Wolf's Log: From Cub to Direwolf

[Walter Palmer]

Wolf, like you, I have a bit of mixed feelings about RPE even though I'm using it in my programming. But, once I get RPE established for a particular type of volume/sets, I pretty much try to linear progress it from week to week.

The only time I think that RPE really plays into the equation for me is when it comes to being under-recovered due to overall volume on my program. I think Jordan introduced RPE into my programming because I'm now doing squat and bench press variations pretty much four times a week and there are times where I need to adjust down my weights based on recovery, especially in the transmutation phase I just went through that had a pretty significant volume.

But, I'm hesitant to place too much emphasis on "how I feel" as I worry that will be an excuse for me to wuss out when I'm just being lazy. There is something comfortable to me about having a specific percentage target or a need to do LP over previous workout. But, that is just me.

[Karl Schudt]

Wolf, I think you are probably right. I could have done Texas Method, even at my advanced age. I tried it for a few weeks, but couldn't handle volume day. Wimplike, I skipped to 5/3/1, which I milked as much as I could until I got stuck hard. Now, I'm doing an adapted RTS program, and am doing more volume than I would have with Texas Method.

Which leads me to a suggestion: for older guys, the problem with the Texas Method might be an underdeveloped work capacity. If I had prepared myself better, or adjusted the volume up gradually, I could have done TM and made progress faster.

[Dwayne_KONG_Wint]

The RTS manual is targeted at intermediates and above. So to call it a "later stage intermediate to advanced lifter" thing is not completely accurate. Yes it includes those groups but it also includes earlier intermediates. Mike Tuchsherer even mentioned that he'd have someone start out with it as a novice to develop the skill rating oneself.

I agree with Walter in that it brings some of us who stopped making weekly gains back to making weekly gains. For me, this has been the case. In that way, the progress is similar to Texas Method. I think there is a misconception that this whole thing driven by feelings. This couldn't be further from the truth. The main purpose of using RPE's in the RTS system is to make as much continual process as possible. This means hitting PR's, hitting higher estimated 1 rep maxes, increasing work output and recoverability.

The whole auto regulatory part of it is on fatigue/volume management. Instead of having a canned amount of sets due to programmatic prescription, the volume is regulated by your performance. If you are moving like a beast, you get to do more volume. If you are moving like a slug, you'd be better off doing less volume. Either way, you are doing enough volume to stimulate...every....single...time...you train. This way you avoid the detraining of a standard Realization block or a TM peak. Even a standard transmutation block could lead to some detraining if the volume of the training is 1/2'd.

Conversely, you avoid the run-down-into-the-ground feeling ending in a stalled progress due to not allowing recovery following some canned volume prescription week-in/week-out. For the stubborn, this feel sometimes leads to injury....been there done that.

I've only been doing this for 4 weeks; so....not an expert. However, I can honestly say that the more I do it, the more I give less of a rat's ass about how I "feel" and just go and see what I can do. More often than not, its gainzzz.

[quad]

Hey Wolf, I have just watched the deficit DL video.
About the "keeping on the shins" issue, I think that when you set the barbell back down you roll the bar behind the mid foot. So when you start pulling the bar goes onto the mid foot away from your shins.

Is that possible?

[Nick Klemetson]

Which leads me to a suggestion: for older guys, the problem with the Texas Method might be an underdeveloped work capacity. If I had prepared myself better, or adjusted the volume up gradually, I could have done TM and made progress faster.

I'm obviously not as far along as Karl is (or most, for that matter), but this is exactly what happened to me. Rob warned me about jumping to TM too early last fall, but I stupidly ignored him (2nd biggest mistake I've made in my training), burned out, and injured myself within about 6 weeks. I felt ready at the time, but in retrospect and several months more of experience under the bar, I wasn't even close.

[Michael Wolf]

I keep re-writing this post because I don't feel I'm doing a good job of conveying my thoughts. It's the internet equivalent of continually crumpling up my sheet of paper and tossing it in the garbage. So I won't try to explain myself fully because I don't seem to be able to articulate it well at the moment.

I'll just say this. I don't really disagree with what anyone has said here. I think the RTS programming concepts are very, very good. I also think they use the term "Intermediate" in a different way than we do. There will be exceptions (age, job, stress, other, a combination of some or all of those), but in general I think that, an early Intermediate as we define it, can continue to make relatively fast progress with less programming complexity. Learning to gauge RPE can be useful at that stage, so an adjustment later to RPE based programming can be done more quickly and smoothly. But I don't think auto-regulation and the variety of exercise selection (in terms of variations of the lifts) are necessarily going to help an early Intermediate progress faster than a well designed program that plans for specific increases, now weekly instead of workout-to-workout. In the same sense that there are so many good reasons to recommend auto-regulation for someone for whom it is appropriate, I think there are also equally good reasons to stick to planned increases - based on your recent actual training data, not pre-planned percentages - to try and keep these planned increases going while you still can. To my mind, someone who has literally just exhausted their ability to add 10lbs per week to their squat has probably not reached that point yet.

This doesn't mean that someone who switches at an early Intermediate stage won't progress, or that it's bad. There is plenty of evidence and logic to the contrary. To me, it's a matter of keeping things are simple as possible for as long as possible, introducing new variables when necessary to continue to spur progress or to address a problem, not simply as a matter of course.

[Dwayne_KONG_Wint]

I'll just say this. I don't really disagree with what anyone has said here. I think the RTS programming concepts are very, very good. I also think they use the term "Intermediate" in a different way than we do. There will be exceptions (age, job, stress, other, a combination of some or all of those), but in general I think that, an early Intermediate as we define it, can continue to make relatively fast progress with less programming complexity. Learning to gauge RPE can be useful at that stage, so an adjustment later to RPE based programming can be done more quickly and smoothly.

Agree. I do believe that if I was able to manage my volume better when I started TM way way back, I may have been able to gain the conditioning to do the full amount of work and definitely beyond. Adding RTS principles to any programmatic construct would make it better.

But I don't think auto-regulation and the variety of exercise selection (in terms of variations of the lifts) are necessarily going to help an early Intermediate progress faster than a well designed program that plans for specific increases, now weekly instead of workout-to-workout.

Variety of exercise selection is not a reactive training system. It is a form of complex training. Adding RPE's, fatigue management, and volume autoreg is what gives it the RTS spin. It should not be confused with the definition of RTS.

In the same sense that there are so many good reasons to recommend auto-regulation for someone for whom it is appropriate, I think there are also equally good reasons to stick to planned increases - based on your recent actual training data, not pre-planned percentages - to try and keep these planned increases going while you still can. To my mind, someone who has literally just exhausted their ability to add 10lbs per week to their squat has probably not reached that point yet.

I don't disagree with you completely on this one. Pre-planned percentages: I agree aren't always best b/c "no plan survives first contact with the enemy." However, I do feel this is where using RPE in planning and fatigue management wins out.

While actual recent training data is the best data we have to use in determining what we should plan to do today, simply adding 5 lbs is still not taking into account the lifter's level of readiness for the day. The lifter might come in strong and prepared that day and 5 lb increase might be too light to stimulate positive change. The lifter may come in unprepared, overly stressed by life, and a 5 lb increase may take that lifter over the edge. Several variations of readiness can occur on the continuum of these two extremes.

A lifter that has a 15 lb jump in the tank and only increases by 5 is basically not taking advantage of the gift from the God of Iron. A lifter that attempts 5 lbs increase but is on the brink of injury is a def not a pussy but is a determined fool (hello that's me).

This doesn't mean that someone who switches at an early Intermediate stage won't progress, or that it's bad. There is plenty of evidence and logic to the contrary. To me, it's a matter of keeping things are simple as possible for as long as possible, introducing new variables when necessary to continue to spur progress or to address a problem, not simply as a matter of course.

So here, complex training is complex training. You can train this way with or without RTS principles. TM is TM. You can train this way with or without RTS principles. Block is block. You can train this way with or without RTS principles. RTS does not equal any of these programs. RTS principles can be applied to a "simple" program or a "complex" program. It is just a way to manage a program so the lifter can make GAINZZZZ without interruption.

[Michael Wolf]

Better day today. Whether I was more used to the bar oscillation after two previous workouts with it, or better recovered, or both, it was a lot less brutal.

Squat
452x4x4
Notes: Was originally planning on a 5th set but upon thinking about it, decided on just 4. Normally this would have been a 3x5 week, so I decided to keep total reps about the same, with slightly higher intensity provided by the sets of 4 instead of 5. Next week will be my last real volume workout before the meet, and I'll probably hit 460 or 465x3x6.

Power Clean
89x3, 133x2, 177x2, 204x2, 228.5x2, 250.5x1+1, 270x1+1
Clean Pull
358x2, 402x2x2
Notes: Cleans got thrown off because this guy was re-painting the gym walls, didn't understand english, and kept painting between my sets so I was resting very awkward times, depending when he was painting. We tried telling him to paint anywhere else in the gym and come back when we were done, but he really didn't understand. He obviously wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'd think even someone with some basic intelligence would understand the situation. But apparently not, when the person has never been around people lifting and has no concept of the thing.

Anyway, cleans were eh; not awful but not great. Still jumped a bit early when it got heavy. Clean pulls were OK.

Sled Push
15kg x 1
30kg x 8
Strict 1 min rest. Felt like I got some real conditioning done today.

[Gwyn Brookes]

I fucking love Yoda. But I also love Darth. I have a Yoda sticker on the inside of my 4" belt. It's like taking the best from both sides of the force.

This actually makes you Darth Revan, the coolest dark Jedi/Sith Lord ever.

[Rob Israel]

I was going to do what Dwayne did (and started) but I have a job ;-)

Great discussion and some excellent input by everyone. Cheers to all of you.