Dan John article: "Easier strength - 40 day workout"

[dexbot]

Dan John writes about a program he learned from Pavel and seemed to make great progress with it strength-wise.
Now, it's not about a magic pill, but a very interesting combination of loading and exercise variations.
Anyone tried something like it before?

Easier strength - 40 day workout

 

[Tosa]

I've never tried anything quite like it. But the general idea of doing a lot of work, but having no one set being that hard is part of a number of different routines. I'd be interested in knowing more about the "why" of the various parts of the routine. Like how important is the variation of exercises, and how much variation is necessary.

 

[chubbypickle]

a spin for someone stuck never hurts to shake things up for a 40 day routine

 

[Telf]

Maybe I'm a dumb-dumb - or just too much of a novice at training for strength (as opposed to just for muscle growth) but I couldn't follow that article. I know he went to great lengths to be specific but I just couldn't see how to turn it into a workable program for me. Like how to correctly estimate target weights etc. Also, some of the terms (like "Hinge" movements) I haven't come across before.

I'm enjoying plugging away with a simple routine (SS more or less) and making progress, so I'm in no rush to change. But he makes this thing seem so damn effective I'd like to be able to try it down the road.

I guess part of the problem is that I enjoy the "effort" of my work outs, and the idea of trying to make them "easy" seems counter-intuitive on an almost primal level.

 

[KILL KILL]

I've never tried anything quite like it. But the general idea of doing a lot of work, but having no one set being that hard is part of a number of different routines. I'd be interested in knowing more about the "why" of the various parts of the routine. Like how important is the variation of exercises, and how much variation is necessary.

I was wondering that aswell. muscle confusion perhaps :icon_chee

 

[Telf]

I was wondering that aswell. muscle confusion perhaps :icon_chee

Joking aside - what would the strength building principle behind a workout like this be? I guess it's still progressive overload, right? (is that a suitable term?)

Also - in the article he never mentioned if he had gained weight whilst on the program - which might help account for the large increases in strength he experienced.

 

[KILL KILL]

Joking aside - what would the strength building principle behind a workout like this be? I guess it's still progressive overload, right? (is that a suitable term?)

Also - in the article he never mentioned if he had gained weight whilst on the program - which might help account for the large increases in strength he experienced.

He said he got it from pavel. Many eastern europeans believe that to get better at a lift you must perform it almost daily. The only way to do this without frying the body is to do it with lighter weight and progressively increase the load over time

 

[KILL KILL]

Also, Idoubt he gained too much weight.

 

[Telf]

He said he got it from pavel. Many eastern europeans believe that to get better at a lift you must perform it almost daily. The only way to do this without frying the body is to do it with lighter weight and progressively increase the load over time

Thanks - I don't know much about that type of training. Just getting to grips with the SS/5,3,1 principles that seem to be the accepted standard around here.

So, at its heart, this routine is trying to increase strength (and presumably technique & neurological efficiency) at lower than the norm, sub maximal loads - which then ultimately has carryover to max efforts? Or is there still a fair amount of maximal work in there and I just misread (he put some poundages in parentheses and I couldn't tell if they were actual lifts he was performing - or his estimated 1pm from which he was calculating his work sets).

Are there studies to show that these methods are superior, or is it purely anecdotal?

Sorry for all the questions - it's just a really interesting approach and very different to what seems to be the orthodoxy here.

 

[KILL KILL]

Thanks - I don't know much about that type of training. Just getting to grips with the SS/5,3,1 principles that seem to be the accepted standard around here.

So, at its heart, this routine is trying to increase strength (and presumably technique & neurological efficiency) at lower than the norm, sub maximal loads - which then ultimately has carryover to max efforts? Or is there still a fair amount of maximal work in there and I just misread (he put some poundages in parentheses and I couldn't tell if they were actual lifts he was performing - or his estimated 1pm from which he was calculating his work sets).

Are there studies to show that these methods are superior, or is it purely anecdotal?

Sorry for all the questions - it's just a really interesting approach and very different to what seems to be the orthodoxy here.

The lifter wouldn't ALWAYS be using light weight. the second workout has a heavy double, the third has you adding weight and doing singles for 6 sets. Ithink John may have overcomplicated the program a bit by having the lifter vary the specific movements every 2 weeks. Unless you stalled on a program like starting strength and for some ungodly reason you stall on 5/3/1, I wouldn't really use this program.

 

[PowerHungry]

It's just another way of skinning the cat. It has a variety of rep ranges like most good programs. As Tosa said, the only difference here from a lot of programs (and even some of Defranco's stuff and Westside has similar ideas) is the idea of needing variation in lifts frequently.

 

[Telf]

Thanks guys. What was throwing me off was the "No Missed Reps" thing - I doubt I'd be good enough at guessing the perfect weight that I could definitely double (or single) that would still be a challenge.

I do wonder what processes are at work that would seem, as the writer of the article attests, to make this a more effective routine than, say, 5,3,1. Just curious. I'll be sticking with my linear progress for the foreseeable.

 

[oxcart]

It's a twist on supercompensation training. Cumulative fatigue over a longer period rather than making linear improvements.

 

[dexbot]

^^This is what I think. And I would like to try it but right now I'm soooo used to my 3 sessions per week that I think I'll puss out on that.
Still, I'm intrigued by trying it though.

Crazy russians...

 

[redbeard]

Thanks - I don't know much about that type of training. Just getting to grips with the SS/5,3,1 principles that seem to be the accepted standard around here.

So, at its heart, this routine is trying to increase strength (and presumably technique & neurological efficiency) at lower than the norm, sub maximal loads - which then ultimately has carryover to max efforts? Or is there still a fair amount of maximal work in there and I just misread (he put some poundages in parentheses and I couldn't tell if they were actual lifts he was performing - or his estimated 1pm from which he was calculating his work sets).

Are there studies to show that these methods are superior, or is it purely anecdotal?

Sorry for all the questions - it's just a really interesting approach and very different to what seems to be the orthodoxy here.

The majority of lifting programs that are out there and work are anecdotal and based on opinions formed from lifting experiences.

That said pretty much anything performed consistently will work to get you stronger, and if enough rest and recovery is in place then generally the higher the frequency the better.

 

[DrBdan]

Thanks guys. What was throwing me off was the "No Missed Reps" thing - I doubt I'd be good enough at guessing the perfect weight that I could definitely double (or single) that would still be a challenge.

I do wonder what processes are at work that would seem, as the writer of the article attests, to make this a more effective routine than, say, 5,3,1. Just curious. I'll be sticking with my linear progress for the foreseeable.

The idea is that you don't want to miss any reps because that means you are going too heavy which could lead to overtraining over the course of the program. It also forces you to start light in preparation for longer term progress. The fact that you aren't able to figure out the correct weight means that it's probably a more complicated program than you need at this point.

It's a twist on supercompensation training. Cumulative fatigue over a longer period rather than making linear improvements.

Agreed. It's probably a more complicated program than most people here need but it's interesting to read about.

 

[VoodooPlata]

I must also be really dumb, because I don't understand a word of that article.

EDIT: Like, how can he set out to lift super easy weights for 40 workouts and then on his 22nd workout do a PR for a double? That's not super easy!

 

[KnuckleSangwich]

I'm not interested in any strength that comes easy (or easier for that matter)...

 

[KILL KILL]

I'm not interested in any strength that comes easy (or easier for that matter)...

I don't really know how easy it would be. you'd be benching, squatting, and doing deads all in the same day, multiple times a week

 

[KnuckleSangwich]

I don't really know how easy it would be. you'd be benching, squatting, and doing deads all in the same day, multiple times a week

I was more commenting on the program name than anything and I think when he says "Easier" he's mainly commenting on how the program is so simple people overcomplicate it, I just can't stand programs that have that "schtick," in them... the workouts are so easy, or strength will come easier in this program.

I'm sure the volume and the weights would get to be strenuous, he does denote in the article that the workouts will seem easy as you're "not supposed to come close to struggling." The program may very well work and I can't speak for everyone else but I, personally, enjoy the struggle. It's what fuels a lot of lifter's, it's what sets us apart and exemplifies the fact that it takes balls and guts to get in there and kick ass every session. I don't want to go in and do 5 lifts and never strain or agonize to get the weight up.

Now that that pointless rant is out of the way, the program maybe awesome, difficult at some points and work 10x better than anything out there. But if someone comes to me and says here's a program where you won't even have to try that hard (volume of work aside) and you'll get stronger....thanks but I'll pass. He may not be doing this at all but that's kind of how I read it, I may be way off.

TL;DR- "Don't keep testing yourself. Save the big efforts for, well, never."- No thanks