In CT’s new book he states that he has a few modified CAD versions for bodybuilding (Accumulation), and for Sports with a strength-speed profile ie. football (More of an intensification phase).
So how would one modify the CAD system to suit a strength speed sport or bodybuilding.
Any help is appreciated
from what i read in the book CAD is very effective in improving RFD. i’m sure it can be manipulated for bodybuilding purposes, but the way it is set up in the, i believe rfd is the main concern.
Exactly,
CT mentioned the variations and it piqued my interest in them
I’m back for an extremely busy day, but I’ll try to sit down and give you a few insights later on.
Thanks for being so generous with your time.
I will be interested to see CT’s answer as CAD has intrigued me for a while.
I have included CAD workouts as part of my current program which is outlined below I really like them. I am on the last day of week 2 (I start my training week on a Saturday) and am very pleased with the reults.
[i]After much consideration I have come up with what I call Constant Inconsistency (CI) which is really just a flash name for a combo of ideas I nicked off the really clever strength coaches. The constant part comes from retaining the same focus strength exercises for 4 weeks the inconsistency comes from changing everything else. Thre are 3 blocks of 5 weeks so it is a 15 week program.
The basic premise is that you use a conjugated approach, which means that you are working on a number of things at once. Rather than focussing solely on increasing bench, squat and deadlift as Westside do CI is aimed at athletes or those who want to train like an athlete.
The Blocks
Weeks 1 -3 use a 4 day weights split, 2 upper and 2 lower days, plus 2 HIIT/ ab days. 1 of each is dedicated to strength focus and the other is either an ascending, descending or a more standard day- these change from week to week and are cycled throughout the program - confused yet?
The strength days have 2 primary lifts which are antagonists. The way lift A is performed changes from week (work to 1RM, 8 x3, above max static holds and waves) no 2 styles are used in the same week for upper and lower, e.g. Upper work to 1RM, lower 8 x 3.
Lift B is performed using Isometric style, timed tension or similar. Lifts C and D are assistance ‘money’ exercises. Lifts B, C and D do not change from week to week. Still with me?
Week 4 has 2 weights and 2 HIIT/ ab days. The weight days use only the 2 focus lifts (eg bench and bor) performed as 5 x 5.
Week 5 has 2 HIIT days using IBUR but as tempo runs – the aim is to finish each sprint portion at the same pace as it started. There is 1 weight day only and this involves an Oly lift, push, pull, a squat performed as a circuit. 3 circuits of 5 reps. Abs are worked that day after the weights.
Week 6 start again but with different focus lifts.
Focus lifts
Block 1
box squat/snatch grip dead, bottom start bench/ bor,
Block 2
snatch grip dead/squat, Chins/dips
Block 3
Bottom satrt squat/GM, dips/chins
It has been designed to fit my environment (my garage) so minimal gear is required, a cage with chin and dip attachments, bench, swiss ball, Oly set, DB’s, sledgehammer and tyre.
I’m pretty sure it will work, if anyone wants to see an overview of how the cycles flow (may be easier than the above) send me a PM with your email addy and I will send it to you.[/i]
I think the CAD system can be quite easily adjusted to different needs just by changing the number of sets of each of the four types of lift to empasize the particular attribute required. For bodybuilding you might need to add in controlled reps and knock the shocks off the list. Example:
-----------------------BBing----------Strength-spd-------Speed
Shock excercise--------------------------1set-------------2sets
Ballistic-----------------1set-------------2sets------------3sets
Strength-speed---------1set-------------3sets------------2sets
Slow-speed-------------2sets------------2sets------------1sets
Controlled--------------4sets
Obviously No. off sets would be adjusted weekly and athlete to athlete etc…
Alan.
IMHO I would think that CTs pendulum approach is far superior to CAD for bodybuilding. Based on what I have read so far on the pendulum system you could actually include CAD as part of your block maybe in place of the functional strength week or as a whole separate week which would give you 4 differing weeks instead of three for bodybuilding. Sorry if I just confused anyone, I am sure CT will give us a much more detailed response.
I agree and have done that in my program, although only early into it, it appears to work very well.
I have seen CT give a pendulum that includes CAD as a week.
I just completed an article on pendulum training for powerlifting (which will probably run in two weeks) and I started working on an athletic pendulum article.
It is true that pendulum training is superior to CAD strictly for bodybuilding gains. However, understand that the pendulum system is not a routine, but rather a way of structuring training. So one could include CAD in a pendulum program.
The pendulum approach revolves around alternating training emphasis and method every week. The weekly program varying according to the needs of the sport.
In my athletic pendulum the CAD plays an important role. However, during an athletic pendulum one doesn’t always follow a complete CAD routine. Here’s an example:
ATHLETIC PENDULUM FOR POWER SPORTS
Week 1: Structural/prehab training
Week 2: Functional training, limit strength emphasis
Week 3: Functional training, power emphasis
Week 4: Functional training, limit strength emphasis
Week 5: Structural/regenerative training
Elements of the CAD system will be found in weeks 2-4.
For example…
Weeks 2 and 4 (limit strength emphasis)
During these weeks the ratio of limit strength : power work is approximately 3:1. Since I normally use 4-5 exercises per session there will be 3 limit strength exercises and 1-2 power exercises.
During this phase power exercises should be of the weighted type (power clean from blocks, power snatch from blocks, push press, jump squat, ballistic bench press, med ball throws, etc.)
For example, a sample session could look like this:
or something similar…
Week 3 (power emphasis)
During this week the ratio of limit strength : power work is approximately 1:3. So 3 power exercises and 1-2 limit strength exercises.
A sample session could look like this:
or something similar…
In the past I used an upper/lower body split. But with athletes I’m now moving to whole body programs performed three times per week. Each session including at least 1 upper body exercise, 1 lower body exercise and 1 whole body exercise. The remaining 1-2 exercises are selected depending on the weaknesses of the athlete.
For bodybuilding/hypertropĥy purposes the CAD system can be used but needs to be adapted, especially when it comes to the training split. In that case I favor the following split…
Monday: Quads dominant
Tuesday: Upper body push dominant
Wednesday: OFF
Thursday: Hips dominant
Friday: OFF
Sunday: Upper body pull dominant
With a bodybuilding CAD, the limit strength exercise is always first.
NOTE … Bodybuilding is not a power sport, the CAD system was originally designed for power sports. I see bodybuilding mostly as a strength-endurance sport. So instead of using the following exercise progression:
I prefer to use…
The limit strength exercise is performed for 3-6 reps
The Strength-endurance exercise is performed for 8-12 reps
The Endurance-strength exercise is performed for 20-25 reps
The endurance/capilarisation exercise is performed for 30-40 reps
The limit strength exercise is performed under control, but with no special attention to tempo.
The strength-endurance exercise is performed at a slow eccentric tempo and a rapid concentric tempo
The Endurance-strength exercise is performed at a slow eccentric tempo and controled concentric tempo
The endurance exercise is performed at a controled tempo.
Isn’t one week too short a period to elicit optimal adaptations in certain targeted qualities e.g., hypertrophy?
stevemac, go to t-mag and check out the two articles CT wrote on pendulum training. in short the answer is no.
Thanks for the long response CT,
I’m sure there will me more questions
In my opinion, the biggest error most weightrainers make is overtraining. Lifting to failure, lifting close to maximum, performing 5 pressing exercises 
… Pendulum training, if it does work, probably does so by preventing high intensity overtraining (& by providing variation).
A more effective option is simply to tightly control (and fluctuate) intensity such that <5% of lifts are >90% 1RM.
An example an Olympic lifting program:
1&2. CLs: 75% Pulls: 95%
3&4. CLs: 80% Pulls: 100%
5&6. CLs: 85% Pulls: 105%
7&8. CLs: 90% Pulls: 110%
9&10. 80% Pulls: 100%
11&12. 85% Pulls: 105%
12&14. 90% Pulls: 110%
Volume as you see remains IDENTICAL except for session 15&16.
Unfortunately the higher the rep no, the smaller the range of intensities available. For example, if 3RM = 90% then the heaviest load= 85% (unless a max is being tested) Variation must therefore be attained in other ways…
Great Points David
CT,
Since you reccomend using a whole body approach to training (for athletes), What do you think of implementing a tier type system like
Tier 1 Maximum Strength (85-100%)
Tier 2 Power type lifts: Speed Squat/Bench/Oly’s (45-65%)
Tier 3 Ballistic (10-25%)
Then follow the basic
Day 1
1: Total
2: Upper
3: Lower
Day 2
1: Upper
2: Lower
3: Total
Day 3
1: Lower
2: Total
3: Upper
Then follow each main session with a little hypertrophy work on weak areas (1-2 exercises)
This would kinda follow the CAD idea of training each point in the force training spectrum and keep the whole body approach intact.
You could even extend a fourth tier in each workout of shock training
Steve, one week would be too short IF that was all that you did. Even when you rotate to functional training you are still utilizing resistance training and overload, so you can continue to build up gains.
Furthermore you have to look at the big picture here. One doesn’t do only one training cycle in a year. A cycle lasts 5 weeks, so it’s fair to assume that 4-5 cycles would be an adequate foundation training for an athlete. so we’re talking 20-25 weeks of training, 4-5 of which are hypertrophy weeks. 4-5 weeks is the amount of time to devote to hypertrophy for a 4-5 months period with most athletes recommended by most periodization authors. So the yearly volume spent on increasing muscle mass is the same, it’s just the repartition that differs.
Another point, is that with athletes, the structural weeks are not that much for increased muscle mass, but rather to unload the CNS, help with tendons recovery and to help prevent injuries. For that purpose, the pendulum system is better.
David, I fail to see how it is more effective. Your problem is that you are still operating from a weightlifting coach standpoint. I know the feeling because I once was just like that. But understand that olympic lifting training is not the be-all end-all of athletic training.
Your approach, while very good for olympic lifting purposes, neglects some aspects of physical preparation and disregard the need for systematic CNS unloading periods and regenerative training.
That having been said, it IS possible to use a pendulum approach with olympic lifting training:
Week 1: Structural training (general strength movements performed at a relatively high volume and moderate load)
Week 2: Functional strength & power (emphasis on assistance exercises such as back squat, front squat, power clean, push jerks, power snatches from various positions, technical work is 1/3 of the weekly volume)
Week 3: Technical mastery (emphasis on the clean & jerk and snatch, this constitute 2/3 of the training volume, 1/3 is squats)
Week 4: Functional strength & power (emphasis on assistance exercises such as back squat, front squat, power clean, push jerks, power snatches from various positions, technical work is 1/3 of the weekly volume)
Week 5: Unloading/structural training
This would work best for a lifter with verygood technique but who lacks limit strength.
A lifter who lacks technique would be better to use the following approach:
Week 1: Structural training (general strength movements performed at a relatively high volume and moderate load)
Week 2: Technical mastery (emphasis on the clean & jerk and snatch, this constitute 2/3 of the training volume, 1/3 is squats)
Week 3: Functional strength & power (emphasis on assistance exercises such as back squat, front squat, power clean, push jerks, power snatches from various positions, technical work is 1/3 of the weekly volume)
Week 4: Technical mastery (emphasis on the clean & jerk and snatch, this constitute 2/3 of the training volume, 1/3 is squats)
Week 5: Unloading/structural training
If it does work… IT WORKS! There you go again doubting my methods… just like when you doubted when I talked about functional isometrics … yet you were quick to apologize when you found out that they worked 
101, I like the tier approach (developed by ASU strength coach Joe Kenn). It is very similar to what I use myself.
i like the pendulum theory, I use it a little bit differently and I think it works well because of extended time between training sessions as well. I do a schedule like this
Monday-RFD upper body
Tuesday-Lower Body
Wednesday-Off
Thursday-Limit Strength Upper Body
Friday-Sunday-Off
Sessions are short and intense, I rotate between lower volume strength routines and higher volume one. For ex last week I did 1-5,4,3 wave loading scheme. This week I did 5x5. Thus far working nicely, measurements of mid thigh, mid arm, and chest indicate growth this week, which will be shown in my log. It keeps your body on edge, always off balance having to adapt to the new stimulus constantly, but because you go relatively heavy to the rep scheme and movements I have not experienced soreness. Basically I use 6 different rep schemes I cycle through, thus far has worked, well see in a couple of months though if I can show continued progress. As well I understand that gains are great at the beginning, but I am trying to look at the bigger picture, for ex. do I make gains every two “cycles”, and how significant they are.