How to measure volume: per SRA cycle or per time period?

[Elephant]

In a recent article Intermediate and Advanced Training: A Few Ideas | Mark Rippetoe, Rip et al compare volume for a novice for a day and an intermediate for a week, as each time period represents an SRA cycle for the lifter.

I would have thought the better comparison is volume per time period, for example, per week, rather than per SRA cycle. If a lifter advances to the point he needs a two week SRA cycle, does his volume double purely by moving from one week to two?

Would someone please explain Rip's position (he closed a relevant thread in his forum) and otherwise expand on volume/time vs volume/overload event.

[whale]

The analysis in the article does not make sense. Additionally, if you continue managing progression like that, you'd eventually stop training, as pointed out by Ryan in that thread.

[Eric Larousse]

Rips position is simple much like his programming. He believes progress should be made in a simple stepwise manner and no more complicated than that. To introduce 8 week cycles is boredoring an advanced program which if you look at PPST this is the case. In fact an advanced program will work for an intermediate the problem is it will not work as fast as setting PRs weekly as rip pointed out in that thread. There is no reason to have an intermediate trainee periodize their training when basically it just an extension of the novice program at the early intermediate level.There are three variables to change especially somewhat that far down the totem pole of developmental strength and those are volume, intensity and frequency.

The programs in the book aren't prescriptive programs but rather a snapshot into what training looks like at a given level. You are supposed to learn how to optimize the program as you advance and this is an individual thing to do which is where a good coach comes into play if you can't make these decisions on your own.

[Brian Goldstein]

I happened to have my copy of PPST3 sitting right in front of me, and just checked: there's no cut and dry answer to the volume/time or volume/overload event question in the pages about what constitutes an overload event, the description of the SRA cycle, or in the pages on how to calculate and interpret volume and intensity metrics. The closest I can find or remember is the discussion starting on page 178 about the differences between Intermediate and Advanced training, as defined by the stages of training advancement accepted here. However this discussion seems to be a restatement of what's in the Rip et. al article that caused all of the strum and drang to begin with:

The point is that the intermediate lifter PRs every week while the advanced lifter makes only 3 PRs during the whole 8-week period. For the intermediate the 'cycle' is the week, while for the advanced lifter the 'cycle' is the 8 week period. The advanced lifter is stronger at the end of the 4 week volume period because 1) he got stronger by the end of the previous 8-week cycle and was able to return to volume-condition in 4 weeks to demonstrate that increased strength for 5x5, and 2) the cumulative effect of the 7 weeks of current cycle produced the higher strength level on week 8.

On this question:
If a lifter advances to the point he needs a two week SRA cycle, does his volume double purely by moving from one week to two?

I think the answer would be no; consider an example Wolf gave in a thread talking about the subtle differences between the Starr Model and TM. (calcs are mine)

the basic TM structure of High Volume/Medium Intensity, Low Volume/Low Intensity, Low Volume/High Intensity but jigger it to aim for a PR every second Friday.
i.e. for a lifter whose 5RM is 405, 3RM is 430, 2RM is 450 and 1RM is 470:
W1D1: 375x5x5 - hard volume day 9375
W1D2: 275x5x2 - very easy light day 2750
W1D3: 410x3x2 - easier intensity day 2460

W2D1: 340x5x5 - easier but still plenty of work volume day 8500
W2D2: 295x5x2 - harder but still easy light day 2950
W2D3: 455x2x2-3 - new PR doubles 1820

== 80 reps, 27855 pounds

there's slight and subtle variation between sessions and weeks, and the cumulative stress allows the PR on the second intensity day. It isn't simply redoing the previous week, so if that was the thrust of the question as to whether doubling the time of the SRA == doubling the volume or tonnage, that is why I would say, no, not necessarily.
I understand wanting to compare 1 week to 1 week, but if the aim is a PR every other week it doesn't make a ton of sense to compare 1 SRA to 1/2 SRA, either.

I think many of us - speaking for myself here - want there to be more clear guidelines here; we want there to be a key metric or method of analysis that solves for definitive analysis, and I'm not sure that there is one. Which is why, in addition to widely varying responses to training, competing approaches have been developed.

I wish I had more definitive answers, but I don't and I'm not sure any really exist absent the context of a specific lifter and their stage of training advancement.

Smarter people than I, it's all yours.

[convergentsum]

I think Rip prefers volume per SRA cycle.
I guess that at least means *something*, whereas the volume from eg. a week snapshot taken at random from an advanced lifter's 8 week cycle means precisely nothing.

I wonder if the 2-week program above is really one or two SRA cycles. Is the lifter fresh on the second Monday, or is he still accumulating fatigue from the first Monday's heavy volume?

[quikky]

I think Rip prefers volume per SRA cycle.
I guess that at least means *something*, whereas the volume from eg. a week snapshot taken at random from an advanced lifter's 8 week cycle means precisely nothing.

I wonder if the 2-week program above is really one or two SRA cycles. Is the lifter fresh on the second Monday, or is he still accumulating fatigue from the first Monday's heavy volume?

You *should* count the volume, or to be more precise, the stress of an SRA cycle. However, if you are advancing as a lifter, i.e. your SRA cycle is becoming longer, you need more stress. In order to accurately evaluate the stress, and thus objectively increase it, you have to compare programs using the same unit of time, even if the underlying SRA is different.

So, if you go from a 1 week SRA cycle to a 2 week SRA cycle, the total stress of *two weeks* in the 2 week cycle will be greater than in two weeks of the 1 week cycle. Similarly, on a 4 week cycle, the stress over the course of those 4 weeks will be greater than the stress of 4 1 week cycles put together. Now, within that 4 week cycle, there might be a lower stress week, but the cumulative stress will nonetheless be higher, if the program is designed correctly.

Without using the same unit of time to compare two programs, you cannot objectively compare the level of stress. Otherwise, you can call any routine as higher stress or lower stress by just redefining what the SRA cycle is. Squatting once a week for a set of 5 is not more stressful than the novice LP just because you've redefined the SRA cycle to be 3 months.

[Marenghi]

Exactly and: Why is there even a debate about this? Just leave the SS cosmos for a second and learn how it is widely calculated in the whole world of high level strength training.

[wiigelec]

Say a lifter completes the last week of novice progression as follows:

Day 1: 315 x 5, 5, 4
Day 2: 265 x 5, 5
Day 3: 315 x 5, 5, 4

Total weekly volume: 34 reps
Total weekly tonnage: 4410 + 2650 + 4410 = 11,470 #


What percentage increase in tonnage would be prescribed for the next week intermediate program and what frequency, intensity, reps and sets would be used to accomplish that tonnage?

[convergentsum]

There's probably more than one way to finish LP, but I expect a common scenario is when the SRA has gradually grows longer and exceeds 48 hours before the lifter changes programming. In other words, the lifter has some accumulated fatigue by the time he actually starts failing, so I would suggest programming a few weeks' deload. (I think this is why deloads within the novice program work -- it's a race to get beyond your old sticking point before the stress has had time to accumulate). Also it depends on what you're doing as a new intermediate --many want to do their first peak, others might need to acclimatise to more volume or frequency, or introduce cardio etc. Whatever the goal, I keep hearing it recommended to keep changes gradual.

[convergentsum]

the contrary view: YouTube