All I see here and in the latest above discussion is just another series of largely over-estimated stimuli-based constructs which assume our systems respond in a similar linear manner. Which is only a vast assumption.But the large majority of today’s training at all levels is founded upon (erroneous,when not plainly wrong) assumptions in the end.
Prilepin’s table gives an indication: you may take it,use it as a guideline,observe the direction your training is going,evaluate responses more than stimuli,and eventually take all information as guidelines and general directions,not as answers to the questions rising in minds puzzled by such a training scenario as the one described above.
The more we get into specific (purely artificial) constructs such as the above dissertation the more puzzled we are doomed to be.
We can surely always have fun,play with numbers,and words though.
Also the aim of Soviet literature (where Prilepin’s table emerges from) about training and sport was often to evoke productive discussion leading to further possible theoretical developments and theory applications,resulting in very dynamic principles,and never in words carved in stone.
Read through the “sport science” articles collected on James Smith’s site and note how researchers would often engage in open debates through their publications. When time allows I always spend some time there. The wording and phrasing gives me a good laugh too.
From the standpoint of general organism strength retention, my last season at PITT proved to be the most positive- experimentally.
Regarding the competition calendar:
I had, each season, experimented with different loading schemes broken down by categories/options (I explained this in my American football- In Season DVD)
Each season, I would create approximately 5-6 different loading schemes for my skill players. Each one featured a different training load altogether.
During the 2010 competition calendar, I used a concept I took from Charlie in which the vertically oriented development of general strength exercises during the off-season becomes serially oriented during the in-season. I continued with multiple loading options for my players; however, the self-regulation became even more pronounced because I would select loads and exercises every session based upon the framework of the blueprint and player feedback.
The result, one week prior to our bowl game against Kentucky I had a handful of 1st string players (O, D, and Special Teams) perform 225lb for reps in the bench press (a low risk assessment of general strength). Note that we had not performed any high rep or near maximal intensity training during the competition calendar. Every player either tied or exceeded their previous personal best in the test and again, this was the week after the last regular season game.
My point is that the load, as far as what I had control over, was the most individualized that season; and, as far as general organism strength is concerned, the preservation of it was the most successful.
Yes, there are some as I mentioned (you have another example). That said, I’ve seen a lot of his programs over the years and I’ve personally never seen one he’s written for his athletes that were from the 1rm with, as mentioned previously, the exception being one for incoming freshmen that had not previously worked off of a system based upon set-rep bests. The programs he writes for his athletes and that some of his GA’s write for their respective sports are for sets-reps. I say some because I’ve not viewed programs written by all of their GA’s only about 4-5.
With weighlifters he will get down to doubles and singles. For throwers, there might be one block I can recall (that’s all I can remember seeing) that featured a four week intensification that ended at VH for 3 x 2 and also dually served as an unload week since it went from 3 x 3 at 90-95% to 3 x 2 at 95-100%. Most often, blocks end in 3 x 5 or even 3 x 3 as unloads with the heaviest micro of the various 4-4 wk block progressions ending with H(90-95%) or some at VH (95-100%) for 3 x 3, the heaviest micro (typically third as in most programming) of a block. Many blocks heaviest micro is at 3 x 5 and even with that does not always end at maximal int. for sets and reps.
What he writes for throwers and some other events has a smaller percentage done at very heavy intensities than would be the case for WL. Some yes, for sure, but since it is multiple sets/reps that it is being based upon, the actual work in a maximal zone is more limited. This is one of the aspects of his programming that I think is ideal for athletes.
so what about not even worrying about sets, reps and rest periods? Just allocate X time (such as 15 or 20 minutes) for an exercise and perform as many reps with good form within that, never to failure. Recovery and the number of reps per ‘set’ adjusts to how you are at that precise time. If reps drop, they do, and maybe you rest longer for the next set, or not, the only timing involved is the start and the end.
By principles do you mean adequate but not too much stimulus? I think that is where application of Charlie’s Motor Unit info can really be useful. I am also mindful that you have suggested regular high stimulus and Charlie talked about a similar concept where the load is spread over a longer time (week) with lower level athletes and that is how they started. It was only when performance got to a really high level that Hi / Low was a necessity as CNS stress was far greater than muscular stress.
Time under tension - eg, if somebody bangs out lets say with 15kg dumbells some arm curls.
Does 12 reps - 1sec up & 1sec down. = 24sec set.
Then same person does 4 sec up, 4 sec down for 3 reps at same weight - they “should” fatigue at the same 24sec point - but, only did 3 reps!!
It’s so much the reps they did, but the 24sec of exercise.
Try it, just don’t go Pausing between reps - keep moving.
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).
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.
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.