LP to volume-based; w.r.t. activity type experience

[Chris Lippke]

Would someone who has a propensity for endurance activities (e.g., a former marathon runner or cyclist) find himself needing volume-based work "sooner" in their programming than someone who has a propensity for power activities (e.g. a former sprinter) in order to drive progress?

In other words: Would the fact that someone with a genetic predisposition for one type of activity over the other (endurance vs. sprint / slow twitch vs. fast twitch composition / level of motor unit recruiting efficiency) mean that intensity work would behave differently (e.g. for the endurance athlete: LP ends sooner, intensity focus not be as optimal for as long; for the former sprinter: LP produces results for several months, intensity continues to drive progress)?

If this is the case, would volume-type work (or other program modifications) need to be introduced into the endurance person's programming sooner?

I'll admit this is sort of begging the question and that general strength depends on more than just the scope I'm presenting here, but do you have any thoughts on the matter?

Thanks,
Chris

[Mark Rippetoe]

I think that if you want to do 12s, go ahead. But unless you can explain how Type I fibers become involved in a squat, or why they should be, I think we'll stick with the 5s.

[Chris Lippke]

I mean volume in terms of # of sets of 5's; total weight volume in a workout, not hypertrophy or endurance talk (though I just finished Strong Enough? and would like to try the 20 rep squats some day when I'm not thinking clearly).
If we're reading between the lines, I'm wondering if I need to add more sets to my workout in order to drive progress (vs. intensity). But, I'm concerned it's too early to get off the 3x5 LP train. I can do it the easy way by "just try and see if it works," which I'm 1 week into doing.
But it got me thinking: Is there some kind of correlation that exists between past activity specialization and what kind of programming is optimal (beyond the high level stress/adaptation)? Not that I need a theoretical excuse for my program shifting, but it could lead to better sleep.
Regardless, I'm sure there's a flawed premise in there somewhere (in addition to the thousands of other training variables that affect progress), and I don't want to take the time to set up a study involving the comparison of the linear progression logs of n 60-meter sprinters, n 1500-m runners, and n 10,000-m runners.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I mean volume in terms of # of sets of 5's; total weight volume in a workout, not hypertrophy or endurance talk

I'm wondering if I need to add more sets to my workout in order to drive progress (vs. intensity).

Is there some kind of correlation that exists between past activity specialization and what kind of programming is optimal (beyond the high level stress/adaptation)?

If I understand you correctly, you're asking if you're different because you were a distance runner. No, you're not. Somehow, even after all that mileage, you're still a human being, with human physiology.

[Chris Lippke]

... you're still a human being ...

*looks in mirror*
It checks out.
Thanks!

[crookedfinger]

I would add, that you are 1 week in to running an LP. Check back in in about 3-6 months about the need for extra volume. My guess is your experience will have answered your question. This shit gets tough fairly quickly.

[Tiedemies]

I think the SS novice progression model is robust to these differences. You will run out of linear progression at some point and when you do, you have to change the pattern of stress/adaption to induce further gains.

So the model does respond endogenously to all the differences like the ones mentioned in the OP question. This is one of the strongest arguments for the model to begin with. The progression stalls when it stalls. You will know.

It does raise the question, put in another way (descriptive, not prescriptive). Have you, with your years of experience, made observations as to differences in people in terms of what point does the LP have a tendency to run out? Any common factors that seem to contribute to the point at which LP of the novice progression stalls?

Based on my observations I would expect factors such as distractions from work and family, nutritional habits, etc to play a much larger role than previous patterns of exercise themselves, but my pool of observations numbers about a half-dozen individuals so it's not worth much.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Everybody is different. There are countless variables. Sex is among the most important, and we are still learning how women adapt in this LP model.

[tertius]

Everybody is different. There are countless variables. Sex is among the most important, and we are still learning how women adapt in this LP model.

The main differences as I understand them with women are, broadly:

• Hormonal milieu, which alters how recovery/adaptation works
• Differences in neuromuscular efficiency/recruitment that alter how stress can be applied

Am I missing anything?

[Chris Lippke]

... you are 1 week in to running an LP.

This is not the case.

Check back in in about 3-6 months about the need for extra volume.

The progression stalls when it stalls.

I'm kind of in that no-man's-land at the moment, thus the hullabaloo.

My local SSC saw that I was asking about this (sneaky guy), and inquired about my training. He set me straight on how to proceed.

It does raise the question, put in another way (descriptive, not prescriptive). Have you, with your years of experience, made observations as to differences in people in terms of what point does the LP have a tendency to run out? Any common factors that seem to contribute to the point at which LP of the novice progression stalls?

This is a much better angle at which to approach the topic. Thank you.