The Great Density Block Experiment of 2017

[John Hanley]

But will you do it for time?

It's 1rm nut-punch

[Miro]

I'm excited for this. Thanks, Mr. Bass, for putting this all together.

I'm totally detrained right now, so I'll be running super basic density blocks until my e1rm is somewhere around 240 (this should take 6ish weeks). Then I'll need to switch to the more elaborate block scheme you've described.

This sounds interesting, but it's probably easier to just pull the programming straight from here: https://www.crossfit.com/workout/

Good luck dudes.

I will punch you so hard in your nuts

But will you do it for time?

It's 1rm nut-punch

This cracks me up.

[Meshuggah]

[Kregna]

Nice post, Chebass

I will punch you so hard in your nuts

What happened to blood eagles?

[BBB]

Interesting experiment, I'm curious how it'll turn out. I'm sure everyone is interested in getting results faster. I suspect this is possible, within limits. Any new way of stimulating your body will result in adaptations.

Having said that, if I were to implement this, I'd think of it in terms of an accumulation block and would get a ton of volume in. To get good intensity work, you really need time, IMO and this template doesn't lend itself to that. Although 2-mins rest is fine for 5-singles @ 90%. How about working up to a double or tripple and backing off and getting more volume in - as much as you can get within the given time?

Anyway, just a thought, curious to see your progress

[John Hanley]

Nice post, Chebass



What happened to blood eagles?

Just a time thing. Keeping the axes sharp enough (but not too finely angled) to separate ribs from spine took FOREVER!

Interesting experiment, I'm curious how it'll turn out. I'm sure everyone is interested in getting results faster. I suspect this is possible, within limits. Any new way of stimulating your body will result in adaptations.

Having said that, if I were to implement this, I'd think of it in terms of an accumulation block and would get a ton of volume in. To get good intensity work, you really need time, IMO and this template doesn't lend itself to that. Although 2-mins rest is fine for 5-singles @ 90%. How about working up to a double or tripple and backing off and getting more volume in - as much as you can get within the given time?

This kinda is accumulation. We're basing projected session & total weekly stress off something called inol value (intensity and number of lifts...No. Reps / (100-%1RM)). I have zero experience using INOL to moderate fatigue, but Che has used it...and he's strong, so I'm giving it a go.

I don't like pure hypertrophy blocks. My strength and explosivity turn to complete shit & I also have a voodoo-hunch that [hand wave] extended hypertrophy blocks can really fuck up twitch rates and coordinated firing for high high threshold MUs.

Note: brainstorming on how to program a main lift with no session over 12 (or 15) minutes, we independently came up with very similar looking weekly cycles. Nearly identical. So...gonna give it a go.

[Chebass88]

There is a little more behind the choice of loading a than I presented here. In the Deadlift Programming thread, Hanley talked about the maximum recoverable volume. I'm not familiar with that term (I read about it though, and it makes sense). I've recently been using a concept called the INOL index, by someone named Hristov. The formula is # reps/ (100-intensity). In the article by this Hristov character, you can use as an index to gauge the loading of your training regimen. 25 reps at 75% would be INOL = 1.

Hristov mentions that weekly values of 4 lead to overtraining, 3 is unsustainable long term, 2 is pretty good, and 1 might not be enough (I'm paraphrasing here, in between cooking dinner and "fixing" lego vehicles I Thought I built able to withstand a pair of toddlers ...).

Since late January, my training has been between 16 & 24 reps at ~ 80%, done as doubles / triples. For about 8 weeks, I also added up to 24 reps at ~ 65%. This had an average INOL value of about 3.5, and I was definitely not able to recover. (I found the number and calculated it AFTER not being able to recover - It wasn't that I saw the value and then thought I was under-recovered). For the past 8 weeks or so, I dropped the added backoff sets and I've been averaging ~2.3-2.5 INOL, and have been able to recover from it.

Hanley had the idea of using two blocks with different intensities. I simply set my weekly INOL value to 2.5. Per Prilepins chart, the max recommended reps at ~70% is 30 (INOL = 1), and 20 reps at 80% is also INOL of 1. 5 singles is 0.5, so there it is.

Regarding NEEDING more time - maybe, maybe not. Smaller sets present less of a load on ATP stores, so full replenishment of ATP isn't necessary, I.e., the classic SS routine of 8-10 minutes rest simple isn't needed. So - how short can you reduce the rest? I've gotten my doubles at 80% down to 1.5 minutes rest (for the press & curl- squats and deads take a little more time). Could I reduce the inter-set rest time even further? Possibly, so my interest was piqued when John proposed the experiment.

If the biggest influence is the total load, and I CAN do a lot of reps in an snappy fashion - why not? The proof is in the pudding, and observable with every session - if you get more than you did before, you're progressing. When you get to increase the weight - progression. Progression on a tough lift, in an S-ton less time, but I have to work really hard during that time? Sign me right up.

part of this experiment is monitoring how recovered I am, to do the rest of my routine. I don't see any glaring reasons why it wouldn't work, and even if it doesn't work, it is just time. I know how to progress lifts in a slower fashion, so I'll just return to that. WINNING!

[Eric K]

Interesting experiment, I'm curious how it'll turn out. I'm sure everyone is interested in getting results faster. I suspect this is possible, within limits. Any new way of stimulating your body will result in adaptations.

Having said that, if I were to implement this, I'd think of it in terms of an accumulation block and would get a ton of volume in. To get good intensity work, you really need time, IMO and this template doesn't lend itself to that. Although 2-mins rest is fine for 5-singles @ 90%. How about working up to a double or tripple and backing off and getting more volume in - as much as you can get within the given time?

Anyway, just a thought, curious to see your progress

I don't think I'm going to stick rigidly to the 5 singles @90%; I will probably use 3s and doubles. But I will use the density template for the volume (one light and one medium intensity). I would also note that I'm smaller than Che, and I've heard that bigger guys can have more trouble with higher frequency, but I'm not qualified to speculate on that. He is also stronger than me and I bench 4x a week. So there will probably be some confounding going on.

[iamsmuts]

I'm confused on how heavy to load these blocks. I've been experimenting with EMOM density blocks on press and chins. I think I've been going to light. I'm getting around 90 reps on chins and 60 on press in roughly 15-18 minutes. I don't think it was heavy enough to drive much progress.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this works out.

[John Hanley]

I'm confused on how heavy to load these blocks. I've been experimenting with EMOM density blocks on press and chins. I think I've been going to light. I'm getting around 90 reps on chins and 60 on press in roughly 15-18 minutes. I don't think it was heavy enough to drive much progress.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this works out.

Do you know your e1rm? It can be really ballparky.