Chaos and Pain training

[Kyle Aaron]

One of your most interesting and useful posts, Tom. Thanks.

Stonerider, you are useless to this forum, fuck off.

[Simma Park]

i just think it makes you look dumb to criticize the program for not delivering the incredible gains your own programming has when you didn't do SS correctly

His programming is not comparable to SS:BBT's novice program because most of his guys wouldn't have gotten all that much out of the novice program at their level of advancement, anyway. So he chose to go with stuff that is more consistent with intermediate programming. I'm sure a lot of those gains were made possible with technique corrections, the presence of a coach and fellow lifters all enforcing good form, and being in a group of lifters that inspires progress. Take someone who's been deadlifting weird and, as a result, way below his actual strength levels for his entire life and put him in that situation, and any decent coach--Tom, Rip, whoever--might put a shitload of weight on his deadlift in one session. The idea that Rip would enforce 5 pound jumps in the deadlift regardless of circumstances is silly--no good coach ignores the specifics of someone's situation. But absent a competent coach to identify when you are working way under potential, and given a novice trainee, the approach most likely to avoid injury and deliver consistent results is one that instructs the trainee to produce slower and steadier gains.

I don't understand why people seem to be so anxious about this. There is nothing here that is disrespectful to Rip.

[Miro]

The reps are written as decimals because the trainees are essentially using a weight that is calculated out to be their, for example, "9.75" rep max. This makes it very likely that they will actually end up getting 10 reps and beating last weeks performance. The reps are completely arbitrary but they are periodized linearly from week to week. Everything is regulated based on previous performance so that the last cycle lasts a predetermined length. This slow periodization is in place to ensure that strength is built over the macro cycle. Things are tapered down from higher reps, higher volume to lower reps and lower volume by the end of the macro cycle.

ex:

            
          5sWk   3sWk   1sWk       
Cycle 1   9.75   7.75   5.75       
Cycle 2   8.75   6.75   4.75       
Cycle 3   7.75   5.75   3.75       
Cycle 4   6.75   4.75   2.75       
Cycle 5   5.75   3.75   1.75       
Cycle 6   4.75   2.75   0.75

I'm always happy to respond to criticism, questions, or whatever. I love this stuff.

You know, I think this is a pretty cool progression of reps. Did you stumble on the combinations (10/8/6, 9/7/5, etc.) or did you just extrapolate them from 5/3/1 (since the difference is always 2 reps between the weeks)?

The weight is adjusted week to week based on the previous performance while the rep expected reps remain static.

Example (based on actual events):
Cycle 1, 5s Week: 320x10

Cycle 1, 3s Week:
Calculated Weight for a 7.75 Rep Max based on 320x10: 345
Actual Results of the Workout: 345x11

Cycle 1, 1s Week:
Calculated Weight for a 5.75 Rep Max based on 345x11: 395
Actual Results of the Workout: 395x4

Cycle 2, 5s Week:
Calculated Weight for a 8.75 Rep Max Based on 395x4: 345
Actual Results of the Workout: 345x12

Cycle 2, 3s Week:
Calculated Weight for a 6.75 Rep Max Based on 345x12: 395
Actual Results of the Workout: 395x5

Cycle 2, 1s Week:
Calculated Weight for a 4.75 Rep Max based on 395x5: 400
Actual Results of the Workout: 400x5

Cycle 3, 5s Week:
Calculated Weight for a 7.75 Rep Max based on 400x5: 375
Actual Results of the Workout: ?????

Ah, so you use Wendler's formula to get the 1RM from the previous performance, round up or down (by what rule?), and then adjust the weight based on the new 1RM and desired reps? Something like:

Cycle 1, 5s week:
New 1RM = Weight x Reps x (1/30) +Weight = 320 x 10 x (1/30) + 320 = 426, 666... (430)

Cycle 1, 3s week:
Weight 7.75RM = 1RM x 0.805 = 430 x 0.805 = 346 (345)
New 1RM = 345 x 11 x (1/30) + 345 = 471

Cycle 2, 1s week
Weight 5.75RM = 1RM x 0.845 = 470 x 0.845 = 397 (395)

and so on.

Right? It seems close enough. That would also mean, you got the different RMs listed as

1RM = 100%
2RM = 95%
3RM = 90%
4RM = 88% (?)
5RM = 86% (?)
6RM = 84% (?)
7RM = 82% (?)
8RM = 80%
9RM = 75% (?)
10RM = 70%

Close enough?

[Tom Narvaez]

Yes, that's exactly what I do. I let excel round things to 2.5lbs because the smallest plates I'm willing to use, right now, are 1.25ers.

I extrapolated the reps by taking 300lbs, 400lbs, and 500lbs theoretical maxes, taking 90%, and then seeing what Wendler's formula predicted for the given work sets. 5lbs/10lbs just seemed too... arbitrary and irrespective of what the trainee's capabilities were. If you're deadlifting 500lbs for reps, adding 10lbs per mini-cycle is very, very different than adding 10lbs per mini-cycle when you struggle hitting 315 for reps. In that regard, I much prefer the method of periodization I've got set-up thus far.

It is worth mentioning that this isn't exactly a tried and true method. I see no reason why it wouldn't work because the fixed jumps work just as well, but, still, I've only been doing this for one month. As far as trainees, n=~10 or so in this case. The data is limited.

Anyways, here's how I figured out approximately how I wanted the reps to look:

Assume the following:
True Max: 400, Training Max: 360

1st 5s Week: 305
Expected Reps at this weight given 400 max: 9.3
1st 3s Week: 325
Expected Reps at this weight given 400 max: 6.9

2nd 5s Week: 315
Expected Reps at this weight given 400 max: 8.1
2nd 3s Week: 335
Expected Reps at this weight given 400 max: 5.8

3rd 5s Week: 325
Expected Reps at this weight given 400 max: 6.9
3rd 3s Week: 345
Expected Reps at this weight given 400 max: 4.8

You might note that the difference between 5s and 3s week is about 2 reps. You'll notice the same pattern with 3s week and 1s week. I also did the same calculations with a 300 and a 500 training max as I mentioned earlier. The stronger you are, the smaller the difference between the expected reps each week (as you might guess). I think the smaller jumps more effectively build strength because you have more room to set lots of 2.5#/5# PRs over the macro cycle rather than relying on major 10-15lbs PRs every once in a while.

Back to the "table" above, these numbers didn't "look" right to me. They also didn't ensure progress as nicely as the 0.75 multipliers. The 0.75 multipliers were born out of the desire to make sure that each performance was at least 2.5-5lbs better than the last. The best way to ensure progress, I thought, was to make sure the rep targets were as realistic as possible. The partial rep multipliers allowed for this.

In addition, I didn't think the macro cycle was quite long enough, but that's easily debatable. If you were including deloads, the macro cycle using traditional 531, assuming no strength gains, is about 16-20 weeks depending on how high your max is relative to the fixed increment increase (5lbs for bench/press and 10lbs for squat/deadlift). We aren't using deloads because most of these trainees I'm working with are late novices or early intermediates. It just isn't necessary. As such, I decided on 6 mini-cycles or a macro cycle length of 18 weeks. You could easily extend, or shorten, the macro cycle by starting the first 5s week higher or lower. In fact, if you were keen on deloads, I'd probably try to keep the macro cycle length to 16 weeks. For most powerlifters, their off-season is going to be 12-16 weeks. I'd try to keep the macro cycle within that boundary. For the lifter who just wants to get stronger over time, I see nothing wrong with extending the cycle out even further. The longer the cycle, the more time you have to build up strength before you need to reset the weights completely.



Spar is absolutely right about the effects of form improvements on some of the trainees. There is little other explanation for some of the incredible deadlift progress. However, there have been similar improvements made by my brothers. I have coached them during the majority of their lifting lives.

I think the biggest part of my brothers' improvements have been due to the environment and the "freshness" provided by reduced frequency. In other words, this type of set-up is more conducive to displaying strength than the standard sets of 5 progression. Doing LP with 5s leads to the lifter accumulating a high degree of residual fatigue (another reason why resetting works on LP). It has yet to be seen if these longer cycles will be as effective in increasing strength in the long run. It is feasible that this set-up is just allowing strength to be displayed more effectively. I still also believe that some people don't truly know the extent of their capabilities. In the end, many people have gotten great results from 531. I highly doubt we'll fail to make significant gains when all is said and done.

I do have to admit that, from a teaching standpoint, especially while I'm also lifting during that session, I hate the big groups. I can't help everyone and focus on my own preparation. So, some sketchy form things happen. It bothers the ever-loving hell out of me, but I do my best to fix it. Just know that I'm not encouraging some of the retarded form things you'll see if you watch a few of our videos. Occasionally, people will drop in just to do a single session with us. They are there for the experience and NOT for coaching. I could force them to change their ways, but that's not really what I'm about right now.

I have to admit that I still adjust things based on feel/ego. For example, my schedule 5.75 reps for pulling this week was 357.5. I knew I was good for more than that because my deadlift tends to only improve biweekly. I went to 365 and still got 6. Last week, I was scheduled for 222.5 for bench and went with 225 instead. In hindsight, I probably should have done 222.5 because I fell short of the expected reps (needed 8 for a PR and got 7). Nonetheless, I honestly believe I'd probably get even better results if I was more precise with the top sets. My buddy was scheduled for 492.5 and went with 500 instead. That made it very, very unlikely that he'd get a PR with 6, but, somehow, he got the 6th rep anyway. I don't expect that to continue to be the case when we are 10+ weeks into the macro cycle.

I was a bit scatter brained while writing this so I hope everything makes sense. What I said WAS controversial so I don't see anything wrong with people jumping at it.

[simonsky]

How would you increase intensity though for an upcoming meet? Would you just do the same but using 5/3/1 for PL?

Off-Topic: I know Jim's a great guy but that 2nd edition was severely underwhelming.

[OCG]

His programming is not comparable to SS:BBT's novice program because most of his guys wouldn't have gotten all that much out of the novice program at their level of advancement, anyway. So he chose to go with stuff that is more consistent with intermediate programming. I'm sure a lot of those gains were made possible with technique corrections, the presence of a coach and fellow lifters all enforcing good form, and being in a group of lifters that inspires progress. Take someone who's been deadlifting weird and, as a result, way below his actual strength levels for his entire life and put him in that situation, and any decent coach--Tom, Rip, whoever--might put a shitload of weight on his deadlift in one session. The idea that Rip would enforce 5 pound jumps in the deadlift regardless of circumstances is silly--no good coach ignores the specifics of someone's situation. But absent a competent coach to identify when you are working way under potential, and given a novice trainee, the approach most likely to avoid injury and deliver consistent results is one that instructs the trainee to produce slower and steadier gains.

I don't understand why people seem to be so anxious about this. There is nothing here that is disrespectful to Rip.

Rip has actually stated that he and his coaches do not actually actively train random people who walk in off the street. Sure they'll teach them to squat, and check every now and again that they're doing it right, but, most of the people who join the WFAC just off the street aren't in it for the long haul and until they show some dedication Rip isn't going to waste time on them. Given this the programming makes a little more sense.

Tom doesn't charge (last I heard) and does not care about member retention. Thus, if someone shows up and isn't willing to work hard, they probably leave within a session or two. Thus larger jumps, constant coaching and custom programming make a lot more sense.

[DRice311]

Tom - have you ever looked into the Juggernaut Method? I think he incorporates alot of the same concepts you have stumbled upon. Also - what kind of assistance are you using. I honestly believe, for me at least, the assistance is the key to the improvements I have seen.

[78704]

"The moral of this thread is that someone needs to write a novice progression for basic reading comprehension."

There already is a novice progression for lifting, dumbass. It's called Starting Strength.

Now I can't stop giggling.

[bugbomb]

I agree - this was one of the funniest posts I've ever seen on this board.

[Miro]

Yes, nothing like providing an unwitting proof of the argument you THINK you're refuting.