What Training Level?

[wiigelec]

For it to qualify as proper novice programming, you must progressively increase the loading every training day. If we use tonnage as a proxy for total load, you will see that this progression does not constantly increase the tonnage every workout.

This is a valid argument...

[wiigelec]

...however I would counter by stating that it is not total tonnage that forces adaptation but total stress, and total tonnage may or may not adequately quantify directly to the total stress applied during a training session.

[Dalton Clark]

You can't say they got stronger because if you change the sets/rep scheme, you don't have any basis of comparison. They lifted a heavier weight than the previous time, but we don't know if they could have done that 48 hours ago. There is no data to compare it to since we changed the protocol. Strength can be defined as the amount of force applied against an external resistance but to say one got stronger we must prove that they were able to apply a greater amount of force against an external resistance compared to a previous identical workout. In fact, to hold this to stringent inquiry we would have to demonstrate equivalent or greater bar speed at an increased load compared to the previous bout.

[Charlie Davies]

Thanks Charlie I have used some similar methods with some success and have started using this method we'll see how it works for me. I'm really only looking for an argument on semantics

But I am also interested in general effectiveness beyond myself, and also who this type of progression may be suitable for...

Arguing over which definition of "novice" or "intermediate" to use, is a waste of time. Use Rip's definition on this forum for clarity, please.

The template you laid out doesn't appeal to me, even a little.
To get enough of a training stimulus from that little volume to make progress, I'd have to push the weights up to near max effort grinds on every set. This would quickly injure me, from experience.

[wiigelec]

Arguing over which definition of "novice" or "intermediate" to use, is a waste of time. Use Rip's definition on this forum for clarity, please.

Agreed.

For clarity:

Novice:

...the novice trainee adapts to an overload event quickly, in as little as 24 to 72 hours (Figure 6-2).

PPST3 pg 79

Intermediate (and beyond):

A single training stress constitutes an overload event for a novice, and this overload and the recovery between that training stress and the next one is enough to disrupt homeostasis and induce a gain in strength for the beginner. Once this is no longer the case, the trainee is no longer a novice.

PPST3 pg 103

So using these definitions I would say that ONLY a novice would be able to maintain progress using the programming outlined in the OP, since each of the sessions represents an overload event and an intermediate would generate to much stress to be recovered from the next overload event 24-72 hours later, which you seem to have attested to in your personal experience.

[quikky]

You can't say they got stronger because if you change the sets/rep scheme, you don't have any basis of comparison. They lifted a heavier weight than the previous time, but we don't know if they could have done that 48 hours ago. There is no data to compare it to since we changed the protocol. Strength can be defined as the amount of force applied against an external resistance but to say one got stronger we must prove that they were able to apply a greater amount of force against an external resistance compared to a previous identical workout. In fact, to hold this to stringent inquiry we would have to demonstrate equivalent or greater bar speed at an increased load compared to the previous bout.

I agree with this.

So using these definitions I would say that ONLY a novice would be able to maintain progress using the programming outlined in the OP, since each of the sessions represents an overload event

Also, agree with this. I think the OP's program is either a training program for a novice, most likely only an early novice too, or a peaking routine for a non-novice.

and an intermediate would generate to much stress to be recovered from the next overload event 24-72 hours later, which you seem to have attested to in your personal experience.

I half agree with this. By increasing the intensity every week in this program, an intermediate will eventually hit weights close to, or at, 5/3/1RM, and the fatigue will be very high to recover from quickly. However, the overall stress of this routine would be too low for most intermediate+ lifters, and because of this, the relative intensity will keep climbing every week as the lifter is actually not getting stronger, but simply peaking, i.e. displaying strength at ever increasing intensities.

[wiigelec]

quikky very good points we really should be considering relative intensity in our discussion.

Consider the following RPE based programs:

#1
Day 1 - 3 x 5 @ 9.5
Day 2 - 3 x 3 @ 9.5
Day 3 - 3 x 1 @ 9.5

#2
Day 1 - 3 x 5 @ 8
Day 2 - 3 x 3 @ 6.5
Day 3 - 3 x 1 @ 9.5

#3
Day 1 - 3 x 5 @ 9
Day 2 - 3 x 3 @ 6.5
Day 3 - 3 x 1 @ 8

[quikky]

quikky very good points we really should be considering relative intensity in our discussion.

Consider the following RPE based programs:

#1
Day 1 - 3 x 5 @ 9.5
Day 2 - 3 x 3 @ 9.5
Day 3 - 3 x 1 @ 9.5

#2
Day 1 - 3 x 5 @ 8
Day 2 - 3 x 3 @ 6.5
Day 3 - 3 x 1 @ 9.5

#3
Day 1 - 3 x 5 @ 9
Day 2 - 3 x 3 @ 6.5
Day 3 - 3 x 1 @ 8

The novice LP has 45 reps of volume per week. These routines have 27. Considering we need to increase stress as we progress as lifters, do you think this program will work well?

Simply cranking up the intensity, like in version #1 will usually just lead to burn out. Otherwise we'd all be novices forever, just adding weight to our 3x5 squats.

[wiigelec]

do you think this program will work well?

I suppose like anything they work with the right circumstances and timing. Nothing works all the time or forever. I really don't know which is why I'm throwing it out there. But it's not like I pulled these out of thin air.

Take #1 and add in some assistance work and you basically have arguably the most popular program outside the SS universe. Add in a light day and you've got a local commercially available program.

#2 is a TM variant. #3 is a HLM variant.

Thank you for the feedback.

[Dalton Clark]

The issue that these program have is a heavy preference for intensity over volume. Performing a single triple is not really sufficient volume even for an intensity day. For #2, we need more volume. So we would add a set or two to Day 1 and make day 3 a set of two triples. Oh wait.. .that actually is TM. For number 3, there is absolutely no use to performing a triple at 8. So we would swap Day 1 and Day 3, perform a heavy triple at 9 and likely add 3 back off sets of 5. The 3x5 would shift to Day 3. Oh wait. . .that looks like a pretty run of the mill HLM. In short, you haven't presented any compelling explanation for why the variants presented should be utilized in favor of the templates they are derived from. You've just presented a shitty, substandard 'novice' progression and a less than optimal TM and HLM 'variant'. I say 'variant' because they do not adhere to the core programming principle that intermediates can't continue to focus only on intensity as the driving factor. You must have a substantial amount of volume.