Progress on pressing movements

[perman]

And one more goddamn time, I'll ask for the paper that informs training better than the clinical experience. One More Fucking Time. The money shot.

You're not gonna find this one study, and the fact that you think there should be one illustrates your fundamental misunderstanding of this field works. One study will not beat your 40 years of experience. Hundreds of them will in certain ways though, and if you read none of them because they are all flawed, you are missing the forest for the trees.

They are usually trying to test one little thing, and they often find useful conclusions. For instance one Schoenfeld study that is often cited is the one where he had one group do 3 sets of 8, and another group do 8 sets of 3. Both at intensities that made it kind of hard, so the 8 sets of 3 worked at larger weights. Anyways, they achieved similar hypertrophy after a certain number of weeks, but the strength group achieved larger strength gains. Now there are two ways main takeaways here:
1) Working with high weights is necessary to get good at working with high weights (which most probably think "duh" to).
2) For pure hypertrophy, the total volume itself is the most important factor.

[Ivan Stepic]

You're not gonna find this one study, and the fact that you think there should be one illustrates your fundamental misunderstanding of this field works. One study will not beat your 40 years of experience. Hundreds of them will in certain ways though, and if you read none of them because they are all flawed, you are missing the forest for the trees.

They are usually trying to test one little thing, and they often find useful conclusions. For instance one Schoenfeld study that is often cited is the one where he had one group do 3 sets of 8, and another group do 8 sets of 3. Both at intensities that made it kind of hard, so the 8 sets of 3 worked at larger weights. Anyways, they achieved similar hypertrophy after a certain number of weeks, but the strength group achieved larger strength gains. Now there are two ways main takeaways here:
1) Working with high weights is necessary to get good at working with high weights (which most probably think "duh" to).
2) For pure hypertrophy, the total volume itself is the most important factor.

It was 7x3RM and 3x10RM with equated tonnage. 8 weeks, 17 participants. Hypertrophy was measured only in biceps. Pretty weak data, strong conclusions. As is the case with anyone that markets themselves as "evidence based". Greg Nuckols is a perfect example.

To summarize, Aasgaard company:
- advises to always train to failure
- only adds 5 pounds
- never increases training volume

And this is why perman and others should read PPST again.

To Devyn. There's nothing wrong with reading the literature. The problem is that most people read the abstracts, don't take limitations very seriously, over conclude and come here trying to compare successfully coaching people with reading weak science.

[VivekSaini007]

''and the fact that you think there should be one illustrates your fundamental misunderstanding of this field works.''

This is quite funny, actually.

[Mark Rippetoe]

There's nothing wrong with reading the literature. The problem is that most people read the abstracts, don't take limitations very seriously, over conclude and come here trying to compare successfully coaching people with reading weak science.

If you only read the abstracts, do us a favor and just read the posts. You are not qualified to comment.

[Devyn Stewart]

What are you trying to understand? Did you read Reynolds's essay? Do you think we should all spend as much time as possible in the gym? Why, in God's name does this appeal to you? And more importantly, why would it appeal to your clients, the people who pay you to train them? (Little secret: It doesn't, and it hasn't.)

I did read his article. My anecdotal experience (on myself. I have no clients, and my goal is to one day have patients, not clients) has been that near-maximal lifting takes much, much more time than submaximal, volume-oriented lifting. My 3x5s for squat when my LP was finishing at ~315 would take 30-45 minutes if you include the warm-ups. This was because I had lots of aches and pains I was working through, and I was essentially doing a 3-4RM through technical failure with 5+ seconds between the 4th and 5th reps. I required 10+ minutes of rest otherwise I simply couldn’t do something like that again, and yes, I tried. Nothing has taken longer in the gym or left me feeling more beaten up than the end of NLP. I’m sure this is in part because of the lack of coaching, but I also believe it’s in part due to the “Milk LP for everything you can. It’s going to be the hardest thing you’ve ever done. Keep squatting and don’t be a pussy” mindset that I kept hearing.

TL;DR It doesn’t seem to take any longer, and it appeals to me because I want to avoid injuries as much as possible, and lifting maximal sets weekly seemed to be causing me injuries.

[Erik Y]

It was 7x3RM and 3x10RM with equated tonnage. 8 weeks, 17 participants. Hypertrophy was measured only in biceps.

Went and read the study. Wrote a huge post. Thought better of posting it. Loads of problems: No statistically significant conclusions about hypertrophy or even squat strength, used relative strength as the metric even though one group was ten pounds heavier in bodyweight, seven sets of 2-4 reps taken to failure with three minutes’ rest for the intensity group, squat 1RM went up almost 20% squatting once a week for eight weeks for less than ten minutes (probably not from 335 to 400 - if it is, then I want these guys doing my programming). Basically, we have novices making novice gains doing daft programming. Only statistically significant finding was that bench went up about five more pounds for the heavy group, which somehow got spun into the opposite conclusion over the tubes through the following logic: Equal tonnage means equal hypertrophy (not demonstrated), hypertrophy strongly correlates with strength, so we should just do more volume at lower weights.

Ivan’s argument is spot-on: This is weak anecdotal evidence based on nonsense programming, at best. I had a peek at the other studies Greg posted on this topic, and this might be the best one. No one should make programming decisions based around this “science,” and in practice no one actually does - not even the people who claim they do.

[Keith]

Eh, basically. Most other organizations I know of attempt to do as much as possible while still recovering, whereas SS tends to focus more on doing the least amount possible that will result in PRs as frequently as possible. That's the difference I'm attempting to better understand.

The least amount possible that will result in the most frequent PRs possible would be the definition of optimal effective programming.
Doing more than is necessary for an adaptation is the definition of junk volume. PRs are the effect of a strength adaptation, If we get the effect then we know the cause. Knowledge of causes and effects is science.

And you know this how?

How do I know that using a program with inappropriately dosed stress is ineffective? I derived this knowledge from theory, practice, reason, and experience.

1. Training age determines effective programming.

2. Training age is determined by the length of the sra cycle.

3. The length of the SRA cycle is determined by the length of time between PRs.

4. The length of the SRA cycle lengthens as the trainee advances because the length of time between PRs increases. Because as the trainee advances they need to accumulate increasing stress over an increasing period of time to accommodate recovery and further adaptation.

5. As training progresses the need for periodization increases. Periodization is a way to organize training across the SRA cycle so that strength adaptations can be continually accumulated even as they become harder and harder to come by.

6. Periodization means periodizing training variables, most notably volume and intensity. Optimum Novice programming is not periodized because the novice can PR every workout. Texas Method, for example, fluctuates volume and intensity and so utilizes basic periodization appropriate to an intermediate trainee.

7. As training advances more time is needed to accumulate an adaptive stress so greater separation will be needed between stress accumulation periods marked by relatively lower intensity and higher volume and recovery and adoption periods marked by lower volume and higher intensity and PRs.

8. As the intensity performed approaches ultimate genetic potential it becomes harder and harder to recover from and so the more advanced the trainee the more they will have to accumulate greater volume at a relatively lower intensity. In order to facilitate the accumulation of all the stress needed to incite a further strength adaptation.

9. As volume increase intensity decreases.

10. Novice and intermediate trainees who are not as close to their genetic potential must work at higher relative intensities to accumulate the stress that elicits an adaptation.

It is obvious to all with experience that voluminous sets and reps at 135lbs will not get a trainee to 200lbs on any lift. Intensity must incrementally increase quickly at first and then ever more slowly as training advances.

The only question is at what stage in training advancement and at what absolute loads does 70% become significant work? And how much of the necessary work to elicit a further adaptation can be done at 70%? I think experience shows that the answer is none for novices and not much for early intermediates. I think experience also shows that 70% of anything below 300lbs isn’t significant work for anyone.

[Rob Waskis]

Someone made the comment that intensity doesn’t go up on NLP. This certainly hasn’t been my experience or the experience of anyone I’ve trained with.

That was me. Intensity is not a synonym for effort. It is a mathematical representation of the weight (for work sets) relative to a lifter’s 1RM, expressed as a percentage. That percentage does not change during the NLP.

[Rob Waskis]

It is obvious to all with experience that voluminous sets and reps at 135lbs will not get a trainee to 200lbs on any lift. Intensity must incrementally increase quickly at first and then ever more slowly as training advances.

I disagree. Sets of 8 at 135 were useful to me to get a 200 lb press.

I think experience also shows that 70% of anything below 300lbs isn’t significant work for anyone.

Again, I disagree. Sets of 8 for 200 would be useful for a 300 lb bench.

Of course, not exclusively. You still need heavy sets too (fahves, singles, doubles, triples, etc.). I think that keeps getting lost in the discussion. I’m not sure anyone is advocating for just lower intensity work. Well, not anyone who cares about strength anyway.

[Erik Y]

That was me. Intensity is not a synonym for effort. It is a mathematical representation of the weight (for work sets) relative to a lifter’s 1RM, expressed as a percentage. That percentage does not change during the NLP.

Thanks for chiming in. Here’s what I’m thinking explains this: First day of fives is pretty light. One rep max goes up a bit. The spread is pretty broad here, and going from zero to some training will drive 1RM up a lot at first.

Eventually, when you’re squatting in the high 200s or so, your fives, which were nowhere near a 5RM at the start, are going up in weight faster than your 1RM is. We know that increase in training weight is linear, and we suspect increase in actual strength is logarithmic. Otherwise, 1RM would just keep going up with the fives forever. So eventually, your fives catch up - you don’t ever do a real 5RM, but you close the gap pretty significantly. So the spread between your training weight and your 1RM goes from being broad to much narrower. That means intensity goes up.