Topic: Weightlifting Program Design

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Periodization is just socialistic nonsense developed to make coaches feel important. Sure, there are some basic ideas in the doctrine that are perfectly valid, like doing more conditioning in the 'off-season', tapering for a contest, etc, but the idea every lift has to be planned is utter nonsense and will only serve to stifle and control great athletes from transcending their coach.

[oldgit]

i feel the same! over complication of routines! basically-do the blooming lifts at least x2 a week-mainly for singles and doubles-or cluster sets-and attack the weak link in the lift-and do some squats! thats it! what else can work?? 85-95% range mainly. surely this is ok?

[Sean Hutchinson]

Periodization is just socialistic nonsense developed to make coaches feel important. Sure, there are some basic ideas in the doctrine that are perfectly valid, like doing more conditioning in the 'off-season', tapering for a contest, etc, but the idea every lift has to be planned is utter nonsense and will only serve to stifle and control great athletes from transcending their coach.

I will agree with you on that. At LSUS we do not plan any lifts for exact numbers. All the squats ,deadlifts, pulls, cleans , jerks etc are all based on how you feel that day. Obviously reps are consistent to which phase of training you are on but the rest is up to the athlete whether they hit a new PR that day or have a bad day and can only do sub par weights.

[Sean Hutchinson]

i feel the same! over complication of routines! basically-do the blooming lifts at least x2 a week-mainly for singles and doubles-or cluster sets-and attack the weak link in the lift-and do some squats! thats it! what else can work?? 85-95% range mainly. surely this is ok?

What are your best lifts using this style of training? What year did you start? How much weight have you gained? what are your PR squats, deadlifts, cleans, snatches etc compared to where you started on this amazing routine?

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Sean, then you really are discarding the entire justification for periodization, except perhaps aside from using it as a general, very loose, outline or something for days which the athlete doesn't much care what they do, doesn't feel like training, or doesn't want to think about what to do on a given day. Further, I am also highly skeptical of any alleged benefits from regulating rep/set schemes as well as intensity, especially compared to just letting an elite athlete go to war as they feel able and motivated. I absolutely disagree with the assertion that periodization is any more scientific than any other style of training. Just because some scientists or coaches add up/multiply/divide/average a bunch of arbitrary statistics does not mean it prodoces significant gains in IRMs over another style. In fact, there really is no evidence to prove periodization is of any benefit whatsoever to elite lifters, aside from weak anecdotal stories equally matched by tales of lifters that trained in a more free-wheeling manner. ;)

[Andy Dick]

I do not think the concept of periodization is a means to stifle lifters.  It is a means of planning a program to meet certain goals based on certain principles.  For example, we know due to research that doing many sets of 10 will help muscles increase in size to help put on weight on an athlete.  We know doing many sets of low reps and high intensity will improve maximal strength.  The goal of periodization is to use these principles to create a stronger athlete based on thier needs.  A cross country runner's program would look vastly different from a weightlifters in programming, they cross country may need to squat 4x25reps with 50% of thier 1 rm as opposed to 6x2 with 95% 1 rm.  I am not saying, however, use strict formulas and never deviate because I know with all sports and athletes you cannot use a cookie cutter to apply to all situations.  But I think having a plan of action is very important. 

I look at it this for me I need to put weight on to move up a weight class.  I can do that 1 of 2 ways: get fatter or put on muscle.  Knowing the science behind strength training I know hypertrophy work will help me put on more muscle mass.  Follow that with maximal strength work will help me train the increased muscle size to utilize it for lifting heavier weights.  Yes I will lose some of the size and weight because the training variables will change but I will retain some.  It is impossible to train all variables at the same time.  I will not be ablet to lift effectively 95-100+% on my lifts whlie squatting sets of ten.  It will simply be too much for my body to handle.  So during that time my focus changes slightly on the intensity of my lifts for a short time before moving back to the heavier weights and dropping the reps back down.  Periodization is the plan that says my program may consist of 5% hypertrophy work and 95% max strength work on the lifts.

We look at the Bulgarian model of lifting.  Many claim it cannot be followed by a clean lifter.  That may be the case, but that is were periodization comes in.  It is the case because one cannot train 100% all the time.  Also, how a muscle adapts (tearing down and rebuilding to form a stronger fiber) requires time to do this.

Now as we know not all athletes are the same.  Some athletes are fully able to train in the above method.  Some are not.  But periodization allows us to do is take a frame work to have an idea of what we are trying to do then based on the athlete's ability and how their body adapts you make adjustments to the program from there.  What it also says is one training method is not superior to another in all circumstances and all situations.

[David Woodhouse]

Andy - I feel the need to address some of the inaccuracies in your post.

To induce hypertyophy you must fatigue a muscle fibre. A maximum load activates the maximum number of motor units but the slow and intermediate fibres do not adapt as they are more resistant to fatigue. Therefore lifting maximum loads DOES induce hypertrophy but only in the largest (FT) motor units. Hypertrophy of intermediate motor units requires greater time under tension, i.e. more repetitions. These fibres contribute to force output but provide far less force per unit area.

In simple terms 10kg of increased body weight achieved through performing singles and doubles will have a far greater impact on your total than 10kg gained through 8's and 10's.


DW

[Shaun Le Conte]

I'd like to reply to what was written by David Woodhouse, and then to what Chris has written.

I think it's indisputable that 10 kg of muscle gained through performing heavy singles will have a greater impact on a lifter's total, than 10 kg gained from doing much higher repetitions and lighter loads. I am not forgetting the neural component here, just nodding in agreement regarding the contribution via hypertrophy. However, isn't it true that a 10 kg gain in muscle through singles and doubles comes much more slowly? Sometimes time is a factor. For a lot of people, life gets in the way of training.

But also it might be that it is still worth training intermediate and slower twitch fibers even though they contribute less force per unit area (see http://sportivnypress.com/documents/72.html) . There is often less than 15 kg difference between a gold medal clean & jerk in one weight class and in the weight class above, allowing an extra 6-11 kg extra bodymass. At a national or regional level, the difference can be less. It might be worth developing that extra muscle mass, say from 77 to 85 if it allows you to snatch and clean & jerk an extra 10 kg each.  For instance, a 320 kg total in the 85 kg class has a higher Sinclair rating (381) than a 300 in 77 kg (376). Using a different standard of measure, 300@77 using the Canadian Weightlifting Federation markers has a score of 86%,  and 320@85 has a score of 88%. http://www.canadianweightlifting.ca/pdf/PAA_2011_Class_Prel_V_19dec2010.pdf

As for Chris's comments, it's hard to reply in the contrary to your arguments because your lifting achievements are a dream to me. When you say that periodization is a socialistic invention designed to control athletes and boost coaches, I agree if we are talking about meticulous planning ala the Soviet method of numbers of lifts, intensity zones, and so on. But a rather simple periodization scheme like what is being used by LSUS (I think we can agree it's not a complicated plan) doesn't fit that description.

Various studies in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research have attempted to determine whether there is a statistically significant advantage to periodization versus other schemes. Someone with access to the articles may want to have a look. I have seen a couple that come out in favour of periodization.