What program to do after SS?

[Joe Wilson]

How exactly does The Bridge have an 8 week SRA cycle? That's a very odd claim.

[jonfla]

No, he doesn't. People doing LP, even a complete LP don't know how to grind like the experience you get from intermediate singles, doubles, and triples.


Basically, he'd be switching from a very consistent schedule of LP which has a 2 day SRA cycle to a much less consistent schedule with 4 times as many exercises and an SRA cycle of 8 weeks (arguably a little less, at minimum a single week).
It'd be much better to switch to a 4 day SRA cycle, then a 7 day SRA cycle, etc. Also, he should introduce exercises in one at a time to space out the novelty and to prevent any massive form changes.


I did notice that. I also didn't disagree with that part.


A newly post-novice lifter is still a relatively new lifter, and the novice effect is still going to show up here and there.

Consider this instead: for someone changing from SS LP to a new program (because they're done being a novice) is 5/3/1 an appropriate program? (As an aside, I think 5/3/1 is an excellent program for a specific type of trainee)

On 1/2/3s - How much of this is attributable specifically to near-maximal efforts in those rep ranges, and how much is due to accruing more experience as a lifter, including exposure to a greater variety of rep ranges at a useful intensity?

SRA - the SRA cycle is not imposed by the program; it is a by-product of an organism at a stage of adaptation. An intermediate will likely display improved strength on a roughly weekly basis on the bridge. Incidentally, in PPST there is an HLM for intermediates written in 2 4-week blocks, similar to the bridge.

Exercise variation - I come from a swimming background. We use exercise variations (“drills”) with complete novices because it helps with motor learning. I think this applies to lifting as well, and would argue that exercise variations be introduced gradually from mid-LP or so. I also don’t think it matters much, ceteris paribus.

An intermediate is not a novice, by definition. They might revert to being a novice if they detrain enough, and they’ll respond more quickly than a more advanced lifter, but they won’t all of a sudden be able to adapt in 24-48 hours again. Or am I missing your point?

Which 5/3/1?

[convergentsum]

The Bridge robs people of learning what their body is actually capable of. By introducing RPE to a recently novice trainee, they will not learn how to push against a truly heavy weight even when they don't want to.

The bridge gives exposure to heavy singles. The rpe may be lower, but the intensity is higher than the grindiest 5. The higher quality reps are arguably superior for skill acquisition.

The main problem with the Bridge (other than the RPE) is that it's too large of a difference too fast while the trainee is still relatively inexperienced.

It wouldn't suit me, but i think that would work well for some people.

The difference is that the cycle change is small (it's a 1 week SRA cycle, not 8 week)

Don't think so. It's a transitiomal program for building work capacity and introducing techniques and variations, it doesn't look like it's designed to be run in repeatedly. Skimming through it, the sra seems between 48 hours and a week (belted squats are every week, but the other variations aren't all that light).

There is also 0 subjectivity [in hlm] when it comes to prescription which gives the trainee the ability to learn what heavy means.

My first attempt at post-novice programming was hlm, and i found it excessively subjective. I'd have been happier with an rpe prescription than trying to work out what percentage- and volume- offsets would be productive. My own fault for not hiring a coach to program for me, but even if i had the subjectivity is still there, i'd just have outsourced it.

[AndrewLewis]

On 1/2/3s - How much of this is attributable specifically to near-maximal efforts in those rep ranges, and how much is due to accruing more experience as a lifter, including exposure to a greater variety of rep ranges at a useful intensity?

The near-maximal efforts at those rep ranges. You also don't get an option of dialing it back. You show up, knowing you're going to have to do 5 singles at a weight you've never done, and then you have to push yourself through it and potentially fail. That's another part. True (strength based) failure should not occur on SS LP, but in my opinion, it is a new experience at the intermediate level. It's part of the learning experience. If you don't fail once or twice (or 20) as an intermediate, you're not really sure what you can truly do.

I can't tell you how many clients I've had say "I don't think I can do this weight." and I say "How about you just give me one, and we'll see?" and they do it, then say "I can't do another one", and I say "just try one more" and then we repeat that for another 3 reps.

SRA - the SRA cycle is not imposed by the program; it is a by-product of an organism at a stage of adaptation. An intermediate will likely display improved strength on a roughly weekly basis on the bridge.

Yeah, but that all comes back to the RPE conversation AND the perception of the organism of their own stage of adaptation. If they think they can't do a weight (or a weight is an RPE 10 when they could probably do an additional rep or two), then they'll back the weight off.

Incidentally, in PPST there is an HLM for intermediates written in 2 4-week blocks, similar to the bridge.

There's nothing wrong with extended SRA cycles for mid/late intermediates (in fact, it's necessary at a certain point), but you don't start a new intermediate on a 4 week block of HLM. You start with a week SRA.

Exercise variation - I come from a swimming background. We use exercise variations (“drills”) with complete novices because it helps with motor learning. I think this applies to lifting as well, and would argue that exercise variations be introduced gradually from mid-LP or so. I also don’t think it matters much, ceteris paribus.

I just don't agree with this. I don't think it's particularly beneficial in any sport to introduce an "excessive" (you can decide what that means) number of techniques. In martial arts especially, it's actually a detriment.

An intermediate is not a novice, by definition. They might revert to being a novice if they detrain enough, and they’ll respond more quickly than a more advanced lifter, but they won’t all of a sudden be able to adapt in 24-48 hours again. Or am I missing your point?

You're missing my point. The novice effect isn't binary. It's a continuum. Explaining it as binary is just a palatable illustration.

Which 5/3/1?

Take your pick.

[Joe Wilson]

I'm not running The Bridge or anything similar, so I have no skin in that game, but I do use RPE both descriptively and prescriptively in my training (with SSOC - gasp!). The mischaracterization of RPE as some mystical unicorn bullshit based on nothing but your subjective feels is misleading and at this point is honestly really annoying. It's not like you finish LP at 350x5x3 and then suddenly start doing all your squats at 225 because your dumb novice RPE feels say they're super hard @10 sets and you definitely can't possibly go heavier.

With RPE training you don't just walk in blind and load up random weights until you feel like it's maybe probably an @8 and call it good. You have an expectation of what you should be able to do that day based on your previous training, as well as how hard it should be. The default is to add weight weekly as an early intermediate for example, and you make small adjustments to the plan as necessary to complete the prescribed sets at the intended difficulty. How the set felt is neither ignored nor accepted as gospel, but is taken into consideration along with observations of bar speed and overall technique. There is a bit of a learning curve at the beginning for sure, but in reality it's just not that fucking hard to figure it out to a useful degree if you're actually making an honest effort.

[AndrewLewis]

I'm not running The Bridge or anything similar, so I have no skin in that game, but I do use RPE both descriptively and prescriptively in my training (with SSOC - gasp!). The mischaracterization of RPE as some mystical unicorn bullshit based on nothing but your subjective feels is misleading and at this point is honestly really annoying. It's not like you finish LP at 350x5x3 and then suddenly start doing all your squats at 225 because your dumb novice RPE feels say they're super hard @10 sets and you definitely can't possibly go heavier.

With RPE training you don't just walk in blind and load up random weights until you feel like it's maybe probably an @8 and call it good. You have an expectation of what you should be able to do that day based on your previous training, as well as how hard it should be. The default is to add weight weekly as an early intermediate for example, and you make small adjustments to the plan as necessary to complete the prescribed sets at the intended difficulty. How the set felt is neither ignored nor accepted as gospel, but is taken into consideration along with observations of bar speed and overall technique. There is a bit of a learning curve at the beginning for sure, but in reality it's just not that fucking hard to figure it out to a useful degree if you're actually making an honest effort.

I don't believe RPE is a mystical unicorn, and (I think) no one is making that argument. I think we are all reasonable adults who can see the potential value of RPE, but with all things, it's a tool that can be used appropriately and inappropriately.

I think it's actually a good idea to describe your RPE when you hit late novice and early intermediate, but only as a calibration and learning tool for when you might use RPE as a late intermediate/advanced lifter.

However, I don't think at any point during novice or early intermediate should you not try a weight. If the prescription is "add 5lb" and you feel like complete dog shit and you suspect it's 30lb over your day off RPE 10, you do it the fuck anyway.

For post novice, I don't believe failure is the turd in the punchbowl that many people believe it is.

[Joe Wilson]

I don't believe RPE is a mystical unicorn, and (I think) no one is making that argument. I think we are all reasonable adults who can see the potential value of RPE, but with all things, it's a tool that can be used appropriately and inappropriately.

There were a couple other comments in here that seemed to disagree, and I felt that your comments in their entirety also insinuated the unicorn-ness of RPE, but thanks for clarifying your position.

[Eric Schexnayder]

It really isn't arbitrary and few coaches argue about the value of descriptive use of RPE. Case in point, I did a squat single today at 420 lbs. I knew for certain that I could do 3 more reps at that weight which means it is a RPE 7. I noted it my log as 1-420@6.5 because the video review showed that it moved much faster than I thought and the bar didn't slow at all. After that, I thought back to recent workouts and I realized that I did a set of squats about 3 weeks ago that was 5-410@9. Everything lines up...so I know my evaluation of that squat single is pretty accurate. I do this because it gives me an idea of relative progress without having to grind out singles or rep maxes every couple of weeks and risk injury.

That's all well and good and I'm glad it works for you. I still don't understand how that is helpful. The RPE "measurement" is completely subjective and the scale is arbitrary (why are you using a 6.5? How is that markedly and measurably different from a 7.0? Is the scale meant to be integer based or is it meant to be a continuum?). It is useless prescriptively since each lifter is different. A "5" for you is different from a "5" for me.

[AndrewLewis]

There were a couple other comments in here that seemed to disagree, and I felt that your comments in their entirety also insinuated the unicorn-ness of RPE, but thanks for clarifying your position.

Sorry about that. That was not my intention.

[AndrewLewis]

That's all well and good and I'm glad it works for you. I still don't understand how that is helpful. The RPE "measurement" is completely subjective and the scale is arbitrary (why are you using a 6.5? How is that markedly and measurably different from a 7.0? Is the scale meant to be integer based or is it meant to be a continuum?). It is useless prescriptively since each lifter is different. A "5" for you is different from a "5" for me.

You should read The Bridge e-book. There is an attempt to reduce the arbitrariness of the scale. I still don't like the Bridge, but it's not completely arbitrary.

I can't remember the cut off, but basically anything lower than a 6 doesn't exist (because there's basically zero resolution between a 1 and a 2. It's really just a scale from 6-10.
Alan Thrall also explains it like this to my knowledge.