PDA

View Full Version : The Mistake of Linear Program Design



WillBrink
03-04-09, 17:27
Well hell, if I had known there was gonna be a fitness/health section I would have put into such as this info on injury rates in SF I just posted:

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=26534

In this forum. If the mods want to move any of health/fitness related I have already put up, please do so. Anyway, here's my addition to this section:

The Mistake of Linear Program Design

I find most people will design a program for themselves and follow it in a linear fashion, that is they run X times per week for Y distance, lift X times per week doing Y number of sets, etc. with little change over time. A result oriented program looks like a wave form where volume and intensity peaks, say over a 6-8 week period (as an example, but programs vary widely), with volume and or loading reduced 40-60% for a week or two, then either repeated, or onto some other program. Some programs will call for taking a week off totally between programs.

Increasing intensity and or volume improves the response up to a point, then falls off sharply as you hit over training syndromes (OTS) and or injuries or both. So, periods of planned increases in volume and or intensity to reach a personal mile stone, followed by a detraining period, is best to optimizing training, reaching new personal bests, and avoiding OTS. The study listed below gives some insight into that also.

A linear program where you do the same thing each week, such as run X miles and lift X weights will be limiting. Athletes left to their own, will generally follow a “more is better” linear approach, where as a good coach will follow the “smart is better” approach, which follows a wave form pattern. Within that wave form pattern may be micro cycles and other stuff too, but that depends on the program.

There have been some interesting studies where they have taken runners and swimmers, cut their volume in half, and their times improved! Why? Because they were over training.

I find that is often the case with strength athletes also.

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise:

Volume 39(8)August 2007pp 1358-1365

Effects of Tapering on Performance: A Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The purpose of this investigation was to assess the effects of alterations in taper components on performance in competitive athletes, through a meta-analysis.

Methods: Six databases were searched using relevant terms and strategies. Criteria for study inclusion were that participants must be competitive athletes, a tapering intervention must be employed providing details about the procedures used to decrease the training load, use of actual competition or field-based criterion performance, and inclusion of all necessary data to calculate effect sizes. Datasets reported in more than one published study were only included once in the present analyses. Twenty-seven of 182 potential studies met these criteria and were included in the analysis. The dependent variable was performance, and the independent variables were the decrease in training intensity, volume, and frequency, as well as the pattern of the taper and its duration. Pre-post taper standardized mean differences in performance were calculated and weighted according to the within-group heterogeneity to develop an overall effect.

Results: The optimal strategy to optimize performance is a tapering intervention of 2-wk duration (overall effect = 0.59 ± 0.33, P < 0.001), where the training volume is exponentially decreased by 41-60% (overall effect = 0.72 ± 0.36, P < 0.001), without any modification of either training intensity (overall effect = 0.33 ± 0.14, P < 0.001) or frequency (overall effect = 0.35 ± 0.17, P < 0.001).

Conclusion: A 2-wk taper during which training volume is exponentially reduced by 41-60% seems to be the most efficient strategy to maximize performance gains. This meta-analysis provides a framework that can be useful for athletes, coaches, and sport scientists to optimize their tapering strategy.

The Bottom Line:

People should understand that designing effective, efficient, programs is not nearly as simple as it might appear. Unless you have long term experience with concepts such loading, volume, TUT, etc, etc, pick a program by a trusted coach and follow it. The haphazard routines I see people self invent are often responsible for a lack of steady progress in the gym.

restfortheweary
03-16-09, 03:48
Very interesting post, but can you give an example of what an effective program would look like.

WillBrink
03-16-09, 09:49
Very interesting post, but can you give an example of what an effective program would look like.

The problem with that question is it depends very much on your goals, experience levels, and other variables. Different coaches, also have different approaches with different athletes, depending on goals and experience levels. A program designed for a person who's goal is to improve conditioning and functional strength who has been training for say 6 months is going to be very different to the program for the person who is looking to gain LBM and strength and has been training for 8 years. As alluded to above, cookie cutter programs are a sure fire way to getting less then optimal results. For some additional info, see thread I just put up on progression models:

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=330155#post330155

jjackson@tierthreetac
02-14-16, 15:34
For those that are familiar with fitness programming this study highlights what the vast majority of strength protocols recommend. 3 weeks of increasing volume / intensity then a deload week using 50-60% of 1rm weights. I agree with Will cookie cutter programs are not as efficient as a tailored program, but I find most folks will respond well to a well design program that isn't tailored. Everyone tends to think they are a special snowflake and need special exercises or details thrown in to get better. There really is only one variable you need to manipulate to continue to progress, Volume. I'll give you an example. If you are trying to increase your squat you could do 1 squat session a week with roughly 20-30 reps at 70% ish percent of your max. Next week it would be 15-20 reps at 80%. etc. This is pretty common. I would recommend for a very simple plan pick a 70% weight and say do 30 reps on one day. Try one session of this on the first week. Two session on the second . Three on the third. THen deload. This is much more volume than a normal plan and due to the number of session you will see results. Increased volume is key in my experience. Again there are tons of programs that work this is just one.

malstew123
02-15-16, 11:11
Here is an article featured on Coach Charles Poliquin's website http://www.strengthsensei.com/fatigue-management-and-the-adaptive-process/

BLUF: there are multiple ways to prevent stagnation in a program to include Rep Scheme/Intensity/Density/Technique/Exercise Sequence/adding a Deload week (as hinted to above).

I've tried a multitude of splits/routines/programs and have reverted back to moderate cardio or HIIT warm up followed by a weight training. I'll go into the gym with the intent to focus on a muscle group with a general rep/set scheme but if I am not performing well then i'll back off volume/intensity/density. I suppose this is deloading, but I dont necessarily schedule it every X week. I used to drink the crossfit coolaid, and still incorporate Metabolic Conditioning into my routine from time to time. I appreciate the diet emphasis of the crossfit culture, and spent a good time with a crossfit gym during college. I agree with the above post, a preconstructed program serves some purpose to help expose an individual to different exercises until they are proficient/knowledgeable enough to develop their own training plan.

jjackson@tierthreetac
02-15-16, 17:25
Here is an article featured on Coach Charles Poliquin's website http://www.strengthsensei.com/fatigue-management-and-the-adaptive-process/

BLUF: there are multiple ways to prevent stagnation in a program to include Rep Scheme/Intensity/Density/Technique/Exercise Sequence/adding a Deload week (as hinted to above).

I've tried a multitude of splits/routines/programs and have reverted back to moderate cardio or HIIT warm up followed by a weight training. I'll go into the gym with the intent to focus on a muscle group with a general rep/set scheme but if I am not performing well then i'll back off volume/intensity/density. I suppose this is deloading, but I dont necessarily schedule it every X week. I used to drink the crossfit coolaid, and still incorporate Metabolic Conditioning into my routine from time to time. I appreciate the diet emphasis of the crossfit culture, and spent a good time with a crossfit gym during college. I agree with the above post, a preconstructed program serves some purpose to help expose an individual to different exercises until they are proficient/knowledgeable enough to develop their own training plan.

I will say that I am fairly cautious when programing for myself. It's too easy for me to out think a good program when I don't feel like doing what I had originally planned. It's the coaches pitfall. I found following other programs that focus on my weaknesses in a periodized fashion to work well. I don't have to worry about what i should do I just follow the plan. An example of this would be Smolov squat cycle. I have run this two years in a row with good success. Its tough but there is no question for me what to do . I just do the plan and i know it will work. I alway say that if there is a doubt about what you should do ...pick the thing you least want to do and do that. I wrote this article covering that topic. http://www.tierthreetactical.com/workout-advice-will-ever-need/

bad aim
02-15-16, 20:18
I think this is where 5/3/1 shines. Not a tailored program, but I think it hits the spot for 98% of those looking to get stronger. There are so many different variations of 5/3/1 (Boring But Big, Bodybuilder, 3 Month Challenge, etc.) that there is a variation for everyone.

Throughout college, when I played some rugby, I did variations of Defranco's Westside for Skinny Bastards and saw good gains from that. A good program will definitely do wonders!

malstew123
02-15-16, 21:38
I havent done the 5/3/1 but have a friend at work whose currently following a variation of it. I first saw it on T-Nation.com back in the day. I've got more good gouge from reading that website than any other source. Thousands of science based articles on training and nutrition to exposure to coaches/nutritionists like Dave Tate, Charles Poliquin, John Berardi, John Meadow, along with a plethora of programs listed there too.

WillBrink
02-16-16, 15:46
I havent done the 5/3/1 but have a friend at work whose currently following a variation of it. I first saw it on T-Nation.com back in the day. I've got more good gouge from reading that website than any other source. Thousands of science based articles on training and nutrition to exposure to coaches/nutritionists like Dave Tate, Charles Poliquin, John Berardi, John Meadow, along with a plethora of programs listed there too.

As well as your truly:

Practical Applied Stress Training (P.A.S.T) For Tactical Athletes (http://www.elitefts.com/education/training/practical-applied-stress-training-p-a-s-t-for-tactical-athletes/)

jjackson@tierthreetac
02-16-16, 16:58
I think 5/3/1 works well for beginners to intermediate folks. I tried it for about 3 months and didn't see much success. I think the volume is a bit low for me. I always like working to a rep max then doing 5-7 back off sets at a fairly heavy weight.

Pachucko
02-16-16, 22:29
I've been pleased with my results from 5/3/1. I did the Conjugate System for a while and found the volume a little too high for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk