Bold, I am fully aware of TUT and its application in bodybuilding but thought it wasn’t that applicable to athletic or strength training (although you may recall some intense discussion re isometrics some time ago). You are viewing it on too small a scale as the focus is on the workload in the time block (20 minutes).
John, do you mean similar to Charles Staley “Escalating Density Training”?
Very similar but the significant difference is that with EDT weights progression is a fundamental driver whereas what I suggest it is a byproduct only, and if you aren’t progressing can be an indicator you are doing too much, as the goal is to do what you are capable of on the day which may even mean dropping volume or exercises. THAT is true auto regulation.
While that article on Prilepin may have been pretty generic one thing I really liked was the attempt to quantify and manage loads by session and more importantly over a week.
John I am trying to wrap my head around your comments. I have been told I have a thick head…
Are you saying the programme, or the end result of a session, is based on wait you are capable of doing on that particular day/session?
Say, you have an expectation that you might do 15 minutes of squats and expect 4 x 5 reps with 100kg, but you only do 3 x 4 reps with 90kg - because that is all your body could do?
basically, but more likely you might do 1s x 5r, 2s x 4r, 1s x 3r x 100. Personally I would tend to stick to the intended weight. The answer to your other question is the session, remember the anology about CNS stress like a cup and wanting to fill but not overflow it? It ties to that.
here is an example I did the other week which may help explain things, especially the comment at the end.
Track
2 x 10m sled walkback rec
2 x 20m sled 90 sec rec
2 x 30m sled 2.25min rec
2 x 40m 3 min rec
2 x 50m 4 min rec
4 x 60m 5 min rec
Med Ball
Overhead x 10
Backwards x 10
1 Hop x 6
2 Hop x 4
3 Hop x 2
Plyos
5 x jump onto mat
10 x 1 step / 5 x 2 step 1 min rec
Weights
15 min block
Military Press @ 40 x 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4 = 34
Triple set
Chins @ BW x 4s x 10r
Glute bridge @ 90 x 4s x 10r
Dips @ BW x 4s x 10r
Abs
Stretch
EMS
20 mins achilles & quads
20 min ham & calf
20 min ITB
Rating
6
not quite 100% with a bit of a dry throat so flagged away squats rather than crash and burn by leaving them in.
Thanks John. Much appreciated.
I agree with what you write here. A point I was trying to make is that I think it is important to include some percentage of reps, even as low as 15%, in the >85% intensity range, and at least some (5-10%?) in the 90% range. If you choose not to go that high, I believe you need to push closer to failure (within 1-2 reps) on a large portion of your sets. Again, we’re talking about a max strength phase. What many do is take a look at someone like Stone, say to themselves, “Most of what he does is at 85% or below, so I’ll just do that part and skip the high intensity stuff.” That is a huge mistake, in my opinion. I think that’s the same thing as looking at a 400m training plan and saying to yourself, “Most of the volume in this elite 400m training plan is at race pace or slower, so I’ll skip the Speed Endurance and Max V stuff and just do Intensive and Extensive Tempo.” It just doesn’t work that way.
I know James pushes the submaximal load thing, but even he has admitted that many of his players exceed the program design and ‘self-regulate’ in a few high intensity (even maximal) sets. In my opinion, if an athlete doesn’t include at least a small percentage of >85% reps OR push closer than 4-5 reps away from failure, he’s not optimally training for strength. Keep in mind that 5 reps at 75% is about 5 reps away from failure, and 5 reps at 70% is about 7 reps from failure. That’s too light for max strength. If you feel the need to go lighter due to a training conflict, that’s one thing, but stating that using loads in the 70-75% range while leaving 5-7 reps in the tank on most sets is optimal for max strength is just something I can’t buy into.
I have been told time and time again that it is not a good idea to grind away on the weights, especially not on lower body. Oly lifts and upper no problem.
2-3x5 at 75% 1rm is too much during a comp phase when trying to run fast IMO. Do 2-3x2-3 at 70% or similar.
What do you mean grind away?
Slow grinding non crisp reps like the last few in those sets would be.
Do you believe that speed-power athletes should only lift submax weights?
Only…not necessarily, mostly…yes.
UMMM- I wonder how much submax lifting your heroes are doing (bobsledders)?
My heroes lift pens and paper.
How much max lifting you guys doing? Hopefully not too much, rutgers might sneak up on ya.
Oh yeh, that’s def submax. LOL
Adequate has come to mean maximal to me over the years. If you first look at the response side of the equation,more than at the stimulus side,the only way to have a maximal response there is to have a maximal stimulus here. Maximal response means maximal recovery from the stimulus too. As soon as the stimulus becomes sub max in any of its parameters,then it emerges the need to fill the gap with timing of the next stim,recovery means,tempo,and similar.
Volume then can only be dictated by the ability of the system to engage in and dis-engage from maximal input/output situations.
The CFTS model you mention is where I moved from originally. Charlie’s MU Involvement is a most precious tool (on the stim side),but it hardly applies when truly max training is implemented,as it all becomes a systemic activity at all times (on the response side).
Great points mi amico
In addition, it’s important to note that a single episode of sub-max stimuli can, on the whole (due to the systemic environment), equate to a max stimuli when coupled with other stimuli (ergo Charlie’s glass of water/CNS capacity analogy)
This leads us to the response end of things because the degree to which CNS capacity is taxed per unit of time is proportional (to what precise degree I’m not sure) to response
I never remember Charlie ever saying that two or more submax stimuli equated to a max stimuli in terms of adaption. Quite the opposite, as his aversion to intensive tempo attests. While he did say, and I would absolutely agree it does equate in terms of accumulated fatigue and the need for recovery, you can’t get what equates to a 100% max effort stimulus using multiple sub-max stimulus, especially if we’re equating sub-max to be <85%…I believe that goes for sprinting or weights.
While I fully respect your views on your own training, 2-3 reps at 70% is hardly even a warmup for a max strength set. Most of the good RM charts I’ve seen and used put 70% at a 12RM. While it may serve your situation, it does not begin to qualify for max strength training, even for novices. In fact, I can’t imagine any true benefits from such a set unless it was done explosively to train RFD.
I do recall him saying that. Again the session total is the key not the individual elements. He explained it via tempo, a single 75% rep is sub max and the session remains that way if you do a regular tempo session but cut the recovery in 1/2 (or more) and the session’s intensity increases and it can become a high intensity one.
Pakewi I understand most of your post and will think about it more.