Novice on cutting program: Lift the same weight two times or microload?

[Murelli]

Wouldn't they both result in one step forward?

I'd rather eat and get two steps forward.

[DannyP]

Wouldn't they both result in one step forward?

Sure. That's why I was thinking in terms of psychological effect, rather than overall progress.

We're talking about novice lifters here, or what?

I suppose? Or me (granted there are novices who can get further on LP than I have at all). Or anyone like me who has difficulty actually translating what they know intellectually about a lift into progress under the bar.

[Adam Skillin]

I suppose? Or me (granted there are novices who can get further on LP than I have at all). Or anyone like me who has difficulty actually translating what they know intellectually about a lift into progress under the bar.

Danny, you're letting your thoughts get cloudy. What makes a novice lifter, by our definition? It isn't the weight on the bar, right? It's the ability to recover from and adapt to the stress of a workout in 48-72 hours, and come back, and do it with some greater # of pounds on the bar.

How is the # of pounds on the bar determined? Well, we start some people at 10 and 15# increases, because they can handle them, for a little while. We start others with 5# increments. There are even cases where 2.5# is reasonable right out of the gate. We want to make the linear progression go on for as long as possible, and we increment accordingly.

Of course too large an increment inevitably leads to early stalling (or injuries followed by early stalling). Too small an increment leads to potentially wasted time. But no increment at all is inferior in every way to a sufficiently small increment, should a NOVICE lifter require them.

Now if you're talking about more advanced lifters, regardless of whether they became intermediates with 235# on their backs or 455, the calculus changes. We're not trying to make them adapt from workout to workout. We're trying to make them adapt from cycle to cycle. Accumulating volume at a given weight may be part of that type of programming. But it's just not logical in the context of the local definition of a true novice lifter.

[DannyP]

Danny, you're letting your thoughts get cloudy. What makes a novice lifter, by our definition? It isn't the weight on the bar, right? It's the ability to recover from and adapt to the stress of a workout in 48-72 hours, and come back, and do it with some greater # of pounds on the bar.

How is the # of pounds on the bar determined? Well, we start some people at 10 and 15# increases, because they can handle them, for a little while. We start others with 5# increments. There are even cases where 2.5# is reasonable right out of the gate. We want to make the linear progression go on for as long as possible, and we increment accordingly.

Of course too large an increment inevitably leads to early stalling (or injuries followed by early stalling). Too small an increment leads to potentially wasted time. But no increment at all is inferior in every way to a sufficiently small increment, should a NOVICE lifter require them.

Now if you're talking about more advanced lifters, regardless of whether they became intermediates with 235# on their backs or 455, the calculus changes. We're not trying to make them adapt from workout to workout. We're trying to make them adapt from cycle to cycle. Accumulating volume at a given weight may be part of that type of programming. But it's just not logical in the context of the local definition of a true novice lifter.

Does the progression, for novices, intermediates, or beyond, assume that throughout form remains constant, and that plateaus are due entirely to an inability to continue gaining strength or triggering CNS activity at the same rate?

[Adam Skillin]

Does the progression, for novices, intermediates, or beyond, assume that throughout form remains constant, and that plateaus are due entirely to an inability to continue gaining strength or triggering CNS activity at the same rate?

Danny, you're not making any sense, man. Which novice has an easier time squatting 200 with "perfect" form, the one who just did 205 x 5 x 3 for the third time, or the one who just did 220 x 5 x 3?

[DannyP]

Danny, you're not making any sense, man. Which novice has an easier time squatting 200 with "perfect" form, the one who just did 205 x 5 x 3 for the third time, or the one who just did 220 x 5 x 3?

Obviously the latter, assuming that guy's form didn't fall apart back at 185. I suppose it's just a question of knowing when progress is stalling due to form and knowing where to de-load to in order to correct it (instead of mistakenly thinking all novice strgains have been had and that programming has to change).