Topic: Weightlifting Program Design

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

I think FA Hayek nailed all this socialistic nonsense with his famous reference to the "the fatal conceit", the irrational idea that planners could have superior information about the people they planned for, whether willing or unwilling. This quote is one of my favorites from that great work: "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."

[Jim Hooper]

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.

Thanks Jess.  My broader point is that, for purposes of training competitive weightlifters, nobody "knows" any particular approach is generally superior to another, because the science to answer those questions has never been, and probably never will be, done by anybody.  For precisely that reason, training systems, four generations into the modern sport, are about as different as, say, the automobiles that coaches drive, and the superiority arguments go on and on and on to no end.  They persist because everybody can make a case, but nobody can make a convincing case, for A versus B versus C.  But we do know, from both an ocean of common anecdotal experience and substantial controlled scientific study, an awful lot about the fundamental features of effective training (the X's in the statement "doing X will make people stronger"):  specificity, overload, adequate recovery and nutrition, technical efficiency, and similar basics.  Your interpretation of the study you described, with which I completely agree, is a perfect example:  did we even need a study to know that, in the short run, doing 3 x10 work would improve results on a test of muscular endurance more than doing work in lower rep ranges?   Any doubt in your mind that periodizing 3x15, 3x12, and 3x10 ALSO would have outperformed the 3x10, 3x5, 3x3 group in terms of muscular endurance?  Simple specificity, no?  (And dollars to donuts, the group that got some 3x3 work would have improved their max triples more than the all-3x10 group, or than any high-rep periodized group for that matter.)   My specific point is that, when an athlete and a coach develop and implement a program that is fundamentally solid, that stresses the physical event they want to improve, and go at it with energy, belief, and consistency, over time, improvement is all but assured.

That's the beautiful thing about all the really tough individual sports - in the strength arena, WL, PL, SM, BB, etc., and likewise for running, triathlon, cycling, etc. on the endurance side.  "Best training systems" are a myth - but "great training systems" are everywhere.   While there is no recipe that has been proven superior to others, no "Bigger Biceps in 21 Days" -- the current ridiculous headline on one of the perpetually-ridiculous BB rags --, we have a wide selection of different hammers (training systems) that will all drive nails (predictably make us much stronger over time).     

The devil is not in the details.  The devil is to figure out which hammers you swing best, pimp it out a bit to fit your unique hand, and spend 10+ years driving a few million nails. 

[Andy Dick]

I agree Jim.  I don't think we will ever see a study.  It is too difficult to study.  To make sure everyone is doing strictly only the program, getting the proper amount of rest, eating the proper amount and type of food, not using any other means (supplements, legal or illegal), to find people willing to do so for an extended period of time, those who have sufficiently good form, etc. it is hard to put all the pieces together.  Also, knowing that some people handle programs differently also play a major role as well as the psycological factor (some people just freak out when they do heavy singles and miss lifts).  I agree take a solid program and adjust it to what is working for the athlete to get the best possible gains as much as possible.  Everyone will be different and through proper communication between coach and athlete is key to find jus that.

[Andy Dick]

I had to scrap my origional design somewhat.  The head coach wanted them lifting 3 days a week and speed and agility tuesdays and thursdays.  BUT we have 29 guys join the team and have been coming in everyday so far.  So it is very exciting.  Its funny to see the difference between the kids who are natural athletes and those who aren't with respect to how fast they seem to pick up the movements.

[Andy Dick]

I am so stoked right now, we just had 3 more guys join the team yesterday.  That brings our numbers up to 40!  This is awesome, it makes it crazy in the weight room because we only have so many platforms but it is a lot of fun.  The head coach is looking into buying some more platforms and bars to accommodate the increase in guys.  I am loving it.  We are putting together a meet in May.  Right now we have 1 other school involved that has committed 20 guys and we are talking to another interested school.  If we can get half of our guys to go and the third school involved we could have a decent sized meet.

[Matt Erdman]

I am so stoked right now, we just had 3 more guys join the team yesterday.  That brings our numbers up to 40!  This is awesome, it makes it crazy in the weight room because we only have so many platforms but it is a lot of fun.  The head coach is looking into buying some more platforms and bars to accommodate the increase in guys.  I am loving it.  We are putting together a meet in May.  Right now we have 1 other school involved that has committed 20 guys and we are talking to another interested school.  If we can get half of our guys to go and the third school involved we could have a decent sized meet.

Nice job man!

[Andy Dick]

BTW, I also want to add the final model for the program is significantly different from the one I posted initially.  To tell the truth I feel the first program was garbage.  I am actually a bit ashamed I put it up :S.  I fell victim of trying to do too many things at one time trying to make it so great.  The new program is more simplistic in nature and I feel much more comfortable with.