Progress on pressing movements

[Joe Jaloszynski]

I know. I’m not saying that either. Why do you keep bringing it up?

Because I'm confused. I read that you were refuting Matt's MED article because it says to consider %1rm. If you are not, then I apologize.

[Mark Rippetoe]

A novices 1rm doesn't go up because we don't actually measure it. Consider it Schrodinger's 1rm. We don't know what the lifters 1rm is until they actually attempt a 1rm.

I think you'd have to say that the lifter's 1RM goes up if his 3 sets of 5 strength goes up every workout. The fact that we don't measure it and don't care about it is immaterial -- the 1RM is a strength metric, and if PRs for 5 go up every workout, then by definition the 1RM goes up too.

[Joe Jaloszynski]

I think you'd have to say that the lifter's 1RM goes up if his 3 sets of 5 strength goes up every workout. The fact that we don't measure it and don't care about it is immaterial -- the 1RM is a strength metric, and if PRs for 5 go up every workout, then by definition the 1RM goes up too.

I would say that. I'm on board with you there.

[Les Hahn]

I think you'd have to say that the lifter's 1RM goes up if his 3 sets of 5 strength goes up every workout. The fact that we don't measure it and don't care about it is immaterial -- the 1RM is a strength metric, and if PRs for 5 go up every workout, then by definition the 1RM goes up too.

I agree with this. I would add that the bar speed/effort level would have to be near equivalent for each workout. But if that is tracking, you are definitely getting stronger.

[Devyn Stewart]

I think we’re all missing the point that Aasgard company-type programs generally recommend near-maximal attempts with generally lower volume, treating volume increases as a last resort.

And no, I didn’t have a particular paper I was thinking of. So, you truly believe that there is not one single paper in the entirety of exercise science literature that provides meaningful insight into how to train? If you say that’s true, I’d just like to ask you to give me any respected organizations you know of, excluding government and religion for obvious reasons, that reject all the scientific literature of its field.

[Les Hahn]

More on the topic that a few people were discussing recently, I feel that both sides have a point in the argument. I feel like RPE has a place in lifting. I use it all the time to basically not overshoot what I am trying to do for the day. For instance, if I'm trying to do 70% of my max for some volume work, I have thresholds in place that I won't go over. So call it reps in the tank or whatever, but when I start to get to that point, it's time to reduce weight to finish my workout. Without that I would overextend myself and impact recovery for my next workout.

The context of the program is really important. If you are just squatting 1x per week, you can afford to push it during that session. I wouldn't really ever go RPE 10 in training (save that for a meet), but still you could really crush yourself and recover by the next session. If you are squatting 3x per week on a more advanced program, you can't train like that and expect to get stronger.

So on the flip side I'm not a fan of just throwing volume at stuff. I think the minimum effective dose thing has some merits. So if a lifter is coming off LP, I wouldn't just change it from 15 sets or 45 reps per week to 30 sets per week with an even higher amount of reps. This may work for some people, and we have examples of that with people I know personally. But we also have people like me that did crash and burn adding that kind of volume, even though the intensity goes much lower with programs like that.

I'm actually running an experiment now. I used to be the guy that would hit the big lifts 1x per week. I used a lot of assistance work after the main lifts. Kind of your typical American powerlifting style program. And I also never really did well with my LP, because 3x per week was too much for squats. But now I'm doing an upper/lower 6x per week program. So I hit the big lifts 3x per week each. I started with a mini LP, but I didn't take anything near failure. Again this is about doing a little bit every day and adapting to the higher frequency. So far it looks promising, but I can report back in a few months.

[Joe Jaloszynski]

I think we’re all missing the point that Aasgard company-type programs generally recommend near-maximal attempts with generally lower volume, treating volume increases as a last resort.

That has not been the case I have witnessed have been programmed by SSCs and seen the programming done by other SSCs.

[Keith]

More on the topic that a few people were discussing recently, I feel that both sides have a point in the argument. I feel like RPE has a place in lifting. I use it all the time to basically not overshoot what I am trying to do for the day. For instance, if I'm trying to do 70% of my max for some volume work, I have thresholds in place that I won't go over. So call it reps in the tank or whatever, but when I start to get to that point, it's time to reduce weight to finish my workout. Without that I would overextend myself and impact recovery for my next workout.

But Les, your an advanced lifter. I don't think anyone is arguing that RPE, 70%, and volume are inappropriate for an advanced lifter.

This is from Matt Reynold's essay:

Second, when intensity is considered only as a percentage of 1RM, it doesn’t take into account
the wide variability of stress induced by that same intensity percentage on lifters of various levels
of strength and training advancement. For example, a lifter who squats 600 lbs can make progress
squatting in the 425 lb (70%) range for higher rep/volume sets across. But a lifter who squats 175 lbs
almost certainly cannot drive a strength adaptation squatting 120 lbs for any sets across. Despite being
lifts of the same “intensity,” they are obviously different stress events. It’s clear that load matters.

I think this is the solution to a lot of the confusion around the role of volume in programming.

The point might be made clearer by noting that it is not only the lifter with a 175lbs deadlift who won't make progress with sets at 70%, a lifter with a 365lbs deadlift will not make progress doing sets at 70%.

A lifter with a 365lbs deadlift might have a 5RM around 315lbs. He could do hundreds of sets at 255lbs and not improve his 1RM or 5RM. In fact, he would just de-train. De-training is what happens when more advanced programs are used by less advanced lifters.

I think that this is why older lifters (by biological age) are "volume sensitive and intensity dependent." It is just not that likely that an older trainee's 1RM will be heavy enough that 70% of it is a stress that will elicit an adaptation.

[Rob Waskis]

Because I'm confused. I read that you were refuting Matt's MED article because it says to consider %1rm. If you are not, then I apologize.

I had three points:
1. Intensity doesn’t increase during the NLP
2. Changing one variable isn’t the only way to get good data
3. RPE isn’t inaccurate

[coldfire]

Devyn, is a there a good paper I missed that has nothing seriously wrong with it? Link? And our problem is not with Mike's methods for lifters at the worlds. Please don't make me explain this again.

Not Devyn, but do you consider all the papers reviewed here useless?