Topic: Where did the whole "Do not work at 90%+ for more than 3 weeks," come from?

[Jesster]

I posted this on Verkoshansky's site and never recieved a reply. So many times I see it thrown out there with no details  (frequency, density, of total reps) or sources to back it up. Anyone  know the source of this dogma? After researching, it seem like a Westside thing. Here are some qoutes below.

"The max effort exercise will change every three weeks due to the fact that the central nervous system will adapt and cease to make progress if you train the same exercise at greater than 90% 1RM (1 rep max) more than three weeks in a row. "

"-Problem: After 3 weeks of weights above 90% the CNS is negatively affected (adrenal fatigue) and progress decreases, form breaks down through loss of coordination."

[ryankyle]

"Do not work at 90%+ for more than 3 weeks"????

Then I must be going down the wrong path because I have school age lifters doing that now and my sister (junior world team) trains at 80%, Max, 90%, Max for her 4 weeks rotations.  During heavy training she'll do 90% in the morning and max in the afternoon or 90% in the morning and again in the afternoon for 3 weeks in a row.  As long as you have motivated lifters and have brought them up right they'll be fine.
Ryan

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

I go to 90% in every workout I do, unless injured or something. I'd say that was true throughout at least 90% of my career and maybe 99% of every workout I have ever done.

[Doug Berninger]

I've been training at higher percentages 90%+ for the last few weeks more regularly than I usually do and I've seen great results. I think Ryan is right. If you are brought up correctly in your training than you should be able to handle the intensity just fine. As far as where that statement came from, I'm not sure. But I have heard it before.

[Andy Dick]

Is it based off of overtraining research?  Also, is it dependant relative intensity (if my max is 100 and I lift 80% for 1 week, 85% for 1 week, 90% for 1 week and get stronger in the process, 90% would no longer truely be 90% but perhaps 87% because my max went up due to strength gains)?  I don't know the answer just putting out some thoughts.

[Jesster]

Is it based off of overtraining research?  Also, is it dependant relative intensity (if my max is 100 and I lift 80% for 1 week, 85% for 1 week, 90% for 1 week and get stronger in the process, 90% would no longer truely be 90% but perhaps 87% because my max went up due to strength gains)?  I don't know the answer just putting out some thoughts.

To tell you the truth, I don't know the source. I thought I may have come across it in Zatsiorsky's book, and I believe it has been thrown out there by Westside. I know Westside likes to alternate exercises (slight variations) used at 90+% every week, because they say you will stagnate.

The truth is, I have seen some apparent strength decline after about 2-3 weeks when working only at 90+% (sometimes 95%) 3x or greater a week. Initially, I start to see some gains, but then it stagnates. I guess you could say it might be true for me. I say might, because I am not an Olympic lifter, I strength train for bodyweight and gymnastic progressions, so, sometimes you improve the quality of your reps instead of just the number, making it difficult to tell if you became weaker, or stronger (but made it tougher on your self). I have contemplated Olympic lifts for overall proprioreception and building up my weak lower back.

[Brooke Burkhalter]

I go to 90% in every workout I do, unless injured or something. I'd say that was true throughout at least 90% of my career and maybe 99% of every workout I have ever done.

Chris, it's good you are taking part in discussions again. Thanks.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Haha. Thanks. I speak when I have something to say. Weightlifting is a minor interest for me now, though I am training hard. :)

Cheers