throwing out some ideas

[cockysprinter]

ok well we have a few charts to help us figure out how to do things.

prilipins chart:
% reps optimal range
90+ 1-2 7 4-10
80-85 2-4 15 10-20
70-75 3-6 18 12-24
55-65 3-6 24 18-30

then we have the dropoff chart:
0-6 reps 3-5% per rep
6-12 reps 2-3% per rep
12-20 reps 1-2% per rep

this is my adjusted dropoff chart, it may not be entirely accurate:
1-2 reps 5% dropoff per rep
3-5 reps 4% dropoff per rep
6-9 reps 3% dropoff per rep
10-16 reps 2% dropoff per rep
17-20 reps 1% dropoff per rep

then we have recomendations for dropoffs:
1-3% dropoff for rate
3-5% dropoff for magnitude
5-7% dropoff for duration

then we have a guideline for dynamic work:
slow: over 11s per set
medium: 8.5-11s per set
fast: 6.5-8.5s per set

and finally we have the rule of thirds:
it takes 1/3 of the dropoff percent in days to recover from a workout and another 1/3 to supercompensate.

prilipins chart tells us the optimal reps per set and session before bar speed slows down. derived from thousands of elite weightlifting athletes, its one of the most reliable charts for forming workouts.

i dont know how many of you here are familiar with the DB hammer stuff, but his dropoff chart and rule of thirds gives a way determing exact recovery and volume/intensity managment. a dropoff represents the % diminishment of immediate work capacity. for example, if you have a 2RM at 300 pounds and you want a 5% dropoff, you can either perform doubles at 285 pounds (95% of 2RM) until 2 reps is your max for the day or you can perform singles at 300 until 1 rep is your max for the day. the rule of thirds says that recovery from that session would take 1 and 2/3 days, and recovery + supercompensation would take 3 and 1/3 days. coming back 3 and 1/3 days later, theoretically youre 5% stronger.

keeping towards the zatsiorsky principle of the repetition, ME, and dynamic methods being best for strength development, there should be things we can do with dropoffs to determine what our individualized workouts should be. im guessing these will almost always fall within the framework of prilipins chart.

ME and repetition: work to a 3-5% dropoff
dynamic work: work to 1-3% dropoff in speed

in this way, theoretically, we should be coming back faster and stronger every session. however, there are a lot of question marks regarding the dropoffs, and its relatively untested still. im thinking about taking the mesocycle off of track to see how things work.

a long winded way to come full circle with one recomendation huh? anyone else (preferably familiar with DB hammers stuff) have ideas on how these could be used together appropriately?

 

[Rjkd12]

Awesome. This is great info. Too bad most of it is wasted on me since I am in now way going to put this much effort into planning a workout. Too all you guys who complained about how this forum was turning to crap, now is about time you do some research and open your mouth. This has been posted for a few days and no responses. I guess people would rather argue if hand size can be changed.

I have questions though. How applicable are those numbers for everyone? The difference of 1% (when talking about 1-5%) is a 20% difference which I think is large. So is the random deviation of average athletes (we aren't talking about sedentary) small enough to fit in here reliably well? How big of an impact is life on training? Such as spousal fights, getting sick, stress from work etc... Do those effect someone enough that one poor week could send your whole periodization off kilter?

The next question how does things like the difference between an exceptional vs a pretty good diet effect recovery? How about steroids?

This was attempted to be answered by Louie Simmons with his WSB method. He said one reason periodization is poor because it doesn't take into account all of life's circumstances. If you are sick one week or can't make it to the gym there is no way you can do your extra 2% that is predicted in your program. If you can, but have a few poor sessions you are way behind and will never catch up. So he changed his method so you could miss a workout or have a few crappy workouts and your whole 6 month cycle wouldn't be messed up. Do these numbers cover enough ground to let you do slip up a bit?

I am partially surprised and skeptical about how exact these people are writing about recovery thinking that it was such a complicated topic. Similarly though, with all of the advancements in the new field of exercise physiology its time for some numbers and charts like this.

So, I guess I am kinda asking the same question you are, how applicable is all of this information with all of the millions of variants in the everyday life of an athlete?

 

[Urban]

I don't use these numbers any more. At all really. All these charts operate on the assumption that you know your one rep max on any given day (even if you haven't tested in weeks). I lift heavy weights now (low rep, high set) and each week I try to do more reps per set, more volume, and/or more weight. This is working better than ANY time I tried to apply prilepin's chart or some other percentage based work. I've been doing it for a solid four weeks now and have been progressing and hitting PR's on a regular basis... maybe I'll start a thread on what I'm learning today.

 

[cockysprinter]

Awesome. This is great info. Too bad most of it is wasted on me since I am in now way going to put this much effort into planning a workout. Too all you guys who complained about how this forum was turning to crap, now is about time you do some research and open your mouth. This has been posted for a few days and no responses. I guess people would rather argue if hand size can be changed.

I have questions though. How applicable are those numbers for everyone? The difference of 1% (when talking about 1-5%) is a 20% difference which I think is large. So is the random deviation of average athletes (we aren't talking about sedentary) small enough to fit in here reliably well? How big of an impact is life on training? Such as spousal fights, getting sick, stress from work etc... Do those effect someone enough that one poor week could send your whole periodization off kilter?

The next question how does things like the difference between an exceptional vs a pretty good diet effect recovery? How about steroids?

This was attempted to be answered by Louie Simmons with his WSB method. He said one reason periodization is poor because it doesn't take into account all of life's circumstances. If you are sick one week or can't make it to the gym there is no way you can do your extra 2% that is predicted in your program. If you can, but have a few poor sessions you are way behind and will never catch up. So he changed his method so you could miss a workout or have a few crappy workouts and your whole 6 month cycle wouldn't be messed up. Do these numbers cover enough ground to let you do slip up a bit?

I am partially surprised and skeptical about how exact these people are writing about recovery thinking that it was such a complicated topic. Similarly though, with all of the advancements in the new field of exercise physiology its time for some numbers and charts like this.

So, I guess I am kinda asking the same question you are, how applicable is all of this information with all of the millions of variants in the everyday life of an athlete?

I think youve misunderstood some things about dropoffs, but its pretty confusing at first. for one, you basically test a max ever session. if you have a 20RM at 100 pounds and want a 1% dropoff, you work until either you can no longer perform 19 reps at 100 pounds (1% dropoff per rep) or you cant perform 20 reps at 99 pounds. so im not sure where youre getting a 20% deviation. the rule of thirds is supposed to work for athletes of all levels, though i wouldnt recomend using dropoffs with beginners. im sure there would be a huge risk of injury. as for other factors to recovery, the rule of thirds isnt entirely set in stone. individuals may recovery faster or slower, might have some bad workouts etc. you should adjust for an athletes weaknesses, etc. it wouldnt send your periodization off kilter, because you wouldnt plan for exact improvements. though in theory you should always come back stronger, faster, etc. in direct proportion to your dropoff, db himself admits it doesnt always happen.

yup, the questions are still there. but the more i read about how he works things, the more it makes sense. it finally tells you what place isometrics, dynamic work, plyos, etc. have in a program.

I don't use these numbers any more. At all really. All these charts operate on the assumption that you know your one rep max on any given day (even if you haven't tested in weeks). I lift heavy weights now (low rep, high set) and each week I try to do more reps per set, more volume, and/or more weight. This is working better than ANY time I tried to apply prilepin's chart or some other percentage based work. I've been doing it for a solid four weeks now and have been progressing and hitting PR's on a regular basis... maybe I'll start a thread on what I'm learning today.

a lot of the time you are learning your maxes for the day, sort of similar to some eastern european countries methods

that might work for pure strength, but in a lot ways this method has a very limited application in sports. like ive said before im not very strong (205 clean, around 200 bench, maybe a 250 squat, about 160 pounds) but ive been pretty successful in a sport that does require quite a bit of strength. thats because i didnt waste all my time trying to get strictly stronger. i became a lot more powerful, learned how to run, etc etc.

 

[Madmick]

for one, you basically test a max ever session. if you have a 20RM at 100 pounds and want a 1% dropoff, you work until either you can no longer perform 19 reps at 100 pounds (1% dropoff per rep) or you cant perform 20 reps at 99 pounds. so im not sure where youre getting a 20% deviation.

I understand how 20 reps at 99 lbs is a 1% drop-off, but wouldn't -1 rep out of a 20 rep set being a 5% decrease in the number of reps performed?

*EDIT* Never mind. I see my mistake. The drop-offs are nonlinear regarding repetitions.

 

[Madmick]

I don't use these numbers any more. At all really. All these charts operate on the assumption that you know your one rep max on any given day (even if you haven't tested in weeks). I lift heavy weights now (low rep, high set) and each week I try to do more reps per set, more volume, and/or more weight. This is working better than ANY time I tried to apply prilepin's chart or some other percentage based work. I've been doing it for a solid four weeks now and have been progressing and hitting PR's on a regular basis... maybe I'll start a thread on what I'm learning today.

Doesn't Zatsiorsky test for 1RM in the three powerlifts every three weeks?

 

[Madmick]

then we have a guideline for dynamic work:
slow: over 11s per set
medium: 8.5-11s per set
fast: 6.5-8.5s per set

This chart applies only to dynamic sets, correct? What I mean is that a set that takes over 11 seconds to perform is a "slow dynamic" set- although it is slow, it is still dynamic. It's not like they're saying a set that take more than 11 seconds to perform has a slow cadence altogether and isn't a dynamic set? Because all of those time frames are under 15 seconds.

Also, how does rep# factor in, here? Because I would consider a 20-rep squat set performed in 11 seconds to be pretty damn fast: much faster than a 6 rep squat set performed in the same time.

Is this for a set rep range?

 

[Madmick]

I want to make sure I understand how to apply this chart, Cocky.

Let's say I'm in a max effort squat day. I want to do a 5x5. If I get to the 3rd set, and I only make 4 repetitions, I've had a 3-5% drop-off (the recommended range for a ME day), then I shouldn't do the fourth set, right? I should just call it quits after 14 repetitions and move on to assistance work? At 14 repetitions, I'm still just above the 12-24 recommended total volume for the session.

If you have to adjust repetitions per set for the next session (as in periodization), are you supposed to assume you're 1RM (whatever number you used to figure today's loads) is 5% higher for this next session, and do you recalculate according to that adjustted 1RM?

 

[cockysprinter]

This chart applies only to dynamic sets, correct? What I mean is that a set that takes over 11 seconds to perform is a "slow dynamic" set- although it is slow, it is still dynamic. It's not like they're saying a set that take more than 11 seconds to perform has a slow cadence altogether and isn't a dynamic set? Because all of those time frames are under 15 seconds.

Also, how does rep# factor in, here? Because I would consider a 20-rep squat set performed in 11 seconds to be pretty damn fast: much faster than a 6 rep squat set performed in the same time.

Is this for a set rep range?

yeah the chart applies to sessions where bar speed is the goal. training dropoffs with bar speed instead of repetitions is one way to train. rep numbers are around 5 to 6 reps.

 

[cockysprinter]

I want to make sure I understand how to apply this chart, Cocky.

Let's say I'm in a max effort squat day. I want to do a 5x5. If I get to the 3rd set, and I only make 4 repetitions, I've had a 3-5% drop-off (the recommended range for a ME day), then I shouldn't do the fourth set, right? I should just call it quits after 14 repetitions and move on to assistance work? At 14 repetitions, I'm still just above the 12-24 recommended total volume for the session.

If you have to adjust repetitions per set for the next session (as in periodization), are you supposed to assume you're 1RM (whatever number you used to figure today's loads) is 5% higher for this next session, and do you recalculate according to that adjustted 1RM?

for your squat day, that might not be exaclt what you do. generally you will test a 5RM, then continue with sets of 4 at the weight, or sets of 5 at a lower weight. or you could assume your 5RM and do the sets to possibly get more work in.

this method kind of throws periodization out the window in some ways (i have some more stuff to write about regarding that). i wouldnt suggest basing your workout on a projected RM, you should work up to a max for the day, to make sure things are exact. some athletes recover differently, or may have a bad day.

 

[cockysprinter]

madmick heres an article i found very helpful. it really helped me understand where db was coming from:
http://www.inno-sport.net/Training Basics.htm




that being said, i collected some information from past research/experience and came up with these statements.
The 'Rules'
1) The body responds specifically to stress.
2) All bodily reponses have carryover to other abilities.
3) Athletes can be dominant in some areas (neural or metabolic)
4) Training must be specific to an athletes goals and predisposition.

Considerations for any training porgram
-energy systems used
-work capacity vs. max effort (volume vs. intensity)
-rate, magnitude, duration
-repetition, speed, time
-neural and/or metabolic adaptation
-frequency of training
-residual fatique and periodization
(-state of athlete)
(-major competitions)

so the 'rules'
1) i dont think has been proven, though we can pretty much assume this, it is the basis for most training theory. if you train sprints, you should be able to sprint faster, if you train max effort, your maxes should raise. of course, rest intervals must be appropriate, along with intensities, volume, etc.

2) obviously when you learn to lift more, you can do other activities better. by playing a lot of sports as a child you can set the stage to better learn motor qualities later in life. carryover in specific fashions has been documented.

3) this says that some athletes might have higher VO2 maxes, or be better neurologically inclined for running, or strength or power naturally. i think most will agree here.

4) this is obvious. training only lifting wont make you a better fighter, becoming a better fighter wont help you run faster. some athletes will need to be trained differently because of their initial strengths and weaknesses.

the considerations...
-the nervous system training that makes the inno-sport model so unique is pretty useless if the energy systems specific to a sport are not used. so this should be one of the main factors behind deciding how a workout should be made.

-development of work capacity, then peak performance should be alternated to get the best effect. each quality should be maintained while the other is being developed.

-this is the inno-sport model of the force:velocity curve. obviously where the motor pattern lay on the curve will determine the kind of training used.

-this refers to the methods used to calculate dropoffs

-not all sports are dependent on the central nervous systems capacity. for example, distance running has a much smaller chance of overtraining due to the cns capacity. it can happen, but it is not the determing factor like in a sprinters training. the dropoff charts suggest that weights under the 20RM have very little cns impact. therefore, whether or not a metabolic vs. neural response is being trained should be considered.

-frequency of training. the inno-sport site frequently suggests a 6% dropoff, but i cant imagine ever using that in a moderate to advanced level athlete. using the rule of thirds, one can surmise that recovery work would be work that has roughly a 1% dropoff in perfomance or less.

-db mentions that a 6% dropoff may actually represent more than a 6% dropoff due to residual fatigue. i dont know the implications for periodization yet.

the last two i wont discuss now because they have little to do with actual theory.