Topic: Weightlifting Program Design

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

It is true that some socialists believe their authoritarianism (taxes, regulations, mandates, etc) will produce Utopia, and its true many periodization fans believe their controls will get superior results over freedom. But, there is no evidence to support such a conclusion whatsoever or to support that periodization is more scientific, just as the socialists like(d) to claim socialism is more scientific than freedom (capitalism). Planners like to plan and control freaks like control. The studies that have been done on this, while interesting, prove nothing since it is totally impossible to control for all the variables involved, let alone to anticipate what each and every lifter will do with freedom. Of course, I am not condemning all planned programming- especially for beginners and intermediates. I am mostly speaking to *elite* athletes.

[Andy Dick]

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.

I agree with you on this.  An increase in strength will carry with it an increase in fiber size.  It boils down to the degree of what causes it.  Like you said, it thought that an increase in strength due to conventional hypertrophy training (3x10, low rest) is predominantly the result of an increase in fiber size in those fibers.  While much of the strength increase by a low rep high intensity program (3x2, long rest) is predominantly the result of an increase in neurological adaptations.  Any training method does not only stress in the manner of its goal (high intensity is not only neurological adapatation and hypertrophy not only size increase).  Thank you for the clarification

Of course, I am not condemning all planned programming- especially for beginners and intermediates. I am mostly speaking to *elite* athletes.

Remember we are discussing high school athletes (beginners) and those whose goal is not solely weightlifting also.  Hence the need for a differentiated program.  I fully agree the more specific a program is to the actual event/needs the better.  As has been stated a person who only does weightlifting needs to do low rep high weight with the olympic lifts.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Students need structure. Perodization can help with that, along with helping the teacher plan appropriate lessons- As long as the plan never becomes more important than the athlete.

[Andy Dick]

Agreed Chris.

Well here it is let me get that criticism.  A few points for clarification so it makes sense.  Certain exercises have weird names since the program they had in place before I came taught the lifts by doing clean shrugs (jump shrug), clean pulls or snatch (high pull), hang cleans.  So certain exercises I had to change the name of because the coach did not want to change the names of the lifts.  So here are the lifts I have on here and what they mean.

Power clean shrugs - what we know as a clean pull
Power snatch shrugs - what we know as a snatch pull

Tab 1 is the first 7 weeks, tab 2 is the last set of weeks.

[Jack Dluzen]

sounds like the coach has a EGO problem , insisting not calling the movements  the correct names of the movements that are  being used .....hel .. lets call the clean  (jump and catch )   

[Andy Dick]

Yes it is very aggrivating.  At the Marquette University that is the teaching progression they teach all thier students also.  So he doesn't want to change it because then they are confused.  I am of the opinion that it should be changed because Weightlifting is a world sport and these are a widely accepted name.  But there is little we can do.  I used to like the teaching progression also but have since changed my opinion on the issue becuase I am not a fan of the high pull exercise.  I feel it teaches kids to think about the lift incorrectly.  When I am coaching the kids I kinda just skip over it real fast.

[Jim Hooper]

It all depends on what "periodization" means.  As closely as I can tell, it means something different to every coach or athlete who claims to do "it."

What's conspicuously absent in the "science" of strength training are reliable, valid studies that demonstrate the superiority of any particular approach over another, under any realistic conditions - say, whether (a) a highly variable, elaborately periodized, Soviet style training produced significantly better gains over the short and/or long term than (b) highly specific, lightly periodized, Bulgarian style training.  That kind of study is entirely possible, wouldn't take an inordinate amount of subjects if the appropriate design were used, e.g., three-way crossover, but it would take the better part of a year and a half, and consistent participation by the same subjects.  They'd go Soviet for 23 weeks up to a comp, transition for few weeks, switch to Bulgarian for another similar duration phase and meet, then transition and resume another cycle of Soviet.  A second group would mirror - Bulgarian, then Soviet, then back to Bulgarian.   The results (performance gains) realized at the end of each phase could be compared between groups (is one program consistently, on average, more productive than the other?  safer than the other?) and within individual subjects (do some athletes consistently do better on one approach than the other?  short-term and long term?).  That kind of study would tell us a great deal about whether there are any statistically significant differences in these two approaches.  It wouldn't tell us, however, whether some third, fourth, or fifth approach would be even better (or any worse) than the two approaches tested.  It wouldn't surprise me if, for example, both approaches" worked," and at the same time, that the LSUS training program, or the Chinese program, or whatever other successful program one might name, is superior to either of the above, in some athletes or generally.  If its not tested correctly, you don't know. I suspect the chances of any unbiased research group ever doing any of these kinds of studies in this rather arcane field of human endeavor is so small that you'd need scientific notation to express the unlikelihood.

But THAT is "science" - a controlled study - one that compares A versus B, head to head.  There are a few basic "periodized versus non-periodized" studies in the literature, but they're of marginal relevance - think general strength training, in groups of noncompetitive college kids.  That plus some more relevant controlled stuff out of Spain, comparing  intensity differences among competitive juniors.  What people read about the Soviet style periodized training (Medvedyev's books, prominently) is really just theory (the periodization scheme) and descriptive statistics (the exercises, "numbers of lifts per month" and that sort of thing) - a collection of generalizations drawn from what a sample of competitive club level Russian lifters did in the 70s.  Because its got numbers in it, I guess, American weightlifting coaches have long thought, and stunningly, continue to say, that it is "scientific."  There's not a testable hypothesis or controlled experiment in the entirety of the Soviet literature, at least none that I've ever seen, and yet, periodization advocates will claim until they go blue that the superiority of periodization is "scientifically proven."  I was told so at the USAW Senior Coach course.  Asking whether there was any controlled data showing that a periodized program was superior  to any other weightlifting training program garnered only that "duh, I dunno" response and the look that usually follows someone's farting in church.

We do well to realize that it all "works," and that consistency, belief, and enthusiasm probably matter more than all the technical programming details and differences that separate literally every weightlifting coach's programs from those of every other one. If a program - periodized in one way or another, variable or specific to one degree or another, etc., is fundamentally solid - lots of practice on the lifts, lots of strength building in the movement patterns that count - and the athlete likes it well enough to put serious effort into it, the athlete will move steadily toward their potential.  And most athletes, when they are progressing and seeing so reward for their effort, could not care less about any of the crap that coaches yammer and argue about.

[Jesster]

I always enjoy your posts, Jim. I am on the side of periodization as of now. Much, however depends on what the test is. I just read something about a study comparing schemes in the neighborhood of 3x10 to failure beating a periodized routine of 3x10, 3x5, and 3x3. However, the test was more for muscular endurance, and that would have the 3x10 group doing more work in that range. If it was for 1 RM, I'm sure the periodized group would have won.

The proposal you make is hard in so many respects. What I envision is that the difference would be so small between Bulgarian and Soviet style that a conclusion may not be drawn. When the difference between 1 set vs. 3 sets is sometimes barely noticeable, I could see no statistical difference resulting. What I think some strength coaches are doing is going on benefit of the doubt. If something has rarely, if ever, shown to be worse, then they go with it. Because, you will never be doing worse with that choice. The question becomes about how much better. I've seen periodization win by 7% and some 1%. I can't recall seeing periodization beat in a non-controversial study.