Yes, I have Bompa’s Periodization text. I understand and (with reservations) agree with the 10% intensity range limit. Effectively, this resticts the lifter to a very shallow pyramid, i.e. 5 to 3 or 3 to 1.
As I mentioned in the article however, there is not a linear relationship between intensity and the maximum repetitions possible. This causes problems even with a small intensity range. Consider:
1RM = 100k
3RM = 85k
5RM = 80k
8RM = 75k
How would you design a pyramid for this athlete?
My main focus when designing programs is to control intensity to protect against overtraining by using a ‘Buffer’ (see below). When using multiple rep patterns within the same workout determining the magnitude of the buffer for each set becomes unnecessarily complicated. So my main questions is, if the intensity range is so low why would you want to employ a pyramid? To provide variation? Would it not be better to oscillate reps schemes over sessions?
Buffering – A Method of Selecting Training Intensity
I contend that unless a lifter is testing a maximum a ‘buffer’ should always be employed between the training load and recent (repetition) maximum.
Example
3 Repetition Maximum (RM) = 100
3 reps at 95k
Buffer = 100 – 95 = 5k
As rep number decreases the magnitude of the buffer must increase since the load is closer to absolute maximum. I recommend the minimum buffer should be 10% for 1 – 4 reps and 5% for 5 – 8 reps. Larger buffers may be required as absolute strength increases since the higher the motor control (high fibre recruitment and rate coding, low Golgi and antagonistic inhibition) the greater central nervous system fatigue resulting from lifts near to maximum.
When loads approach maximum there is often a tendency to increase the speed of the eccentric phase and/or to over utilise cheat methods, e.g. flexing spine during the squat and lifting the ass during a bench press. Greater loads can then be lifted but greater muscle forces have likely not been achieved. By using a buffer technique remains (more) consistent and injury risk is substantially deceased.
The emotional requirement to lift at maximum means central nervous system stress is significantly greater than for a sub maximum effort. One possible exception is lifters who have learned to emotionally detach from his training and accept a performance decrement. A maximum effort generally precludes any further quality sets and may also detract from subsequent training sessions in the week. As a result volume may be reduced below the threshold required to generate (or sustain) an adaptation.
There is also research that suggests prolonged training in limit strength exercises (e.g. squat & bench) close to 1RM causes a decrease in speed (Rate of Force Development) that manifests before any decrement in the specific exercise. This is obviously important for power athletes such as sprinters and throwers. The Olympic lifts and their derivatives have a high speed component therefore any decrease in RFD will manifest itself immediately.
Lastly, an experienced lifter recognises that day-to-day variations in strength are quite significant. On a given day therefore a 90% lift can, in severe cases, actually represent a 100% effort. Percentages in any program must therefore only be a guide and the athlete should recognise this and have the discipline to decrease the load accordingly. In the future perhaps force plates will be widely used to calculate movement velocity. This would be useful to determine optimum training load and hence to avoid overtraining.
Drawing heavily from available strength literature, I illustrate below an example 4 week cycle; 3 sessions per week:
Wk1
S1,2,3 5X3R 90% 3RM
Wk2
S1,2 5X3R 92% 3RM
S3 3X3R 95% 3RM
Wk3
S1,2,3 6X2R 90% 2RM
Wk4
S1 6X2R 92% 2RM
S2 3X2R 95% 2RM
S3 2R 102% 2RM
For simplicity I like to translate percentages into loads, i.e. for a 1RM of 75 to 125k, 10% = 10k.; 1RM of 125 to 175, 10% = 15k etc