New Rippetoe/Baker/Bradford article on intermediate programming

[tdood]

Heaven forbid we do something as complex as getting e1rm during the training cycle.

This has been an extremely valuable training tool for me, and it takes virtually seconds

I've said it before.. say you're grinding out 5rm squats every friday on TM, and you manage a 365x5. You determine you could have done 1 more rep. That makes it an RPE 9, 3 weeks later you do 385 and get 3 reps, no more in the tank. That makes it rpe 10. Less than a minutes effort will tell you you got weaker, despite the fact that 385 is more than 365, And unless you just want to load 390 next weak and tear your groin or get knee aids, a programming adjustment should be made.

[Hanley]

You determine you could have done 1 more rep. That makes it an RPE 9, 3 weeks later you do 385 and get 3 reps, no more in the tank. That makes it rpe 10. Less than a minutes effort will tell you you got weaker, despite the fact that 385 is more than 365, And unless you just want to load 390 next weak and tear your groin or get knee aids, a programming adjustment should be made.

This is not hyperbole.

A good percentage of this very community has tried and rejected the Aasgaard approach to intermediate and advanced programming. Because it didn't work well. Nay, it fucking sucks. Too many injuries. Horrible work capacity. Completely shit lean mass to fat gain. Hard stalls.

[Manveer]

No one is capable of determining how many reps they have in the tank. Only a certified Starting Strength coach. RPE is imaginary.

[Hanley]

No one is capable of determining how many reps they have in the tank. Only a certified Starting Strength coach. RPE is imaginary.

You don't get it.

The Art of Programming Complexity Minimization is quite subtle and complex.

[EricK]

No one is capable of determining how many reps they have in the tank. Only a certified Starting Strength coach. RPE is imaginary.

Enjoy all that weak, useless body builder muscle mass you're carrying around because you bought into the trendy high volume fad and do all your reps at 50% intensity...

[mgil]

Repping 315x5@6 on bench is much weaker than 225x3@9.5

[Hanley]

No one is capable of determining how many reps they have in the tank. Only a certified Starting Strength coach. RPE is imaginary.

Enjoy all that weak, useless body builder muscle mass you're carrying around because you bought into the trendy high volume fad and do all your reps at 50% intensity...

Answer me this: when you work your way from a 700 pound to 800 pound deadlift using 5s,3,2s, and singles, do you think you've gained muscle mass?

[Hamburgerfan]

Excessive simplicity can be seductive too. It's a very appealing thought that everything worth knowing about training can be learned from a single source. In a world of conflicting and confusing ideas on how to train, it's very tempting to allow yourself to disregard anything unfamiliar or hard to understand.

[EricK]

No one is capable of determining how many reps they have in the tank. Only a certified Starting Strength coach. RPE is imaginary.

Enjoy all that weak, useless body builder muscle mass you're carrying around because you bought into the trendy high volume fad and do all your reps at 50% intensity...

Answer me this: when you work your way from a 700 pound to 800 pound deadlift using 5s,3,2s, and singles, do you think you've gained muscle mass?

I gained so much muscle. I just reduced my daily and weekly tonnage because my body knew that my training stimulus had transitioned to a month. I figure by the time I get to quarterly training doses, I'll barely train at all.

[MattimusMaximus]

A good percentage of this very community has tried and rejected the Aasgaard approach to intermediate and advanced programming. Because it didn't work well. Nay, it fucking sucks. Too many injuries. Horrible work capacity. Completely shit lean mass to fat gain. Hard stalls.

Amen!

[Manveer]

This also applies to post-novice programming. The same principles that allow the efficient management of the stress/recovery/adaptation (S/R/A) cycle apply even when the cycle no longer operates in a 48 to 72-hour period. In the absence of a convincing argument against faster progress, it should be the default assumption. And the fastest progress will always be obtained by 1.) basing your training program on data collected directly from your training, and 2.) adding complexity to your training only when necessary and as little as possible. PRs are the measure of progress, and these two principles, when properly applied, result in PRs with the maximum frequency your level of training advancement permits.

What is the evidence for #2?

For the Intermediate trainee, the same principles apply: effective training must be based on the process that generated the adaptation – the selection of loads and workouts that produced the accumulation of strength, just like those which formed the basis of the novice progression that led up to the now-more-advanced state of adaptation. The Intermediate should not assume that just because he’s no longer a Novice, the basis of his training load selection must change.

Don't use percentages or RPE. Got it.

But no more complex than is absolutely necessary – the lowest effective dose of complexity principle should be followed.

What is complexity - periodization? Exercise variation? Why is this a principle?

Volume training seems to be gaining in popularity. Backing off from 375 to 305 for more reps, sets, and higher volume while adding more squat days to the program would actually be detraining in intensity to favor increased volume, and “junk reps” do not drive a strength increase in anybody except a baby novice. Volume outside the context of tonnage is meaningless: 8 sets of 6 reps at 50% is high volume.

Who the fuck is training at 50% for powerlifting?

It’s also important to note that avoiding exposure to higher-intensity training in favor of lighter volume at this point in a lifter’s career robs him of critical lessons that all good lifters must learn. Straining against loads in excess of 90% does not merely display and build strength – grinding out heavy triples, doubles, and singles is also a skill. And skills must be practiced. You already know how to lift light weights – they're called “warmups.” There is a psychologically and even an emotionally developmental component to unracking and lowering a weight you aren’t sure you can actually squat. Inexperienced lifters must learn to manage fear and apprehension, and develop the skill required to focus through it.

Ah, of course, there is no middle ground between 90% and warmups.

In my four decades on the platform with clients and lifters, I have observed thousands of people who prematurely racked a heavy set of squats or set down a heavy deadlift before it even got stuck on the way up. All experienced coaches have heard inexperienced trainees say, “I couldn’t have done another rep!” when we know from experience they had 2 or 3 more reps left on the bar.

RPE is unpossible!

Using the 4-Day Split example, the first week’s volume day’s 25 reps at 355 is a 10-rep volume increase that has you handling within 6% of your previous intensity on volume day, with work tonnage at 8875 pounds. It’s both enough room for a run-up to fresh PRs and heavy enough to maintain the strength adaptation you’ve trained months to obtain. Then, intensity day at 380 x 5, the same weight you’ve done for 5 before the changeover, sets the stage for the intensity and the “grind” practice necessary for continued progress. The reduction in squat frequency from 3x/week to twice increases the recovery potential from the higher-volume workout while maintaining your strength for heavy weight.

Hey, lookit! Texas Method!

Also, comparing weekly tonnage to daily tonnage makes a lot of sense...

Advanced lifters often use longer periods of higher volume at lighter weight. Tapering up to PR intensity is necessary for athletes who are adding only 10–15 pounds to a lift over an 8 to 10-week period. If high intensity is the end of the taper, high volume has traditionally been the start of it – a deload period after a long cycle of high intensity and low volume. But if you were making 48-hour jumps of 2.5–5 pounds as recently as a couple of weeks ago, the jump into several weeks of lowered intensity for the sake of a training volume adaptation will be an unsatisfying, and more importantly unnecessary, regression into detraining. In this case the “lowest effective dose” refers to the amount of deviation from what has previously worked well.

Again, there is a lot of middle ground here that is being ignored between a novice and very advanced.

[Hamburgerfan]

Who the fuck is training at 50% for powerlifting?

me

[Wilhelm]

I had heard 65% a lot as where effective training starts, but watching Dave Tate he mentions counting anything over 50% as part of the volume.

That might for people who lift a lot higher weights though. ( Hamburgerfan for sure)
Not sure, but thought i'd chime in anyway.

[Manveer]

Who the fuck is training at 50% for powerlifting?

me

What proportion of your training is at 50%?

[DirtyRed]

Failure should be incredibly rare.

What about your failures to teach human beings back extension?

[RobUK]

Volume training seems to be gaining in popularity. Backing off from 375 to 305 for more reps, sets, and higher volume while adding more squat days to the program would actually be detraining in intensity to favor increased volume, and “junk reps” do not drive a strength increase in anybody except a baby novice. Volume outside the context of tonnage is meaningless: 8 sets of 6 reps at 50% is high volume.

Who the fuck is training at 50% for powerlifting?

I think 'we're' interpreting this part wrongly. He's deliberately using a percentage that would be too low to be effective to illustrate his point. I.e what is unwritten following on from the example is 'and that would be highly ineffective.'

If he'd used 70% then that would change the implication because it would be an example of high volume at an effective intensity.

[tdood]

Volume training seems to be gaining in popularity. Backing off from 375 to 305 for more reps, sets, and higher volume while adding more squat days to the program would actually be detraining in intensity to favor increased volume, and “junk reps” do not drive a strength increase in anybody except a baby novice. Volume outside the context of tonnage is meaningless: 8 sets of 6 reps at 50% is high volume.

Who the fuck is training at 50% for powerlifting?

I think 'we're' interpreting this part wrongly. He's deliberately using a percentage that would be too low to be effective to illustrate his point. I.e what is unwritten following on from the example is 'and that would be highly ineffective.'

If he'd used 70% then that would change the implication because it would be an example of high volume at an effective intensity.

No, he's passing right over the entire concept of accumulating volume at 68-75% (numbers lifted from Austins IG).

[Cody]

I had heard 65% a lot as where effective training starts, but watching Dave Tate he mentions counting anything over 50% as part of the volume.

Just so you're aware, Tate, Simmons, etc. train "raw" using 50% of their geared lift...

So if they squatted 850 in a multi ply squat suit, briefs, and wraps, then 50% would be 425, which is probably a fine weight to use for their high volume or speed days, because it's actually not 50% of their "raw" max, it's more like 70%.

[Manveer]

Volume training seems to be gaining in popularity. Backing off from 375 to 305 for more reps, sets, and higher volume while adding more squat days to the program would actually be detraining in intensity to favor increased volume, and “junk reps” do not drive a strength increase in anybody except a baby novice. Volume outside the context of tonnage is meaningless: 8 sets of 6 reps at 50% is high volume.

Who the fuck is training at 50% for powerlifting?

I think 'we're' interpreting this part wrongly. He's deliberately using a percentage that would be too low to be effective to illustrate his point. I.e what is unwritten following on from the example is 'and that would be highly ineffective.'

If he'd used 70% then that would change the implication because it would be an example of high volume at an effective intensity.

From his example:

Hypothetical trainee squatted 375x5x3 at the end of LP, couldn't get 380x5x3.

So, this person has an e1RM around 450 (3 sets of 5 with the last set at an absolute bone-on-bone RPE 10 should be around 83% of 1RM for most people. 85-86% is a 5RM which by definition cannot be done for sets across).

He says "Backing off from 375 to 305 for more reps, sets, and higher volume while adding more squat days to the program would actually be detraining in intensity to favor increased volume, and “junk reps” do not drive a strength increase in anybody except a baby novice."

305 would be ~68% of 450. This is heavy enough to drive a strength adaptation given enough volume, and in the context of a broader program which might vary intensities and volume.

Where does 50% come from? I dunno.

Excessive simplicity can be seductive too. It's a very appealing thought that everything worth knowing about training can be learned from a single source. In a world of conflicting and confusing ideas on how to train, it's very tempting to allow yourself to disregard anything unfamiliar or hard to understand.

Also, this is a great post.

[anelson]

Who the fuck is training at 50% for powerlifting?

me

I sense altered loyalty.