Questioning Training Methodology
Questioning Training Methodology
www.powerdevelopmentinc.com
This article was constructed in an effort to provide potential insights to those of you, like me, who continually find that the most effective means of heightening your awareness is to question all that you see, read, and know.
At a height just short of 6’2”, a bodyweight of just under 260lbs, and without the use of anabolic/androgenic steroids, I recently set a long time goal of bench pressing 405lbs RAW. Exactly seven weeks prior to the 405 PR I pressed a very easy 370 and just missed 380 about an inch from lockout. The 370 and 380 attempts were performed with a lift off from a spotter. I pressed the 405 without a lift off or a spotter.
My unequipped maximal strength levels do not approach those of most elite lifters. I do feel, however, as a consideration regarding the context of this material, that whether or not a lifter uses anabolic/androgenic steroids cannot be ignored. Additionally, at my height (just under 6’2”), short of taking pharmaceuticals, the objective statement may be made such that I must weigh in excess of 125kg/275lbs in order to compensate for my longer levers and ultimately approach MSIC. This is a factor which I have made the determination to forgo in order to avoid the health concerns which often accompany lifters who are not genetically predisposed to attain such bodymass in good health. Taking these factors into consideration, (drug free and relatively undersized for my levers), my preparedness is advanced and therefore I feel that my training methodology may provide useful insights to those lifters, regardless of drug usage or somatotype, who already possess an elite qualification as well as lifters of less then elite status.
I have been incorporating training methodology from the Westside Barbell Method into my own training for approximately one hundred and forty one training weeks, each training week ranging from seven to fourteen calendar days. Over the last one hundred and thirty some training weeks I have continually modified my training program to correspond with my fluctuating physiological state in an effort to maximize training results.
There are changes which I made to my training which I am certain lead to the 35lb PR which I set in exactly seven weeks. There are also some aspects of my training whose impact on the total training effect is still unclear to me. Accordingly, I have only documented that which I understand to be relevant and justifiable.
Always seeking context I must state that there are a multitude of training methodologies that all serve to develop like qualities. Keep this in mind. The presented information is my singular take on the process of developing RAW pressing strength relative to my specific level of preparedness and my most responsible actions are those which provide the logic behind my process.
Well known is the fact that the Repeated Effort (RE) Method of maximizing muscle tension, as defined by V.M. Zatsiorsky, defines a process wherein a submaximal load is lifted an intermediate number of times to concentric muscle failure. The RE method, and modified RE method in which the set is terminated short of failure, are typically utilized by athletes and lifters in an effort to promote increases in muscle cross-sectional diameter. In accordance with the utilization of the WSB method for bench press training, many lifters will select to perform dumbbell or barbell presses via the RE method as a second or third exercise on one or both of their bench press days.
So the question may be asked: if increases in cross-sectional diameter are not being observed, or if the target is not further increased in cross-section, then what useful purpose is RE dumbbell or barbell pressing serving?
Rehabilitation or prevention of potential injury?
Well if this is the case then what is the context of the rehab or prevention?
Personally, (I stress personally as this is based upon my own experiences weight training since 1988) I have never met nor heard of a drug free lifter who sustained a pec tear, and if the strengthening of connective tissues is the target then why not train with higher than conventional repetitions (as much literature points to the fact that ultra high repetition training tends to strengthen the integrity of connective tissues most optimally).
Strengthening of the pressing musculature?
RE dumbbell presses are surely a great strengthener of the pressing musculature and developer of cross-section; however, (in reference to my Classification of the Means article) the dumbbell press qualifies as a General (G) means in relation to the barbell bench press. Accordingly, the development of dumbbell pressing strength does not necessarily correlate to increases in pressing strength with a barbell. The significance of the diminished transference effect of G means becomes more pronounced as the lifters preparedness increases.
I believe that we must constantly ask the following question: What is the useful purpose of every single component of the training? More specifically, what methodics are most effective at raising the targeted training effect relative to the preparedness and genetics of the lifter?
What I have personally found, in reference to transfer of trainedness and Dynamic Correspondence, and in contrary to certain popular methodology, is that when my strength increases lifting heavier barbells my strength increases in lifting heavier dumbbells, not the opposite. This comes at no cost to the improvement of my bench pressing strength. In contrast, devoting training volume to specifically increase my pressing strength with dumbbells presents an unwise cost, relative to my particular set of circumstances, towards the development of my bench pressing strength. Again, my specific preparedness level is what is providing context to this material and through trial and error I have found that making a training directive out of increasing pressing strength with dumbbells is no longer a wise undertaking relative to the lack of transference that I am yielded at this stage of my development.
In regards to the preparedness of the lifter being fundamental towards providing context, we may easily make a corresponding analogy with deadlift training: For a higher qualified lifter, any increase in the lifter’s ability to deadlift with heavy dumbbells in his hands is unlikely to positively increase his ability deadlift a heavier barbell. In contrast, a novice lifter is more likely to experience a higher transference effect from the non-specific stimulus.
In regards to that which has been stated and my preparedness level, I dropped DE presses and presses in the 8-20 repetition range all together from the loading phases of my training in favor of Submaximal Effort (SE) bench pressing and ultra high repetition (usually 40-70 repetitions per set) of regular, suspended, dumbbell, and board push ups (illustrated in the exercise index) respectively on my, now, SE bench day. I also dropped any pressing in the 8-20 repetition range, other then during deload weeks, on my Maximal Effort (ME) day.
My logic behind dropping the DE bench pressing is rooted in the following thought process:
First off- context must prevail… I am not deficient in my ability to lift submaximal loads fast. I have ascertained this fact by analyzing video of myself and with the use of a timing device
Lifting the barbell with the highest attainable speed activates a greater amount of high threshold MU’s and increases muscle tension to a higher level than a submaximal effort exerted against a barbell of the same mass
Load being equal, the DE yields greater CNS stress then the SE
What then will more effectively serve to increase my maximal strength as developed and displayed on ME day- a second workout consisting of a series of DE presses which yields greater CNS stress, or a second workout consisting of series of SE presses which yields less CNS stress?
The SE pressing affords me the opportunity to greater perfect technique (if only from a psychological perspective) as the groove of the slower moving barbell is easier to control and replicate on successive repetitions
And if I am to juggle sources of CNS stress, I can now lift greater load, albeit only slightly greater, on SE day as I am lifting the load with less volitional effort directed towards speed of movement
Note (Experience has shown me that I benefit from a second ‘lighter’ pressing workout during the same training week as my ME pressing day)
I dropped DE squatting from my program for the same reasons
My logic for eliminating the 8-20RM RE pressing from the training is as follows:
I came to the point in my training in which I could no longer justify performing moderately heavy presses with a non-specific implement as a second or third exercise
Increases in cross-section are no longer a goal
Trial and Error prevails, and over time I have found that as my special strength preparedness (SSP) has developed that the transference effect from non-specific stimuli has decreased. This dynamic is consistent with Russian literature and the principle of Dynamic Correspondence
I have found that the high repetition push up variations keep my shoulders feeling very healthy and, therefore, serve as a wiser alternative to higher intensity/lower volume (RE) pressing with dumbbells or barbells
More significant than any of my logic, yet also serving as the ultimate validation of my logic is the following:
· The exclusion of DE and RE pressing quickly lead to huge PR’s being set on my ME movements and ultimately to the special exercise itself (the bench press).
The Load Used on SE Bench Press Day
Nearly the entirety of material which I review is written by overseas authors. In one of the translated Russian Weightlifting texts, as well as in Supertraining, I recalled reading passages which mentioned the effectives of trainees of less then Master of Sport International Class (MSIC) status lifting 66% (two thirds) of the limit one to three times per week. My discovery of this methodology came at a convenient time such that I had just made the determination to replace DE pressing with SE pressing yet was unsure as to what percentage of the limit would prove most optimal. Always integrating new methodology into my own training before my athletes I decided to use two thirds of my last recorded RAW max as my SE percentage.
· To clarify, the delineation between SE and the modified RE (in which failure is not reached) is number of repetitions per set and load; loads lifted with SE are typically greater and lifted for fewer repetitions then those lifted with the modified RE. This delineation, however, can become semantic as the difference between the two parameters may be negligible and differ from lifter to lifter.
Over time, based upon our occasional long phone conversations, I have found that Buddy Morris, Tom Myslinski, and myself are in complete agreement on nearly every training related subject. I have subsequently adopted, and have also found to be true (regarding submaximal loads); a finding which Buddy noted such that trainees most often accommodate to set and rep schemes more rapidly than the load itself. Thus, for three week waves I flat load my SE weight in adherence to Prilepin. Flat loading defines a process wherein a set intensity and total volume of repetitions remains the same for each workout of the cycle with only the sets and repetitions differing from workout to workout. For example: 300lbs for 24 total repetitions may consist of 6x4 on week 1, 4x6, on week 2, and 8x3 on week 3.
I feel that my methodology is of greater significance thn my actual sequence of workouts over the seven weeks leading to the 405 PR. I state this based upon the fact that the 405 press cannot be fully explained, (in terms of the totality of all CNS stimuli), by the training which occurred on the bench press days alone. I also state this based upon the fact that my training is always part randomized and part systematized. It would, therefore, be irresponsible for me to attempt to state that the 405 press is a direct result of a carefully planned seven week program. What I can state in absolute terms is that the PR is a direct result of certain consistent and reliable training methodology.
My readiness on any given day defines my training parameters for that day
Trial and Error towers over any training methodology
I load for three weeks then deload for one week (3+1 - Charlie Francis)
When I deload, I deload intensity. I have found that a deload in volume alone results in intensities too great to qualify as a deload relative to my physiology
I do not attempt PR’s on every ME day. I train by feel. By training above the 90th percentile I know that I can continue to raise maximal strength without training to the limit week in and week out
If my readiness feels less then optimal I won’t even approach the 90th percentile on ME day
I train every other day, one day on one day off, always rotating which workouts fall on which days of the calendar week
I perform a SE bench day, a ME bench day, a SE or ME DL day and a SE or ME Squat day
If I perform a ME DL day then the squat day is SE. Alternatively, if I perform a ME squat day then the DL day is SE
For bench press training I typically rotate the following ME lifts: Bench Press, 1Board, 2Board, 3Board, Floor Press, Reverse Band Press
For squat training I typically rotate the following lifts: Half Squat, Full Squat, Box Squat, Front Squat, Front Box Squat, Safety Squat free, Safety Box Squat (all with close, med, or wide stance except front squats and full squats which are usually performed with a medium to close stance)
For deadlift training I typically rotate the following lifts: Sumo DL from floor, Sumo DL from pins, Reverse Band Sumo DL, Anderson Squat (a recent addition to my training in which I will determine transference to the Sumo DL)
GM’s are, now, always performed at a SE capacity usually in the 3-7 repetition range
My training week looks like this:
Day 1 SE Bench
Day 2 Off
Day 3 ME or SE DL
Day 4 Off
Day 5 ME Bench
Day 6 Off
Day 7 ME or SE Squat
Day 8 Off
For ME bench training, I have found that if I perform 12-20 total repetitions on a ME lift, in sets of 3 to 4 repetitions, with 85%1RM, that I will PR on that same lift the following week. For example: If I am performing a two board press on weeks 1 and 2 or 2 and 3 of my three week wave then the first week I will perform 3x4 to 5x4 (sets x repetitions) with 85% and then go for a PR on the next week.
When I PR I will then usually perform a sequence of doubles or singles between the 90th and 95th percentile, adhering to Prilepin, in order to accumulate a greater volume of high intensity loading
I only do this for bench press, not the dl or squat
Instances in which I do not perform the additional ME sets are those in which the 1RM demands an extended and, therefore, yield excessive immediate fatigue
Although I have set PR’s during week 1, I usually do not perform true ME work on Week 1 of my three week loading phase. This methodology applies to bench, squat, and deadlift training. I will, instead, train in the 70th to the 90th percentile during this week.
If I do not have a maximal attempt which has been recently recorded I will estimate a max in order to derive a training percentage
As I stated, I do not feel that there is significant merit to the actual sequence of specific workouts leading to week 141. I have, however, for your consideration, chosen to illustrate my deload week (week 139), week 1 of 3 (week 140), and week 2 of 3 (week 141) in which I set the 405 PR.
Note the use of an approximate 20% Drop Off in repetitions on some of my SE lifts and all of my RE lifts
Due to the weight of different system links the SE percentages for squat, DL, and GM variations are typically lower then the bench press. This consideration has been addressed in the Russian literature as well as by Dietrich Buchenholtz such that the percentage of maximum which is representative of the external load must exist in observance of the weight of the systems links which must be overcome, in addition to the external load, in order to complete the lift
Note the effort through which each means is realized: ME, SE, DE, or RE
The loading parameters for my SE, DE, and RE work are almost always part randomized and part systematized
The SE DL and Squat lifts during the deload week are usually performed in the arena of the 70th percentile (though sometimes even less)
I perform the sets and repetitions that feel right for that particular day based upon my readiness. This fact may easily be observed regarding the loading parameters of my pull up/chin up sets. On a RM attempt I can perform over 20 pull ups; yet I rarely exceed 15 pull ups or chin ups during most training weeks. I, instead, prefer to elicit only the submaximal stimulus which I have determined to be sufficient in order to maintain, and even develop, the contractile strength of my upper back musculature.
Week 139 (Deload)
SE BP
A1 (SE) Bench Press 66% (245) 4x4
A2 (RE) Inverted Row (BW) 20, 16, 13
B1 (RE) Push Up (BW) 50, 40, 32
B2 (RE) Retract-Row-Rotate (mini bands) 12, 10, 8
C1 (RE) DB Hammer Curl (35’s) 20, 16, 13
SE DL
1 (SE) Chain Suspended GM (chains set at 46”) (somewhere in the 70th percentile) (315) 5x3
2 (RE) Back Raise on GHR (BW) 30, 24, 20
3 (RE) Med Grip Pull Up (BW) 15, 12, 10
4 (RE) Neck Extension with Harness (Avg band) 12, 10, 8
ME BP
1 (RE) DB Floor Press (120’s) 12, 10, 8
2 (RE) DB Row (120’s) 10, 8, 6
3 (RE) DB Shrug (120’s) 20, 16, 13
4 (RE) DB Curl (45’s) 14, 11, 9
SE Squat
1 (SE) Bulgarian Split Squat with Dumbbells (70% of what I would usually use for the same repetitions) (70’s) 5, 4, 3
A1 (SE) GHR (70% of what I would usually use for the same repetitions) (70) 10, 8, 6
A2 (SE) Wide Grip Pull Up (BW) 10, 8, 6
A3 (RE) Neck Extension with Harness (Monster band) 12, 10, 8
Week 140 (Week 1 of 3)
SE BP
A1 (SE) Bench Press 66% (245) 8x3
A2 (SE) Row to the Face with Straps (BW) 8x5
B1 (RE) 5Board DB Push Up (BW) 70, 56, 45
B2 (RE) Band Pull Apart (Avg band) 50, 40, 32
C1 (RE) DB Hammer Curl (60’s) 12, 10, 8
SE DL
1 (SE) Sumo DL (belt only) (+80% based off an estimated 620 pull) (500) 2x1 (felt light but form felt off)
2 (SE) GHR (95) 6x3
A1 (SE) Med Grip Pull Up (BW) 10, 8, 6, 6, 6
A2 (RE) 45 degree Back Raise (BW) 3x14 (I don’t know why I did 3x14)
ME BP
1 (SE) 2Board Press 85% (340) 3x4
2 (RE) DB Row (95’s) 15, 12, 10
3 (RE) BB Shrug (315) 15, 12, 10
4 (RE) EZ Bar Curl (100-120?) 15, 12, 10
(Performed this workout at school- 95’s are the heaviest dumbbells)
SE Squat
1 (SE) Full Squat (ass to calves) in Olympic shoes (roughly 70%) (315) 3x3 (week 1 of 3 so stayed light)
2 (RE) Pull Through with band around neck (Strong band) 15, 12, 10
3 (SE) Chin Up (BW) 3x6
4 (RE) Iso Neck Hold (light band) 3x30seconds
Week 141 (Week 2 of 3)
SE BP
A1 (SE) Bench Press 66% (245) 6x4
A2 (SE) Row to the Face with Straps (BW) 6x8
B1 (RE) 4Board DB Push Up (BW) 60, 48, 38
C1 (RE) DB Windmill (25) 30, 24, 19
D1 (RE) DB Hammer Curl (65’s) 11, 9, 7
ME DL
1 (DE) Hang Clean from mid thigh to high catch position (225) 5x3
2 (ME) Anderson Squat from Parallel (chains set at 42”) (460) x 1 (very solid single)
3 (SE) RDL (315) 3x5
4 (RE) Close Grip Pull Up (BW) 10, 8, 6
ME BP
1 (ME) 2Board Press (405) Super Easy (felt like an empty barbell) - Decide to go for 405 RAW
2 (ME) Bench Press (405) (ugly, but made it- hit the uprights locking it out)
3 (RE) BB Shrug (365) 10, 9, 8
4 (SE) DB CS Row (90’s) 8, 7, 6, 6, 6
5 (RE) BB Reverse Curl (95) 12, 10, 8
I took the DL and Squat work fairly easy during weeks 140 and 141. During week 136 I lifted a 690 Reverse Blue Band DL PR, week 137 I used my Olympic shoes for the first time box squatting and hit a relatively easy 500x1 with just a belt off a parallel box, and during week 138 I pulled a very solid 605PR Sumo off of Pin 1 in my socks wearing just a belt. So although these pulls and squats felt relatively easy, they none the less amounted to significant CNS stress which I felt I needed a break from during the loading phase to follow. In the empirical sense this perceived effect which I ‘felt’, and subsequently modeled the successive training weeks after, is consistent with the methodology documented in much of the Russian literature in which volume and/or intensity is waved either intra training week or within the month cycle such that each week represents a varying degree of volume and intensity of the training load. Various strategies for distributing the volume of the training load, which have been taken from the Soviet author Roman, are presented in my training manual entitled “High/Low Sequences of Programming and Organizing Training”.
If one useful insight may be taken from this material let it be that we must continually question our methodology. Our physiological state is constantly fluctuating as a result of many controllable and uncontrollable factors. If any single component of the training is not yielding the targeted effect for which it is intended then that component must be adjusted or eliminated from the training. New methodology must replace that which has been adjusted or eliminated in an effort to continually yield positive training or competition results. Adjusting or eliminating training methods requires courage.
The training will always be incomplete, this is inevitable. The directive of training, however, must be to attempt to program the training relative to the ever evolving and fluctuation state of the organism.
Knowledge + Experience + Randomization + Systematization + Trial + Error = my training methodology.
