Things I believe but can't prove...

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@DCR I mean the way that I see it is: if your muscles get bigger, then you'll be able to add weights and reps. But I understand what you're saying, if you're repeating the same sets and reps at the same weight week in week out then you should probably change something. Also I realize my wording was poor: I should have said something like lift for sets of 6-30 reps with an RPE 6-10 and do enough sets but not so much that it overwhelms your current work capacity, eat sleep repeat. I like sets of 6 for hypertrophy too, especially for the big compounds. Maybe a bit more nuanced way of saying what I said before would be: for hypertrophy you need a (very crude) form of periodization in which whenever an exercise/sets/reps scheme does not demonstrably improve, then change it to something else. Like if you only care for size, and your squat in sets of 6 is not giving you results, you can change the exercise altogether and do a bunch of hack squats or lunges. Getting variety and removing stale movements is probably sufficient. So it's different from what a typical "periodized" program would look like for somebody interested in strength (whether it's linear or conjugate or DUP or whatever).

[lehman906]

Programming is bullshit and periodization is especially bullshit.

That's obviously a hyperbolic and clickbaity thing to say, but I don't think it's totally wrong either.

People have gotten insanely strong and insanely jacked with a jillion different methods. People have also gotten insanely strong and insanely jacked while barely having a program and using zero periodization. George Frenn and the guys at the original westside didn't periodize, and yet that crew got stupid fucking strong, Frenn squatting 850+ in the 60s for example.

"Yeah but those people were genetically gifted" yeah, and the same is true of everyone who gets crazy strong, no matter what methods they used.

If you're not making progress, I think there's about a 98% chance that the culprit is one of the following:

A) You're not training hard enough
B) Your recovery is screwed up (nutrition, not enough sleep, external life stressors)
C) (less likely) you are actually legit overtraining

... and not because you aren't using the correct model of periodization or whatever.

If I wanted to continue on the hyperbole train, I'd say "Science based" programming has ruined lifting for most people. It gives people the impression that the human body is an excel spreadsheet where you can plug in specific inputs and get specific outputs, and they get too into their heads with training, when really they'd be better served by just going to the gym, lifting hard and heavy and having fun, and when the weight feels too light, add more.

Oh hi Jamie, I didnt know you were on Exodus. Welcome to the forum dude, I really enjoy your articles about the history of lifting.

Ha! I thought exactly the same thing.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@lehman906 I mean it has everything:
- the idolization of the culver city barbell club
- the hate of periodization
- the whole "just train harder lol"
- the vaguely "hardcore" tone
It's near perfect. It's just missing an insult directed towards Louie Simmons and a few NSFW images.

[KarlM]

I believe and absolutely cannot prove: peak force is more important than load when it comes to the transfer of submaximal loads to top-end strength. I also think peak force is a really, really good proxy for total recruitment during the propulsive phase of a lift (and thus a proxy of a rep's "efficacy").

The equipment required to get a valid measure is fucking expensive, though.

I also need to figure out how to program using it as a prescriptive metric.

I suspect this is why HLM setups work for some people and don't for others. If you don't attempt to move the weight fast and with intent on the M and L days, you may not get much out of those sessions.

[Hanley]

I believe and absolutely cannot prove: peak force is more important than load when it comes to the transfer of submaximal loads to top-end strength. I also think peak force is a really, really good proxy for total recruitment during the propulsive phase of a lift (and thus a proxy of a rep's "efficacy").

The equipment required to get a valid measure is fucking expensive, though.

I also need to figure out how to program using it as a prescriptive metric.

I suspect this is why HLM setups work for some people and don't for others. If you don't attempt to move the weight fast and with intent on the M and L days, you may not get much out of those sessions.

I think that’s probably the case.

[EricK]

I believe and absolutely cannot prove: peak force is more important than load when it comes to the transfer of submaximal loads to top-end strength. I also think peak force is a really, really good proxy for total recruitment during the propulsive phase of a lift (and thus a proxy of a rep's "efficacy").

The equipment required to get a valid measure is fucking expensive, though.

I also need to figure out how to program using it as a prescriptive metric.

I suspect this is why HLM setups work for some people and don't for others. If you don't attempt to move the weight fast and with intent on the M and L days, you may not get much out of those sessions.

[cole]

I believe and absolutely cannot prove: peak force is more important than load when it comes to the transfer of submaximal loads to top-end strength. I also think peak force is a really, really good proxy for total recruitment during the propulsive phase of a lift (and thus a proxy of a rep's "efficacy").

A short cut to getting strong without having to lift heavy....

I do think however that in order to have the ability to actually display the strength you gain from moving loads at high velocity with high motor unit recruitment, one needs to actually move heavy loads once in a while as well. There is more to lifting heavy than explosiveness and big muscles. Agree?

[Hanley]

I do think however that in order to have the ability to actually display the strength you gain from moving loads at high velocity with high motor unit recruitment, one needs to actually move heavy loads once in a while as well. There is more to lifting heavy than explosiveness and big muscles. Agree?

Absolutely. You need frequent practice with 90%+ e1RM singles/doubles.

[OverheadDeadlifts]

I do think however that in order to have the ability to actually display the strength you gain from moving loads at high velocity with high motor unit recruitment, one needs to actually move heavy loads once in a while as well. There is more to lifting heavy than explosiveness and big muscles. Agree?

I’ve noticed if I spend too much time with exclusively 65-80%ish loads I start to make form tweaks that feel really strong with lighter weights but when I get back to 90%+ those same tweaks fuck everything up. Changing joint angles, rushing the eccentric, being a little less tight to save energy, not applying max effort through the entire rep etc. There’s just a much narrower range of positions you can get away with as you approach 100%.

[KarlM]

I do think however that in order to have the ability to actually display the strength you gain from moving loads at high velocity with high motor unit recruitment, one needs to actually move heavy loads once in a while as well. There is more to lifting heavy than explosiveness and big muscles. Agree?

I’ve noticed if I spend too much time with exclusively 65-80%ish loads I start to make form tweaks that feel really strong with lighter weights but when I get back to 90%+ those same tweaks fuck everything up. Changing joint angles, rushing the eccentric, being a little less tight to save energy, not applying max effort through the entire rep etc. There’s just a much narrower range of positions you can get away with as you approach 100%.

This rings true, especially the last bit about narrower positional tolerance for max loads. This is something I need to address more regularly in my own programming.