Power clean + jerk 90/3+2 x 2 105/1+1 x 5
Clean pull 105/4 x 2 117/3 130/2 x 2
Seated good morning 70 - 4x4
So the workouts for this stage are scheduled to have hard days on Mon/Wed/Fri and easier/lighter/shorter days on Tues/Sat. I like this for increasing volume because you get 5 quality workouts a week and still can recover. I understand why Sheiko programs the way he does and why Nathan only does 3 days per week: the Olympic lifts basically leave no fatigue from one day to the next while powerlifts will mess you up. I also like the way that the hard days are concentrated: much more volume on the hard days than the easy days in order to allow recovery. This is also what Sheiko does, in that you don't do 85%/2 x 3 on Monday then 70%/5 x 4 on Tuesday. You do them on the same day and recover the next. Only when one day is "full" do you add an additional day to increase the volume, rather than adding more workouts distributed evenly across the week whenever you want more volume. The Russians even go so far as to resort to 2-a-days on the high volume days (at higher qualification) rather than moving the additional work to one of the light or off days.
Another interesting thing is that high intensity and high volume tend to go together. If a workout is very high volume then there is a good chance that I'll be doing 90%+ lifts in it even though I'll be doing tons of work before and after. I don't really have a good explaination for this, it's just an observation. This occurs more frequently in the preparatory phase though. In the competition phase volume is lowered and intensity is higher: 90% lifts almost every workout (about 2/3 of the workouts I think, off hand), so you don't do an entire workout in the one of the lifts then go for 90%+.
Ok, I need to actually work today so I guess this post is over.... If anyone wants to talk about how this may relate to powerlifting go ahead, I like discussion and we haven't had many lately.
7 comments:
A lot of this is similar to the Bill Starr/Rippetoe/Kilgore/Pendlay methods. Starr didn't originate increasing workload based on total volume, but he def. popularized it in America. What you're describing sounds somewhat like block programming (i.e an "acclimation" block based on higher volume and a "contest" block based on higher intensity lifts).
In any case, I would ask whether the program you are following is simple (i.e nothing can be removed from it without interfering with your goals). If yes, bonza. If no, start chopping.
Oh yeah, here's the link for those wondering what the hell I'm talking about.
Here's the deal: I feel like it's important to keep the volume at it's current level and to increase volume over time. This doesn't mean that everything in the program is necessary BUT simply removing the "excess" stuff from the program isn't the way to go in my opinion. What I've done in order to keep the volume approximately constant is to replace the stuff I deem less necessary (stuff that works things that are not weaknesses) with stuff that does work weaknesses (pulls are often replaced by an approx. equal number of jerks). This allows me to keep the volume consistent with Russian data on optimal volume for gains but to shift the focus to weaknesses. I don't use a workload based on tonnage/poundage though, just based on number of lifts. However, I generally replace things of comparable weight anyway so it works out. I agree that, like in the article, just doing "more" is a good way to overtrain.
My program COULD be simplified in terms of the number of different exercises used. I could certainly just do cleans, jerks, snatches, and squats. I would just need to redistribute the lifts based on the necessary volumes and intensities with respect of those lifts only, but that seems harder and less necesary than following the program with the modifications I've already made.
Programs that only use the competitive lifts are fine, I like them, and I think more people should use them. Barring that, they should follow a program that is based on the main lifts and assistance exercises which very closely resemble them, chosen to work specific weaknesses of the lifter. In both cases volume and instensity should be such that, for the training stage, the athlete achieves optimal progress. The last point is why I like the Russian system of volume/intensity management because their data shows it will produce good results. It's also the only system that actually IS a system, because NO OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE has ever produced useable scientific data to support training one way over another, much less organised it into a comprehensive training system from beginner to world class athlete, then used it to produce such athletes.
Here is an interesting take on the Sheiko system from Mike T. Not having actually experienced Sheiko, I can't really comment.
Sounds good. As long as the system involves progressive, incremental increase in the workload (whether by volume, total number of lifts, whatever) it will be optimal.
I agree with his points. I think he's not arguing against Sheiko so much (excluding shirt technique), so much as how as most people practice it. If you look at Talmants training, for example, he does the main lifts in the main pattern, but he also does a lot of things that are specific to him (2-boards, pause squats, etc.).
Personally, I started Sheiko wanting to reset my squat and bench training coming off rehab, so I've stuck with the basic lifts so far. I'll change things up if they stop working or I get bored.
I agree that doing Sheiko for equipped is a little awkward, just looking at the equipped program I found. But it obviously works for a lot of very strong people, so I think the fundamental principles are correct and it is a great place to start from.
Also note that Mike T himself does a ton of volume and has done seminars with Talmant, so its not like they are rivals in training style.
I agree pretty much 100% with Mike's assessment, especially with respect to gear and how it can change the percent you're actually using because it changes the lift.
Another thing: the reason that Westside is successful is that they basically learned to train gear-like patterns without the gear. Using bands and chains simulates the gear because of the lightened load at the bottom (especially in the case of reverse-band lifts). You obviously can't use percents very well because of the nature of the bands/chains, but it allows you to increase volume, especially reps per set, that you can't simulate in gear. Obviously if you can only touch in the gear with 100% you can't do 5x5 at 80%. With accomodating resistance you can do stuff like that, and even simulate max effort performances without putting on your gear. Gear makes it impossible to quantify the training in the same way (%'s) that Sheiko does so it makes combining the two more difficult.
Post a Comment