regulating or auto-regulating

[Aslin]

Yeah, it wouldn't work for a "novice" or "intermediate" lifter.

That must be what an Ironical statement is.

[RyanH]

Here's a study (abstract) that was done on this very subject (take it for what it's worth). Compared 6 weeks of autoreg. vs linear periodization in Division 1 college football players.

http://zachdechant.files.wordpress.c...re-mizzou1.pdf

[tdwaffle15]

John Broz uses a system similar to that for his lifters. But he says he doesnt start his guys out that way it took Pat I think 2 years before he could start training like that and show improvement.

There's also a difference between having an experienced coach there observing you daily, and making your own choices based solely on perceived difficulty.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Here's a study (abstract) that was done on this very subject (take it for what it's worth). Compared 6 weeks of autoreg. vs linear periodization in Division 1 college football players.

http://zachdechant.files.wordpress.c...re-mizzou1.pdf

I'm really glad you posted this. I shall paraphrase it for you: For 20-year-old males that are not competitive lifters, if you compare a 6-week training program that increases training intensity every week based on the previous week's work with a 6-week program that increases the workload each week based on predetermined percentages of a previously estimated 1RM and culminating in a new 5RM after 6 weeks, the program that increases intensity based on the athlete's actual ability to adapt produces MUCH better increases in strength.

Note this statement on the fifth page: "The mechanisms behind the effectiveness of APRE are not known."

[stef]

It is rather a waste of time to attempt to read a study where they authors haven't even bothered to post the full protocol.

But from the partial information they felt comfortable sharing, it is apparent that they've set the thing up in an odd manner to say the least. The group on the "linear periodization" used different intensities relative to the same 1RM over this short period of 70%-85% for sets of 8 down to 5s. The "auto reg" group estimated 6RM and used 100% that value to failure, sometimes, because they didn't specify the whole protocol in the paper. Assigning a number is a bit different from auto-reg. And going to failure vs not is a rather different training stress over the short term.

Note that they didn't measure values at the start. They used numbers that were around from whatever was being done before. An interesting approach.

And their stats are not done correctly. That's apparent from a glance at figure 1 if you know anything about their proper use.

[Max Faget]

Autoregulation can't work because one paper on the subject was sub-standard.

It creates weak performers like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3J394d6E0Q

Maybe if he stopped exercising, and started training, he'd be strong. The poor devil.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Max Faget is a moron. Max Faget completely misses the point. Max Faget must think that if a guy is strong, anything he does when he trains must be the reason. Max Faget will probably e-mail Mr. Tuscherer and tell him that Rip thinks he's a pussy.

[Max Faget]

Max Faget completely misses the point. Max Faget must think that if a guy is strong, anything he does when he trains must be the reason.

Max Faget appreciates it when people put words in his mouth. The point is that a strategy is not useless merely because one paper has methodological flaws. An honest response would point out that auto-regulation is little more than what you might call competent coaching, and a dynamic way of determining training numbers. Training does not become magically ineffectual because it moves away from strictly pre-programmed numbers, as long as there is consistency to the numbers.

To call it "silly" and "just exercising" is as moronic as what you think Max Faget said.

Another example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6mRbQG-PL4

Max Faget will probably e-mail Mr. Tuscherer and tell him that Rip thinks he's a pussy.

That would just be silly! Unorthodox, even.

Max Faget approves.

[Mark Rippetoe]

[img] The point is that a strategy is not useless merely because one paper has methodological flaws. An honest response would point out that auto-regulation is little more than what you might call competent coaching, and a dynamic way of determining training numbers. Training does not become magically ineffectual because it moves away from strictly pre-programmed numbers, as long as there is consistency to the numbers.

Max Faget must realize that the paper was presented as evidence that "auto-reg" is, in fact, a useful strategy. So an honest response would be that this paper, as a piece of shit, is not evidence for or against anything. Basically what I said. Stef polished it off. I am quite aware of what makes and does not make training effectual, as you say. The authors of this paper are not. Max Faget may not be a moron after all, but his apologetics are misplaced and undeserved by those he seeks to defend.

[RyanH]

the paper was presented as evidence that "auto-reg" is, in fact, a useful strategy. .

If this is addressed to me, I merely presented the study for discussion. If you read my post, you will see that I stated to "take it for what it's worth". The rest of you can argue over its value all you want.