Strength Training Methods. Part 2.
This is a continuation of my previous article where I talked about rep ranges and RPE. I suggest you read it before continuing here. Part 1.
Take almost any strength program and you will find some kind of intensity and volume manipulation in it. It could linear, block, DUP, wave-like, or some exotic form. But it’s there. It’s unmistakable. At the very basic level a program might call you to do 3x5 @ 70% of 1RM on Week 1, then 3x5 @ 80% on Week 2, and so on. It could do the same with RPE (Week 1: RPE 6, Week 2: RPE 7, etc…). On the other end, take Sheiko programs, and nothing makes sense there. Weird intensity and volume changes all over the place. Seem to work for some, but not for others.
Here’s the thing. Lately, I find it hard to convince myself that there is any point in this kind of manipulation. Why would I need to purposefully do less than optimal on one day (or week) and more than optimal on another, while on occasions doing exactly what’s optimal for me? This is a huge can of worms that I’m opening here and it will sound controversial, to say the least, but bear with me.
First, if the ideal intensity is around ~85% of 1RM and we should oscillate around this number (as per the previous article) to maximize activation but also not accrue excessive fatigue, why would it make sense to use less? If you consider a set of 5–6 reps @ RPE 8 optimal. What benefit would you get doing 5–6 reps @ RPE 6? What is there to gain from this? Likewise 5–6 reps @ RPE 10. This is what I’m struggling to understand.
If you consider a set of 5–6 reps @ RPE 8 optimal. What benefit would you get doing 5–6 reps @ RPE 6? What is there to gain from this? Likewise 5–6 reps @ RPE 10. This is what I’m struggling to understand.
Light days, heavy days, varying RPE’s, etc… What is the point of all that if Mechanical Tension is King? Well, there a few reasonable arguments for this:
- Skill component of a lift. It has been shown quite clearly that, slight variations in intensity while keeping fatigue under control is the best way to learn and improve your skill. That’s fine, but I’m not talking about skill, I’m talking about maximizing your strength and muscle gains. And I’m not talking about noobs who are yet to learn how to lift somewhat efficiently.
- “Muscle gets used to the same stimulus”. So, you need to vary it. Sure, employ DUP with different rep ranges, change up exercises and you get the effect you need. But, again, how in the world, would doing those reps or exercises with suboptimal intensity give you maximal results? Is there another benefit of contrasting the intensity? I am not aware of any research that would show how training “less hard” would bring more gains. Provided, you’re not exceeding your optimal range, to begin with.
- Everyone can agree that “hitting the ground running” with training is not a good idea. Lead-in weeks, pre-loads, intro weeks, call them what you like. In this case, using less than optimal intensity has its place. Not because it will somehow allow getting better results, but for the pure reason of wellbeing. Being so sore you can take a sh*t is not conducive to it.
- “Prepping CNS” for max singles. Yes. Maybe for around 2 weeks before a meet. Not in normal training.
Now, don’t eat me alive. Understand, I’m not talking about periodization where intensity and volume changes based on where you are in your training meso/macro cycle. That has nothing to do with it. What I’m trying to say: regardless of what volume you select, regardless of what rep ranges you select, there is an optimal intensity for it. Not more, not less. If you find that heavy triples work best for you @ RPE 7, how in the world would it make sense to do it (on purpose) with lower or higher RPE?
But maybe some programs are planning/assuming progress? That’s why there’s an increase in intensity every week? That means those programs are prescribing you weights for further weeks higher than you could do on week 1. The assumption is: you will get stronger. I have yet to see a program that consistently and accurately guesses your rate of progress. When you think about it, it doesn’t make any sense. Everyone responds differently. Training age is probably the biggest determinant of our ability to progress. Yet you see these programs which will assume that anyone who tries it, will gain 20 pounds on their benchpress. What a load of crap.
Deloads, deloads! It’s a good reason for suboptimal intensity. Right, right? Well, for one, deloads usually reduced volume, not intensity. Next, planned deloads are as much nonsense as planned progress. Won’t happen. Unless the program is so stupidly designed that it will force you to deload after week 3 no matter what. This can be simply achieved by extreme over-reaching. But does that make a program good? Anyone can design a mesocycle with intro/optimal/over-reaching/deload weeks in it. Imagine, a program that wastes 3 out of 4 weeks can somehow be considered a good program… Don’t get me wrong, deloads are necessary, but only locally (i.e. per exercise) and usually they happen automatically. Failing the 2nd set out of 4 reduces your volume by half. Isn’t that the definition of a deload?
This leads me to the next issue — volume manipulation. The ever-so “add sets every week” nonsense, or waves, or whatever. If there’s an optimal intensity, there is an optimal volume and it’s really up to the individual to find what is the correct values and relationship between the two. Ask yourself if X volume gives optimal results, why would you do <X or >X? What is the possible benefit of it? What is the point of light days vs heavy days? One day you don’t do enough, another day, probably, you do too much. Shocking the body? Tricking the muscles to grow faster? How and why? Through what mechanism of action? Remember, Mechanical Tension is King. If you don’t use all your muscle fibers (as reasonably possible) you are wasting your training. If you use all of them but also accumulate excessive fatigue, you are, again, wasting your training. In other words, moderate&moderate is better than light&heavy. Equal volume distribution throughout the week and even mesocycle is better.
But wouldn’t all of this lead to doing the same sets/reps with the same weight over and over again if you are very advanced? Nope. If you’re employing auto-regulation and really trying to overload your body to its max potential, you will have ups and downs. If it’s an intra-session auto-regulation (not recommended, as per my previous article), you will adjust weights/reps based on what target RPEs you’re supposed to reach. If it’s an inter-session auto-regulation, your RPE will vary weekly. Trust me, your body is too complicated to be at the same performance level at all times. Even if you live like a robot, it will randomly have ups and downs. This means, that you will oscillate around certain intensity and even volume capacity. There is no need to artificially limit or inflate either of them.
Again, that doesn’t mean that intensity and/or volume shouldn’t change. It should. But only as a response to results (or lack of). This means a minimum of 4–6 weeks of trying a certain rep configuration, intensity, and volume. If you see that you’re not moving up (or even going down), you are not training in the correct ranges. Or maybe not using correct exercises. My argument here is simple: reactionary training vs pro-active planning and attempt at execution. The former makes way much more sense than the latter, no matter what your favorite fitness influencer is saying. I am also not aware of any research in the area. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Finally, my personal experience opened my eyes on the matter. This is the primary reason why I’m writing this outrageous take on strength training. I spent a lot, and I mean a metric f*ckton of time trying to plan progressions. Sure, I made progress. But it was minuscule and it never felt like I was in control or had an objective way to see the progress. Once I shifted to constant intensity (via RPE) instead of some kind of planned one, I knew exactly when I could increase my weights. Sometimes it took only a week or two, sometimes more, but it was always there — the confidence that I made progress.
