Riddick. The only reason I posted today was to try and generate some discussion and interest.
I too can see reasons why Rip didn't include more examples. I for one really dislike cookie cutter examples. But I can also see reasons to include them. With that said I think it should be stressed that this should be viewed as a maleable method and never as a static cookie cutter. This idea of every program as this static, by rote recipe that can never be deviated from and adapted to suit reactions is the very thing that is screwing so many people up. It's the kind of thing that is brought on by assorted internet guru's and their "flavor of the month programs" and it's something that people should view as a slice of pie versus a good supply of pie-making ingredients.
Deads can't be placed perfectly on this program. No doubt about it. I would say that the set-up presented here has, very generally speaking, an excellent chance for success in the average trainee. But that doesn't mean that you can't start the deads on Wednesdays and then later move them to Fridays or vice versa. Now that is a very simple and obvious manipulation to me but, frankly, I think very many trainees would keep plugging away at the presented set-up in the face of continued failure because that is what they have been taught to do by "routines". Definitely need to get away from that type of thinking and realize that you are a dynamic and ever-changing type of machine.
That doesn't mean you need to make broad, sweeping changes every couple of weeks either! It just means you have to make relatively small changes to suit circumstances as they arise.
Riddick2112:
i for one appreciate the info on the TM because when my linear progress dries up that is definitely what i'll be moving on to.
theoretically i totally agree with Eric3237's thoughts on the purpose of Friday's session. As far as my understanding of the method goes, the purpose of Friday's session is to display increases in performance brought about by the high volume-high intensity session on monday and the recovery that was allowed by the light session on wednesday. The idea is to keep volume low so that very little homeostatic disruption occurs which would allow one to be fully recovered for the next Monday's session, the "stress" session.
i can see that there are positive and negative aspects to Deadlifting on either wednesday or friday and it is something to experiment with for sure. Even with my current A-B-A, B-A-B style program i've dropped deads now to only once a week to help ensure adequate recovery.
i also agree with the idea that Rip should have included a couple of complete examples just to get an idea of how HE applies the TM to his own trainees. Most likely he didnt because he was afraid people would just do the routine without actually thinking or understanding WHY they were doing it.
anyway, thanks for the info!
---x---
Eric3237:
^^^^Completely agree with everything you said. And also thank you for your post, Riddick. The only reason I posted today was to try and generate some discussion and interest.
I too can see reasons why Rip didn't include more examples. I for one really dislike cookie cutter examples. But I can also see reasons to include them. With that said I think it should be stressed that this should be viewed as a maleable method and never as a static cookie cutter. This idea of every program as this static, by rote recipe that can never be deviated from and adapted to suit reactions is the very thing that is screwing so many people up. It's the kind of thing that is brought on by assorted internet guru's and their "flavor of the month programs" and it's something that people should view as a slice of pie versus a good supply of pie-making ingredients.
Deads can't be placed perfectly on this program. No doubt about it. I would say that the set-up presented here has, very generally speaking, an excellent chance for success in the average trainee. But that doesn't mean that you can't start the deads on Wednesdays and then later move them to Fridays or vice versa. Now that is a very simple and obvious manipulation to me but, frankly, I think very many trainees would keep plugging away at the presented set-up in the face of continued failure because that is what they have been taught to do by "routines". Definitely need to get away from that type of thinking and realize that you are a dynamic and ever-changing type of machine.
That doesn't mean you need to make broad, sweeping changes every couple of weeks either! It just means you have to make relatively small changes to suit circumstances as they arise.
---x---
Riddick2112:
some more excellent points Eric!
I would add that the whole "cookie-cutter" mentality is also reinforced by the muscle mags and even more so by the myriad training books avalilabe out there. everyone is trying to "sell" the idea that their method is best and they use pics of genetic supermen and/or drug addled pros to convince us that it will work for US too.
personally I bought into that whole load of crap with Mike Mentzer's Heavy-Duty. i thought I had found the freakin Rosetta Stone of training and plugged away for almost 5 years with it before finally waking up and smelling the coffee! The notion that one can train in a linear fashion with 2-3 sets only once a week until they reach their genetic potential seems so absurd to me now! I honestly cant believe i thought it was possible, lol!
that being said, there were some positive aspects to training with that method and it's interesting for me to note that the PR day in the Texas method is very, very similar to a HD training session, i.e. low volume-max effort training.
ironically it was the internet that was my saving grace and got me on the right track with my training and progress is finally coming on a pretty regular basis!
HD, or more specifically the "Consolidated routine", had left me so de-trained and de-conditioned that i was able to restart with something closely resembling Rip's Starting Strength program and have been using it since Jan 2007 (with a short higher volume cycle thrown in the mix to break things up a bit)
this is not intended as an anit-HIT tirade but merely to illustrate the danger of the "Golden Program" mentality and how it can lead to much wasted effort (years worth in my case)
i think your term for a trainee is perfect: a dynamic, ever-changing type of machine
which would stand to reason that our training must be dynamic too, and take into account the changes happening with our bodies as we (hopefully) progress up the ladder to our genetic potential.
as you rightly pointed out that does NOT mean we must make huge sweeping changes to our programs every few weeks, but that we merely remain conscious of these changes and take steps to keep progress on an even keel.
I'll go out on a limb and say the toughest aspect of training is recovery (which is the thing i thought Mentzer had really nailed down). Generally speaking, I dont think too many of us here have a problem generating enough stress in a session to cause adaptation but how to manipulate intensity and volume so that we can recover from it without losing the gains we've trained so hard for, that to me is the real "art" of training. When you get down to it, the biggest reason our training need ever change IS because strength overtakes recovery ability, right? otherwise we could just add weight to the bar systemtically 3 times a week until we got as big and strong as our genes will let us.
anyway, enough babbling from me
some more excellent points Eric!
I would add that the whole "cookie-cutter" mentality is also reinforced by the muscle mags and even more so by the myriad training books avalilabe out there. everyone is trying to "sell" the idea that their method is best and they use pics of genetic supermen and/or drug addled pros to convince us that it will work for US too.
personally I bought into that whole load of crap with Mike Mentzer's Heavy-Duty. i thought I had found the freakin Rosetta Stone of training and plugged away for almost 5 years with it before finally waking up and smelling the coffee! The notion that one can train in a linear fashion with 2-3 sets only once a week until they reach their genetic potential seems so absurd to me now! I honestly cant believe i thought it was possible, lol!
that being said, there were some positive aspects to training with that method and it's interesting for me to note that the PR day in the Texas method is very, very similar to a HD training session, i.e. low volume-max effort training.
ironically it was the internet that was my saving grace and got me on the right track with my training and progress is finally coming on a pretty regular basis!
HD, or more specifically the "Consolidated routine", had left me so de-trained and de-conditioned that i was able to restart with something closely resembling Rip's Starting Strength program and have been using it since Jan 2007 (with a short higher volume cycle thrown in the mix to break things up a bit)
this is not intended as an anit-HIT tirade but merely to illustrate the danger of the "Golden Program" mentality and how it can lead to much wasted effort (years worth in my case)
i think your term for a trainee is perfect: a dynamic, ever-changing type of machine
which would stand to reason that our training must be dynamic too, and take into account the changes happening with our bodies as we (hopefully) progress up the ladder to our genetic potential.
as you rightly pointed out that does NOT mean we must make huge sweeping changes to our programs every few weeks, but that we merely remain conscious of these changes and take steps to keep progress on an even keel.
I'll go out on a limb and say the toughest aspect of training is recovery (which is the thing i thought Mentzer had really nailed down). Generally speaking, I dont think too many of us here have a problem generating enough stress in a session to cause adaptation but how to manipulate intensity and volume so that we can recover from it without losing the gains we've trained so hard for, that to me is the real "art" of training. When you get down to it, the biggest reason our training need ever change IS because strength overtakes recovery ability, right? otherwise we could just add weight to the bar systemtically 3 times a week until we got as big and strong as our genes will let us.
anyway, enough babbling from me
---x---
Eric3237:
That definitely wasn't babbling
I've had the same experience with screwing around with "the magic method" for years spinning my wheels. Most of us have. I'm too embarassed to actually go into mine. Frankly, HIT is much better for a beginner than what I did! I think beginners can make good gains on it and at least it didn't break you...you were able to go on to a more efficient begginer's routine with, I presume, not to many injuries, imbalances, faulty movement patterns, etc. Such was not the case with me! Maybe that's why I stress all this stuff so much.
Yeah, the internet is a blessing and a curse, I think. It's no different then everything else. Here's the very simple thing that most people miss. You have to be willing to take pieces from just about anywhere. Use what works and throw away the rest. From what I observed, most people discover a new fancy looking routine and they start burning bridges, forgetting everything they've learned about themselves, saying "this is what I've been looking for".
Truth is, if I'm reading some training piece and I see the words better, or best in regards to the method, I stop reading and move on.
But I read what you said and I see this excitement. I think there is a lot of excitement when people think they have discoverd "the rosetta stone" as you so righly put it. Then they discover they have to learn, adapt and think for themselves and it's a let down...it's nice to be lead. Then they realize that THEY are in control, not someone else, and it's empowering in a way that the "perfect routine" never was.
That definitely wasn't babbling
I've had the same experience with screwing around with "the magic method" for years spinning my wheels. Most of us have. I'm too embarassed to actually go into mine. Frankly, HIT is much better for a beginner than what I did! I think beginners can make good gains on it and at least it didn't break you...you were able to go on to a more efficient begginer's routine with, I presume, not to many injuries, imbalances, faulty movement patterns, etc. Such was not the case with me! Maybe that's why I stress all this stuff so much.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Riddick ironically it was the internet that was my saving grace and got me on the right track with my training and progress is finally coming on a pretty regular basis! |
Truth is, if I'm reading some training piece and I see the words better, or best in regards to the method, I stop reading and move on.
But I read what you said and I see this excitement. I think there is a lot of excitement when people think they have discoverd "the rosetta stone" as you so righly put it. Then they discover they have to learn, adapt and think for themselves and it's a let down...it's nice to be lead. Then they realize that THEY are in control, not someone else, and it's empowering in a way that the "perfect routine" never was.
---x---
Riddick2112:
dont be embarrassed! I doubt your experience is any worse than mine!!! i am still such a weak sister but at least now the poundages are moving up in a fairly steady manner. i think by summer's end i'll be pushing some iron i can feel at least semi-proud of!
the only real problem i've had to work on as far as movement patterns go is with squatting. After years of reading muscle mags and listening to people (including Mentzer) say "never below parallel", or disregarding them completely and doing leg presses instead, I've had to relearn the movement from scratch which is proving to be rather difficult, but not impossible. Right now my bench and my squat poundage are the same, and fairly pathetic at that, but they're getting better
true, too many get caught up in "routines" without knowing the how's and the why's of what they're doing, myself included. Mentzer was the first guy that I became aware of that talked about fundamentals and got into the theory side of things. I now feel he was way off base on several key points (failure as an axiom, volume as a "negative with a capital N", progressively decreasing frequency, etc) but at the time it was really attractive to me to know WHY i was doing something instead of just blindly following a routine. A routine is just a way of organizing work but how can one do that efficiently if one does not understand why they're doing the work they're doing???
i agree!! nothing has been exciting as learning that there are NO "perfect routines"!!!! it's almost like Bruce Lee's philosophy of "using no way as way, having no style as style"!
great talking with ya!
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Eric3237  That definitely wasn't babbling I've had the same experience with screwing around with "the magic method" for years spinning my wheels. Most of us have. I'm too embarassed to actually go into mine. Frankly, HIT is much better for a beginner than what I did! I think beginners can make good gains on it and at least it didn't break you...you were able to go on to a more efficient begginer's routine with, I presume, not to many injuries, imbalances, faulty movement patterns, etc. Such was not the case with me! Maybe that's why I stress all this stuff so much. |
the only real problem i've had to work on as far as movement patterns go is with squatting. After years of reading muscle mags and listening to people (including Mentzer) say "never below parallel", or disregarding them completely and doing leg presses instead, I've had to relearn the movement from scratch which is proving to be rather difficult, but not impossible. Right now my bench and my squat poundage are the same, and fairly pathetic at that, but they're getting better
Quote:
| Yeah, the internet is a blessing and a curse, I think. It's no different then everything else. Here's the very simple thing that most people miss. You have to be willing to take pieces from just about anywhere. Use what works and throw away the rest. From what I observed, most people discover a new fancy looking routine and they start burning bridges, forgetting everything they've learned about themselves, saying "this is what I've been looking for". |
Quote:
| But I read what you said and I see this excitement. I think there is a lot of excitement when people think they have discoverd "the rosetta stone" as you so righly put it. Then they discover they have to learn, adapt and think for themselves and it's a let down...it's nice to be lead. Then they realize that THEY are in control, not someone else, and it's empowering in a way that the "perfect routine" never was. |
great talking with ya!
---x---
Eric3237:
While I do differ with PP in some fundamental ways when it comes to basic theory (not that I KNOW anything for sure) it am not questioning the basic tenants of the method. I am simply coming at this from the stand point of writing to a general un-coached population. I would never dane to try to instruct proffesional powerlifters. Their needs and their aversion to risk is quite different from people who don't compete. For that matter, the needs of a different kind of athlete and their risk aversion will be different also. For them the need to perform at the utmost in their given endeavor may supercede the need to display maximal strength at any given time.
But one's ability to display maximal strength depends on their state of recovery at that time. So much of this hinges on our ability to manage fatigue. Fatigue can mask fitness gains but the fitness gains are still there. An attempt at a new PR that doesn't result in a new PR can be a very transitory indicator of the state of fitness and fatigue. The fitness is there it is simply masked by residual fatigue.
While it may be possible to perfectly micro-manage fatigue and recovery I don't think it is realistic or even desirable for everyone. Qutie frankly, I don't think people should be doing 24 weeks of 5X5
I happen to think for very good reasons that an inability to make continued PR's on Friday but with no inability to progress on Monday could still be an indicator of fatigue present of Friday that simply disapates by Monday simply because the fatigue from maximal strength work is not as long lasting as fatigue from maximal work. Whatever residual fatigue is present of Friday and whatever fatigue is added by Friday could still disapate enough over two days to allow progress on Monday but again result in residual fatigue masking PR ability on Friday. It is very likely that enough is not being done on Monday to spur continue progress on Friday but it is also very possible that a further reductions in Wednesday's offload could solve the problem. After all what constitutes an effective off-load for anyone individual is bound to be different. Can I guarantee any of this? Of course not. That's the whole point. It has to be flexible.
Obviously if regression occurs on Friday this would be a more clear cut case of residual fatigue. And if progress stalls on Monday and stalls and/or regresses on Friday it should be obvious.
But what is my point here?
It is not simply to disagree with Rippetoe, lol. He's the man. What I'm trying to do is speak to the average trainee. Tell them not to go scrambling to make changes on Monday every time they miss a PR on Friday (I have a feeling this would happen). If you are progressing week to week and there is a very good tendency toward making PR's every Friday you are on a good track. For many this is probably a non-issue. For the most part the very act of attempting a PR on Friday will do the job on Friday (this is where I differ a bit). If you're not trying to meet deadlines then slow and steady wins the race.
What the hell did he just say? It sounds like I'm saying it doesn't take a PR to "facilitate neural pathways"? Yep, that is what I'm saying. Don't get me wrong. I want you to progress on Friday! I just don't want you to panic if you don't once in a while. Ask yourself why it is OK to put speed work on Friday.
Many people come to this kind of training with some very bad habits, imbalances, brewing injuries....all sorts of things that can lead to problems if this were approached with too much "enthusiasm". It is possible to gain strength too quickly (let the hate mail begin). Lot's of people are doing Starting Strength and I am already seeing little and big injuries crop up. Is this because starting strength is bad? Of course not! It's just that what is good for the goose isn't always good for the gander.
While in this thread we are promoting learning and self awareness you basically start with a cookie cutter approach and I think it is best to build on it slowly and systematically. You don't have Rip looking over your shoulder after all.
While I do differ with PP in some fundamental ways when it comes to basic theory (not that I KNOW anything for sure) it am not questioning the basic tenants of the method. I am simply coming at this from the stand point of writing to a general un-coached population. I would never dane to try to instruct proffesional powerlifters. Their needs and their aversion to risk is quite different from people who don't compete. For that matter, the needs of a different kind of athlete and their risk aversion will be different also. For them the need to perform at the utmost in their given endeavor may supercede the need to display maximal strength at any given time.
But one's ability to display maximal strength depends on their state of recovery at that time. So much of this hinges on our ability to manage fatigue. Fatigue can mask fitness gains but the fitness gains are still there. An attempt at a new PR that doesn't result in a new PR can be a very transitory indicator of the state of fitness and fatigue. The fitness is there it is simply masked by residual fatigue.
While it may be possible to perfectly micro-manage fatigue and recovery I don't think it is realistic or even desirable for everyone. Qutie frankly, I don't think people should be doing 24 weeks of 5X5
I happen to think for very good reasons that an inability to make continued PR's on Friday but with no inability to progress on Monday could still be an indicator of fatigue present of Friday that simply disapates by Monday simply because the fatigue from maximal strength work is not as long lasting as fatigue from maximal work. Whatever residual fatigue is present of Friday and whatever fatigue is added by Friday could still disapate enough over two days to allow progress on Monday but again result in residual fatigue masking PR ability on Friday. It is very likely that enough is not being done on Monday to spur continue progress on Friday but it is also very possible that a further reductions in Wednesday's offload could solve the problem. After all what constitutes an effective off-load for anyone individual is bound to be different. Can I guarantee any of this? Of course not. That's the whole point. It has to be flexible.
Obviously if regression occurs on Friday this would be a more clear cut case of residual fatigue. And if progress stalls on Monday and stalls and/or regresses on Friday it should be obvious.
But what is my point here?
It is not simply to disagree with Rippetoe, lol. He's the man. What I'm trying to do is speak to the average trainee. Tell them not to go scrambling to make changes on Monday every time they miss a PR on Friday (I have a feeling this would happen). If you are progressing week to week and there is a very good tendency toward making PR's every Friday you are on a good track. For many this is probably a non-issue. For the most part the very act of attempting a PR on Friday will do the job on Friday (this is where I differ a bit). If you're not trying to meet deadlines then slow and steady wins the race.
What the hell did he just say? It sounds like I'm saying it doesn't take a PR to "facilitate neural pathways"? Yep, that is what I'm saying. Don't get me wrong. I want you to progress on Friday! I just don't want you to panic if you don't once in a while. Ask yourself why it is OK to put speed work on Friday.
Many people come to this kind of training with some very bad habits, imbalances, brewing injuries....all sorts of things that can lead to problems if this were approached with too much "enthusiasm". It is possible to gain strength too quickly (let the hate mail begin
). Lot's of people are doing Starting Strength and I am already seeing little and big injuries crop up. Is this because starting strength is bad? Of course not! It's just that what is good for the goose isn't always good for the gander.While in this thread we are promoting learning and self awareness you basically start with a cookie cutter approach and I think it is best to build on it slowly and systematically. You don't have Rip looking over your shoulder after all.
---x---
Riddick2112:
very good points made!!
one of the biggest faults i have found with Mentzer's writings is his obsession with the term "overtraining". i since have learned that there is a HUGE difference between being overtrained and simply being fatigued or tired.
imo, fatigue management is probably the single most important factor for continued progress and probably the most difficult to fine tune, especially as we (hopefully) adavance.
so yeah i agree a few missed reps or PR's does NOT mean your routine needs an overhaul or that you need to add more and more rest days like Mentzer advises.
Something Rip pointed out in PP was the tendency for people to make the wednesday offload too stressful therefore negating the reason for doing it in the first place. i recall him saying we need to resist the temptation to add more volume or use heavier weights even though we may feel like we arent doing much.
also there are so many outside factors that impact fatigue that making generalized recommendations is the best a guy can do when writing a book. in the end it comes down to you and/or your coach fine tuning the parameters of your program as you go along.
very interesting thread, thanks!
very good points made!!
one of the biggest faults i have found with Mentzer's writings is his obsession with the term "overtraining". i since have learned that there is a HUGE difference between being overtrained and simply being fatigued or tired.
imo, fatigue management is probably the single most important factor for continued progress and probably the most difficult to fine tune, especially as we (hopefully) adavance.
so yeah i agree a few missed reps or PR's does NOT mean your routine needs an overhaul or that you need to add more and more rest days like Mentzer advises.
Something Rip pointed out in PP was the tendency for people to make the wednesday offload too stressful therefore negating the reason for doing it in the first place. i recall him saying we need to resist the temptation to add more volume or use heavier weights even though we may feel like we arent doing much.
also there are so many outside factors that impact fatigue that making generalized recommendations is the best a guy can do when writing a book. in the end it comes down to you and/or your coach fine tuning the parameters of your program as you go along.
very interesting thread, thanks!
---x---
Eric3237:
Thanks, Riddick.
This is for Reforming who seems like a good guy wanting to make sense of all this. And whose efforts to REFORM I applaud
.
I think what is happeing here is that TM is becoming the defintion of intermediate programming rather than a method of intermediate programming. The apple cart is rolling along before the horses.
In a nutshell being an intermediate means progressing on a basis that is no longer workout to workout but is some longer period of time. Rippetoe goes over the logic in using a week when using this volume intensity method so I won’t repeat all that. But does there exist a scheme of less than a week and trainee who can strive on it? Of course. Don’t get caught up in time frames. Instead simply recognize that a week makes sense for this type of programming and it’s just more convenient.
So let’s just say being an intermediate means progressing on a weekly basis for the purposes of this discussion. That’s it. That’s all it really is. You do something that is supposed to disrupt homeostasis, fitness increases, fatigue disapates and you are able to do more next week. There is nothing in there which points to a certain method. People need to look past “methods” if they want to understand theories. It doesn’t matter if the homeostatic disruption is actually accomplished over more than one workout or whether it is just one as in TM. If you load and recover within the week you are doing intermediate training as far as our current definition of that goes.
I don’t care about the semantics involving fitness vs. “increasing your bench” or whatever. You increase your bench that is new fitness. You increase your load on bench 5x5 sets across enough and you should have increased your maximal ability on bench. You could choose not to “display that fitness” via a max repetition attempt but the ability is still there provided fatigue is not masking it. I don’t know why this is so difficult to see.
Now the things I have said were not designed to force a new paradigm on to the TM method. I was adding a caveat based on the day to day reality of training this way versus general recommendations. Most everything in PP is designned to accomplish the fastest progress possible. What I have found is that this mentality can be as much of a curse as a blessing when you don’t have a pro guiding your every move. All I am saying is sit back and recognize that there are a whole lot of weekly fluctuations in fitness and no one can really sum them up within a few paragraphs.
Just don’t go scrambling to make major changes if you fail to achieve a PR on Friday. By all means I hope that your efforts on Monday achieve the results to display a PR on Friday but make no mistake if you miss a PR but continue to progress on Monday you will still have achieved new strength. The PR is displaying the new strength and reinforcing it but it will serve it’s purpose even if an occasional PR is missed.
What is the difference? It is the difference between slow and steady and quick progress at all cost. By all means if you are in a huge hurry to get a big bench ignore me. But for those with less experience you are just as likely to bog yourself down and fuck up as you are to help yourself by making continual changes by overemphasing Friday….which I suspected would happen.
For Reforming if going to 3x5 on Monday worked it is most likely because there was too much fatigue build up and the drop in volume enabled new fitness to be manifested. But it is very unlikely that continual progress would be maintained with this. 3x5, once recovery has caught up, is likely not enough stimulus and PR’s don’t spur new PR’s and certainly will not continually drive the progress of a Monday type workout. If that was the way it worked then we would all have a very easy job of increasing our big three.
Friday of TM can simply be thought of as a Taper. Many of us consider a good taper to be simply a drastic reduction (I’ll let the individual define drastic based on his/her experience level) with intensity remaining high. Ideally the fitness from the previous loading period would be displayed though increases in intensity which also serves to reinforce those fitness gains. But in essence it is a period that allows you to remove fatigue without losing fitness. It is there to maintain and or display “fitness”. Many will say to increase fitness but that is not really correct thinking since it makes a taper or peak a program in itself.
A ramp or peak is better of course but, IMO, the most important thing is fatigue is removed and fitness is not lost while being reinforced. This fits Rippetoe’s explanation of Friday’s workout.
Most people who put too much thinking in to this will get themselves five or six weeks of progress before they have thought themselves into a hole.
As for the aspect of Monday to Monday and Friday to Friday “linear” progress, I’ll let Rip speak for me:
“When a program like this is started, the goal is to make progress on both Monday and Friday, just as in the novice program. When all the prescribed sets and reps on Monday are accomplished, raise the weight for the next week. If a new 1RM is set Friday, next week try for a new 2RM. In essence, LINEAR progress is still being made, but the line is now drawn between Monday and Monday, and between Friday and Friday, instead of between Monday and Wednesday.” – Mark Rippetoe
Ok, so notice the Rip says if an new 1RM is made. What if one is not made? You immediately panic at your failure and start rethinking everything? No. Chances are next week will prove to be successful. Or you might want to forgo another 1RM attempt and try a 5 or 4 or something else. As I said before, I don’t feel that new intermediate trainees should be doing 1RM’s in the first place. Most are going to be able to kick ass every Friday with new 5RM’s despite anything I have said, provided their non-workout behavour is up to par.
I don't believe that everyone should be trying to achieve a linear progression on Friday via a single progression method, i.e. 1,2,3,4,5 reps. That has been said time and again and not just by me. But yes it can be thought of as Monday to Monday and Friday to Friday without taking out the relationship between Monday and Friday.
In fact I think that Pendlay likes to follow the weekly linear periodized 5x5 with ramped sets at some point by going to 5X5 sets across on Monday and 5x5 ramped sets on Friday. If your were to do that you darn sure better plan a differnet progression for the Monday to Monday and the Friday to Friday because it will no longer be linear periodized within the week. Linear periodized in itself has nothing to do with progression within a week. It is simply any type of progression that is linear in nature
Thanks, Riddick.
This is for Reforming who seems like a good guy wanting to make sense of all this. And whose efforts to REFORM I applaud
.Quote:
| Originally Posted by ReformingBB Just read this now. No, I didn't say wrong. Part of my thoughts were covered by Dave. If I am quoting what the man Eric said and saying "This is the most important part," then how could that possibly mean that I think he is wrong |
Quote:
| Originally Posted by ReformingBB My feelings are that Monday and Friday are inseparably linked, as per the whole notion of the "intermediate programming," which requires multiple workouts in a given week to disrupt homeostasis, as of course you know. Thus, you can't truly think of it as a Monday to Monday progress and Friday to Friday progress. You COULD, I suppose, think of FRIDAY's working spurring Monday's gains, instead of the other way around. This is essentially what you are doing by placing more emphasis on Monday's PR's. I did exactly the opposite: I changed Monday to a 3x5 for a while once I got stuck and continued to PR on Fridays, when I was not able to before the TM. I got bigger and stronger as expected. MY goal was to increase my bench, not fitness as Eric. If all you needed to better your Monday's numbers were Monday's workouts, then you wouldn't be considered an intermediate, because that goes directly against the definition of an intermediate via PP. See what I'm saying? |
In a nutshell being an intermediate means progressing on a basis that is no longer workout to workout but is some longer period of time. Rippetoe goes over the logic in using a week when using this volume intensity method so I won’t repeat all that. But does there exist a scheme of less than a week and trainee who can strive on it? Of course. Don’t get caught up in time frames. Instead simply recognize that a week makes sense for this type of programming and it’s just more convenient.
So let’s just say being an intermediate means progressing on a weekly basis for the purposes of this discussion. That’s it. That’s all it really is. You do something that is supposed to disrupt homeostasis, fitness increases, fatigue disapates and you are able to do more next week. There is nothing in there which points to a certain method. People need to look past “methods” if they want to understand theories. It doesn’t matter if the homeostatic disruption is actually accomplished over more than one workout or whether it is just one as in TM. If you load and recover within the week you are doing intermediate training as far as our current definition of that goes.
I don’t care about the semantics involving fitness vs. “increasing your bench” or whatever. You increase your bench that is new fitness. You increase your load on bench 5x5 sets across enough and you should have increased your maximal ability on bench. You could choose not to “display that fitness” via a max repetition attempt but the ability is still there provided fatigue is not masking it. I don’t know why this is so difficult to see.
Now the things I have said were not designed to force a new paradigm on to the TM method. I was adding a caveat based on the day to day reality of training this way versus general recommendations. Most everything in PP is designned to accomplish the fastest progress possible. What I have found is that this mentality can be as much of a curse as a blessing when you don’t have a pro guiding your every move. All I am saying is sit back and recognize that there are a whole lot of weekly fluctuations in fitness and no one can really sum them up within a few paragraphs.
Just don’t go scrambling to make major changes if you fail to achieve a PR on Friday. By all means I hope that your efforts on Monday achieve the results to display a PR on Friday but make no mistake if you miss a PR but continue to progress on Monday you will still have achieved new strength. The PR is displaying the new strength and reinforcing it but it will serve it’s purpose even if an occasional PR is missed.
What is the difference? It is the difference between slow and steady and quick progress at all cost. By all means if you are in a huge hurry to get a big bench ignore me. But for those with less experience you are just as likely to bog yourself down and fuck up as you are to help yourself by making continual changes by overemphasing Friday….which I suspected would happen.
For Reforming if going to 3x5 on Monday worked it is most likely because there was too much fatigue build up and the drop in volume enabled new fitness to be manifested. But it is very unlikely that continual progress would be maintained with this. 3x5, once recovery has caught up, is likely not enough stimulus and PR’s don’t spur new PR’s and certainly will not continually drive the progress of a Monday type workout. If that was the way it worked then we would all have a very easy job of increasing our big three.
Friday of TM can simply be thought of as a Taper. Many of us consider a good taper to be simply a drastic reduction (I’ll let the individual define drastic based on his/her experience level) with intensity remaining high. Ideally the fitness from the previous loading period would be displayed though increases in intensity which also serves to reinforce those fitness gains. But in essence it is a period that allows you to remove fatigue without losing fitness. It is there to maintain and or display “fitness”. Many will say to increase fitness but that is not really correct thinking since it makes a taper or peak a program in itself.
A ramp or peak is better of course but, IMO, the most important thing is fatigue is removed and fitness is not lost while being reinforced. This fits Rippetoe’s explanation of Friday’s workout.
Most people who put too much thinking in to this will get themselves five or six weeks of progress before they have thought themselves into a hole.
As for the aspect of Monday to Monday and Friday to Friday “linear” progress, I’ll let Rip speak for me:
“When a program like this is started, the goal is to make progress on both Monday and Friday, just as in the novice program. When all the prescribed sets and reps on Monday are accomplished, raise the weight for the next week. If a new 1RM is set Friday, next week try for a new 2RM. In essence, LINEAR progress is still being made, but the line is now drawn between Monday and Monday, and between Friday and Friday, instead of between Monday and Wednesday.” – Mark Rippetoe
Ok, so notice the Rip says if an new 1RM is made. What if one is not made? You immediately panic at your failure and start rethinking everything? No. Chances are next week will prove to be successful. Or you might want to forgo another 1RM attempt and try a 5 or 4 or something else. As I said before, I don’t feel that new intermediate trainees should be doing 1RM’s in the first place. Most are going to be able to kick ass every Friday with new 5RM’s despite anything I have said, provided their non-workout behavour is up to par.
I don't believe that everyone should be trying to achieve a linear progression on Friday via a single progression method, i.e. 1,2,3,4,5 reps. That has been said time and again and not just by me. But yes it can be thought of as Monday to Monday and Friday to Friday without taking out the relationship between Monday and Friday.
In fact I think that Pendlay likes to follow the weekly linear periodized 5x5 with ramped sets at some point by going to 5X5 sets across on Monday and 5x5 ramped sets on Friday. If your were to do that you darn sure better plan a differnet progression for the Monday to Monday and the Friday to Friday because it will no longer be linear periodized within the week. Linear periodized in itself has nothing to do with progression within a week. It is simply any type of progression that is linear in nature
---x---
Eric3237:
This leads to the question of what types of fatigue to expect for different types of work. There is definitely a metabolic and neural fatigue factor. I use my own limited knowledge of these factors to influence the design of my own workout. But if we attempt to separate out the two and ask questions about CNS fatigue versus Metabolic fatigue within the context of single day parameters we will just over-analyse and confuse ourselves. This is because there is not a perfect line separating the two effects. They overlap of course.
Basically we are talking about two types of “work” right now. Maximal work (Monday volume) and maximal strength (Friday single set). Fatigue from maximal work can be expected to have a quicker onset onset than that from maximal strength. It should also be of lesser intensity. But it will be of longer duration. The fatigue from maximal strength will tend to be slower onset, higher intensity but much shorter duration. It is very simple to predict the difference between Monday and Friday in this way. Of couse there is a neural component involved in Monday! The intensity is relatively high. But in general we can just think of Monday as maximal work and predict that the fatigue will be of longer duration, which of course practice bares out. In essence there are different types of fatigue and different fitness effects and the above characteristics result from the interplay among them. Just remember that the different types of fatigue ARE cumulative.
I’m dealing in generalities. Many factors influence the magnitude of fatigue such as taining status.
Because the total workload on Friday is so low and because the fitness response is relatively speedy the difference between a 1RM attempt and a 5RM is of little importance when viewed within the context of the training week. You might predict that a 5RM would be more immediately draining and take a bit longer to recover from IN GENERAL and you’d probably be correct. You may also predict that any new fitness gained would be a little less immeditate but of longer duration and you’d also be correct. This goes into what I was saying about “new fitness” from a new 1RM attempt. There is a very quick fitness response from that which offsets fatigue to some extent. But it is much more fleeting in nature. It comes quick and it goes quick. IMO, sticking with 5RM at first and for as long as you can get away with it will likely be more successful in the short term for the less experienced.
BTW, the idea that assaults of the CNS take longer to recover from is incorrect and I’ve already went through. If this were true, a set-up like TM would be doomed to failure since Friday’s wokout would cause a fatgue long lasting enough to bleed into Monday and thus accumulate.
But IN GENERAL (I have to stress the general part) the fatigue effect from Monday trumpts anything you are going to generate of Friday. It is the more important of the two in terms of manipulation (not to mention the off-load of course). More important on Friday is the individuals own experience and their readiness to attepmpt 1RM’s. For the most part you should be able to progress happily along without ever seeing 1RM territory and I would rather see people at first using these as more of a way of gauging one long period of time with another. I.E. every once in a while you might imagine you are having a “competition day”. But this should be after you have gotten more comfortable with heavier loads. To some extent just switching around from 3’s and 5’s and stuff like that tends to give the CNS some breathing room. But I don’t want to overanalyze all this.
The idea of progressing from 1RM, to 2, 3, 4 and so on in a linear fashion is very powerful for those who are ready for it and can pull it off. But I don’t recommend it for many. Lots would get bogged down very quickly from this.
Another old time trick that one could use to gear themselves up for heavier loads is to use “holds”. On Friday you could pick a load that you extimate as your 1RM or a little higher and simply hold it in the starting position for a little while. Then go on to your regular RM attempt. For some this is actually a very good part of a warm up. Better than the idea of doing 1 rep at a higher rep which is not all it’s cracked up to be. But I don’t want to get into these holds in all kinds of detail. That is another discussion in itself.
I will say that for a lesser trained individual fatigue from maximal strength is very marked. Much has been made of the idea that someone working with more pounds is going to incur more wide ranging fatigue effect than a weaker individual. But if you compare another type of work, speed work, with maximal strength work within a single session you’ll see that this is not exactly the way it works. What you’ll find is that weaker individuals do very badly at maximal intensity work (speed work) following maximal strength work because of the fatigue effect. Whereas more advanced or elite individuals can do speed work after maximal strength work much more successfully although they too might be advised to do speed first for other reasons. It would be hard, knowing that, to say that RM attempts are automatically of less impact than for a stronger guy. A stronger more experienced guy should have more ability to work within his present potential due to many more factors than fatigue or just load on the bar. But there is no way of actually predicting training responses over a large population. You can make broad generalizations about novice, intermediate, or advanced lifters but the only very accurate training model is that for one individual.
This leads to the question of what types of fatigue to expect for different types of work. There is definitely a metabolic and neural fatigue factor. I use my own limited knowledge of these factors to influence the design of my own workout. But if we attempt to separate out the two and ask questions about CNS fatigue versus Metabolic fatigue within the context of single day parameters we will just over-analyse and confuse ourselves. This is because there is not a perfect line separating the two effects. They overlap of course.
Basically we are talking about two types of “work” right now. Maximal work (Monday volume) and maximal strength (Friday single set). Fatigue from maximal work can be expected to have a quicker onset onset than that from maximal strength. It should also be of lesser intensity. But it will be of longer duration. The fatigue from maximal strength will tend to be slower onset, higher intensity but much shorter duration. It is very simple to predict the difference between Monday and Friday in this way. Of couse there is a neural component involved in Monday! The intensity is relatively high. But in general we can just think of Monday as maximal work and predict that the fatigue will be of longer duration, which of course practice bares out. In essence there are different types of fatigue and different fitness effects and the above characteristics result from the interplay among them. Just remember that the different types of fatigue ARE cumulative.
I’m dealing in generalities. Many factors influence the magnitude of fatigue such as taining status.
Because the total workload on Friday is so low and because the fitness response is relatively speedy the difference between a 1RM attempt and a 5RM is of little importance when viewed within the context of the training week. You might predict that a 5RM would be more immediately draining and take a bit longer to recover from IN GENERAL and you’d probably be correct. You may also predict that any new fitness gained would be a little less immeditate but of longer duration and you’d also be correct. This goes into what I was saying about “new fitness” from a new 1RM attempt. There is a very quick fitness response from that which offsets fatigue to some extent. But it is much more fleeting in nature. It comes quick and it goes quick. IMO, sticking with 5RM at first and for as long as you can get away with it will likely be more successful in the short term for the less experienced.
BTW, the idea that assaults of the CNS take longer to recover from is incorrect and I’ve already went through. If this were true, a set-up like TM would be doomed to failure since Friday’s wokout would cause a fatgue long lasting enough to bleed into Monday and thus accumulate.
But IN GENERAL (I have to stress the general part) the fatigue effect from Monday trumpts anything you are going to generate of Friday. It is the more important of the two in terms of manipulation (not to mention the off-load of course). More important on Friday is the individuals own experience and their readiness to attepmpt 1RM’s. For the most part you should be able to progress happily along without ever seeing 1RM territory and I would rather see people at first using these as more of a way of gauging one long period of time with another. I.E. every once in a while you might imagine you are having a “competition day”. But this should be after you have gotten more comfortable with heavier loads. To some extent just switching around from 3’s and 5’s and stuff like that tends to give the CNS some breathing room. But I don’t want to overanalyze all this.
The idea of progressing from 1RM, to 2, 3, 4 and so on in a linear fashion is very powerful for those who are ready for it and can pull it off. But I don’t recommend it for many. Lots would get bogged down very quickly from this.
Another old time trick that one could use to gear themselves up for heavier loads is to use “holds”. On Friday you could pick a load that you extimate as your 1RM or a little higher and simply hold it in the starting position for a little while. Then go on to your regular RM attempt. For some this is actually a very good part of a warm up. Better than the idea of doing 1 rep at a higher rep which is not all it’s cracked up to be. But I don’t want to get into these holds in all kinds of detail. That is another discussion in itself.
I will say that for a lesser trained individual fatigue from maximal strength is very marked. Much has been made of the idea that someone working with more pounds is going to incur more wide ranging fatigue effect than a weaker individual. But if you compare another type of work, speed work, with maximal strength work within a single session you’ll see that this is not exactly the way it works. What you’ll find is that weaker individuals do very badly at maximal intensity work (speed work) following maximal strength work because of the fatigue effect. Whereas more advanced or elite individuals can do speed work after maximal strength work much more successfully although they too might be advised to do speed first for other reasons. It would be hard, knowing that, to say that RM attempts are automatically of less impact than for a stronger guy. A stronger more experienced guy should have more ability to work within his present potential due to many more factors than fatigue or just load on the bar. But there is no way of actually predicting training responses over a large population. You can make broad generalizations about novice, intermediate, or advanced lifters but the only very accurate training model is that for one individual.
No comments:
Post a Comment