A question regarding loading

[Grizzly]

I actually have a lot to ask about this subject, but here's what I have for now. Take the loading scheme of the 8 week squats/5X5. Squat heavy, squat light, squat medium-heavy.

I gather this is to keep from overtraining. Si? I'm guessing the principle is that you can't go 100% on the same exercise 3 times/week and expect to see the same kind of gains, if any. So, it's sort of an intensity thing, yes?

What if you squat monday, overhead squat wednesday and squat press on friday or some such variation like that. Since you can't handle nearly the weight on OH squats as you can with regular squats, can you then go as hard as possible at that exercise?

I'm not sure if I'm making sense. If I did make sense, then let me know the answer. If I didn't, then it wouldn't be the first time, right?

 

[Freddy]

Grizz, people have had success with that method, so you could try it if you wanted.

But really...for building a raw olympic squat, nothing beats the 8 week program.

 

[J DUB]

Grizz,

You are correct in your assumptions. Squatting at high intensities 3x per week (especially with high volume) can certainly lead to overtraining.

While having a heavy, light, and medium day is a very simple way to avoid this, it is nonetheless effective for most and certainly much better than those who just arbitrarily throw on weight all the time with no thought about it.

An awesome guide to designing your own programs, however, is loosely provided in Prilephin's Table, which is the first link below. This table is what methods such as Westside training develop their rep schemes and percentages from, and it was originally developed for use in the former Soviet Union for weightlifters. There are many questions that arise from the use of this table, however, and I may even start a thread discussing this table in itself due to its importance and proven effectiveness.

The other link is to two programs which I consider to be very effective for increasing the squat. The first one you would do a 2 day per week upper and 2 day per week lower split, and the second one is almost solely for squats. The first one I have made incredible gains from, and I recommend it over all other "prefab" programs, including the 5x5 (sorry Freddy). The second one is very difficult as much of it is at 80% and above, but it is also good.

http://www.angelfire.com/pe/txpls/prilephin.html

http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle.do?article=body_134russ

 

[Freddy]

Hey guys,
I think we're missing one of the key elements of the 5x5 and that is all the loading. Thats what makes it so great for building muscle and strength...its just an ASSLOAD of loading.

Grizz, when you switch lifts to overhead squats and squat-presses and the like, you no longer get the direct loading you would with just straight up olympic squats.

Of course, as you already stated, one cannot load with heavy ass weight 3 times a week or they'd die. lol Hence the lighter day.

J DUD, on the subject of Prilephin's Table. I do agree that Louie used it a lot for Westside, and I do agree that its a valuable tool.

But its a popular myth that the Soviets used it a lot...a myth Louie might have helped to propogate. lol

JS spent a long time in the former USSR training with Medvedyev, and I believe he said that it was hardly ever taking into consideration, if at all. I'm sure there was a time and place in the USSR where it did factor largely in their training, but I think its role has been over exaggerated.

I could be way off though.

And I have nothing against anyone using a program other than the 5x5, J DUB. I just recommend it because its been proven very effective for thousands of lifters from many different sports.

When I can tell that the 5x5 isn't for someone I'm very quick to recommend HST.

 

[Grizzly]

Oh, I'm sorry, I was unclear. I didn't mean to apply this to the 8 week or the 5X5. I was simply enquiring about the heavy, light, med-heavy loading scheme that is included in those programs. I used them as an example, not as an basis for implementing this.

How about this: Lets say, again, you're squatting 3X/wk. The first week you take a load that is heavy and hard, but doable, and you do the same weight all three days. On the next week, you keep the same weight as with all following weeks. Could you use this weight indefinitely without a period of unloading? I don't know what the point of that would be other than getting comfortable with the movement, but I'm just curious.

 

[Freddy]

Oh, I'm sorry, I was unclear. I didn't mean to apply this to the 8 week or the 5X5. I was simply enquiring about the heavy, light, med-heavy loading scheme that is included in those programs. I used them as an example, not as an basis for implementing this.

How about this: Lets say, again, you're squatting 3X/wk. The first week you take a load that is heavy and hard, but doable, and you do the same weight all three days. On the next week, you keep the same weight as with all following weeks. Could you use this weight indefinitely without a period of unloading? I don't know what the point of that would be other than getting comfortable with the movement, but I'm just curious.

If the weight was heavy and hard, you wouldn't be able to continue it indefinitely without deloading. You'd break down, and if you didn't, then the weight probably wasn't heavy or hard.

I am starting to answer your question or am I still missing the target?

 

[Grizzly]

It wouldn't get easy by the 3rd or fourth workout? I know I've squatted 2X/wk using the same weight each time and the second workout was always easier for me. I figured it would just get increasingly easier each time.

 

[Freddy]

It wouldn't get easy by the 3rd or fourth workout? I know I've squatted 2X/wk using the same weight each time and the second workout was always easier for me. I figured it would just get increasingly easier each time.

I don't know, bud, if someone can squat heavy 3x a week indefinitely then I just wonder if it was so heavy to begin with. Maybe I'm missing something though.

 

[Grizzly]

For the record, I'm not driving at any overall point or anything. In fact, I'm all over the place in this thread, so don't feel the need to make a cohesive point.

When I say "heavy" I really only meant for the first workout or two. I figured it would be easy by the 10th workout.

Week 1- 315 all three workouts
Week 2- 315 all three workouts
Week 3 315 all three workouts
Week4 315 all three workouts
Week 5 315 all three workouts
week 6 same shit
week 7 same shit
week 98 same shit(obviously, we wouln't take it this far)

That's the idea I'm enquiring about. Hell, I'm probably just not making sense.

 

[J DUB]

Grizz,

It seems what you are trying to do is get used to lifting heavy weights. I know the feeling, as there is a huge difference in having 70% on your back and 85%.

If you are just wanting to lift heavy weights to get used to them to where it is not such a shock, you can do so if you just watch the volume. Lifting heavy weights is the only way to really get used to it, and doing this makes 80-90% lifts seem much easier, especially the psychological aspect of them.

Right now I basically have a speed squat day (50-60% 1RM) where I do 8-10 sets of 2 reps and just focus on power (we have a Tendo unit where I train and I use this to track my average power output). On my heavy squat day, I will go 80% and up for no more than 2 reps each set; for example, with 90% I may go for 6 singles with 3 min rest between sets or something like that. I personally like to use Prilephin's table as a very loose guide to my rep schemes at various percentages.

Freddy, you might be right about the table. Who really knows what they used to do over there, Charniga and Yessis did a good job in translating a lot of the info but I am sure there is still a lot that we don't know. Nevertheless, I still find it useful but don't always follow it to a tee.

 

[Madcow2]

For the record, I'm not driving at any overall point or anything. In fact, I'm all over the place in this thread, so don't feel the need to make a cohesive point.

When I say "heavy" I really only meant for the first workout or two. I figured it would be easy by the 10th workout.

.

It sounds a lot like a basic supercompensation program, meaning that by the basic nature of lifting something heavy (i.e. stimulative/adaptive) you will gradually get better at it and it won't be so heavy anymore. And that does work to a degree (especially for novices) but the issue is that one needs to take into account volume/intensity/frequency and how these all interact. If you are really hitting it heavy with 3x weekly frequency and decent volume, you can't maintain that for long. It's certainly stimulative but it will burry you in short order. The supercompensation alternative is to lift heavy but lower the frequency/volume in order to allow for recovery. Of course you then run into an issue of detraining and not providing consistent stimulus (why would the body put on calorically expensive muscle for something very infrequent? Chance of death form famine is drastically increased). Also, if one is allowing for adequate recovery there's really no need to adapt to the infrequent stimuli. So what dual factor does, is use a stimulative period to provide a sign to the body that the stimulus is consistent, frequent, and adaptation is absolutely required as the body cannot keep pace with the accrued deficit. A period of deloading allows this recovery to take place and the body to catchup.

Of course, what's behind the heavy,light,med is manipulating total workload/volume to make the loading tolerable to the athlete. It's not set in stone that this needs to be done this way. One can load without this protocol but obviously you'll need to take into account the affects to the system. Maybe 5x5 Heavy 3x per week is too much but 2x5 Heavy 3x weekly is tolerable as the work is spread out - this is just an example, don't do this, but it illustrates the point.

 

[Freddy]

Madcow and J DUB, good posts respectively, I agree with a lot of what was said there.

Back to the Prilephin's Table one last time...I agree, we'll never really know to what extent it was used. Just like Louie overplayed its importance, its certainly possible that Medvedyev underplayed it.

I just thought it was kinda funny that Lou said they used it a lot (at least I think he did) but (some of) the former Soviets claim they never did.

Anyway, a good tool is a good tool...who cares who came up with it or used it. One thing I think JS stressed was not getting too carried away with it. It sounds like you have a good handle on it though, so I wouldn't worry too much if I were you...just keep referencing it like you always have.

Grizz, on the issue, I'm generally going to agree with Madcow.

 

[Grizzly]

Ok, sounds good to me. Thanks fellers.