Something Alan thrall suggested.

[chrisd]

Alan thrall has a video where he suggests ways of breaking through 'the plateau'.

First idea is microplates, so not very controversial.

Another way is to do sets across and go in cycles. First workout of the cycle, do the old weight except for the last set, which you increase. Then increase the next to last set on the next cycle and so on until it's sets across again.


So for 5x5

wk1 100x4x5 105x5
wk2 100x5x3 105x5x2
wk3 100x5x2 105x5x3
etc

Apart from increasing a set where you will be most fatigued, i.e the last set. It sort of looks reasonable.

Would there be any advantage in doing this instead of one work set plus back offs and then increase at each session ?

Is there any reason why this would be a terrible scheme ?

Is it just that "there are no bad programs" and any set/rep scheme involving about fifteen to twenty five reps at or near working weight with a plan for progression will work if you stick at it ?

[Satch12879]

Andy Baker proposes a similar method in his 5x5 article. He tackles each set of five individually particularly when you are failing the later reps.

[chrisd]

Andy Baker proposes a similar method in his 5x5 article. He tackles each set of five individually particularly when you are failing the later reps.

Yes, it reminded me of that, did Andy give it a name. I seem to recall that andy's method involved progressing sets where you made the 5 reps and working the others until you made 5.

Alan's method sort of looks like a way of avoiding undulating periodisation for the late novice.

I still think it would be easier to overload the first set.

Something like

102.5x5 100x5x2
102.5x5x2 100x5
102.5x3
105x5 102.5x5x2

etc. Looks intuitively achievable if you aren't bothered about making one rep maxes and you can take the continuous volume. So long as the increment is achievable for a set of 5 and the rest is sufficient, the remaining sets should also be achievable.

I do get the impression that ultimately all progress will be determined by the rate at which an individual can add weight, whatever programming is used.

[Ben Patterson]

I don't think there is anything wrong with Alan's method.

It would probably increase the likelihood of achieving all reps in all sets if the heavier set(s) is done first with a small back off.

[Chebass88]

Is it just that "there are no bad programs" and any set/rep scheme involving about fifteen to twenty five reps at or near working weight with a plan for progression will work if you stick at it ?

I would say this is correct. Consistency with progression, even if small becomes very large over time.

The proposed program should work, I.e., I don't see why it wouldn't. The only modification I would do would be to do the heavier weight first instead of in the last sets.

[chrisd]

I would say this is correct. Consistency with progression, even if small becomes very large over time.

The proposed program should work, I.e., I don't see why it wouldn't. The only modification I would do would be to do the heavier weight first instead of in the last sets.

That was my feeling, perhaps Alan is one of those people who does better with a heavy set to finish.

The only real variable would be the frequency.

[Chebass88]

That was my feeling, perhaps Alan is one of those people who does better with a heavy set to finish.

The only real variable would be the frequency.

Once per week would work very well.

[Skander]

It would probably increase the likelihood of achieving all reps in all sets if the heavier set(s) is done first with a small back off.

I've used this method with decent results for front squats. Usually when the focus of that lifting cycle was the Olympic lifts, so slow progress on the squats was fine. I prefer the heavy one first also, but I think my coach preferred heavy last.

[Christopher Anderson]

I would run it the way Alan has it with the overloads being the end sets, but if you're having trouble with doing them that way and it would be easier I would then try overloading the first sets.