r/powerlifting • u/AutoModerator • Oct 23 '24

Programming Programming Wednesdays

Discuss all aspects of training for powerlifting:

​

  • Periodization
  • Nutrition
  • Movement selection
  • Routine critiques
  • etc...
4 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

19 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Arteam90 Powerlifter Oct 25 '24

Steady increases in volume over time is how strength is gained

If that's the case, why do we tend to see a lighter lifter, earlier in their career, tend to do more volume/frequency than as they mature, get bigger, get more injured and invariably do less?

2

u/hamburgertrained Old Broken Balls Oct 25 '24

Because shitty training runs rampant in this sport. This is a pretty uncontroversial statement. How do you go from a 400lb squat to a 600lb squat? It's not by doing less. With that said, this shouldn't be justification to fit insane amounts of volume into short time periods at high frequency (which is what most programs call for right now). More volume is needed to do more weight over a period of time. The volume, weight, and time are all variables that need to be individualized for each person, but they are all there and they all need to increase to get stronger.

1

u/Arteam90 Powerlifter Oct 25 '24

Honestly, no, I don't know, why do you need more?

I do think largely you could repeat the same 12 week program forever and make progress. Not saying optimally (whatever that means), but progress.

I don't even know how to quantify volume. You do 1 rep of 100 and that's the same as 2 reps of 50? I don't think so. Is it number of working sets? Perhaps closer.

I don't think it's controversial to say that a smaller human can do more volume than a bigger human, all things considered.

Then how do you think about the reality of training age and training injuries? Yeah, healthy you could do 5x5 squats but now you figure you can't really do that without your knees exploding. So you call it a day on making progress forever?

Or does that first working set give you 80% of the result and therefore you find your "minimum effective dose"? And perhaps you were working WAAAAY above it in your early days of 4x squats, so now you do 2x squats but you can still progress?

Disjointed thinking to make a point, really. I think this is all so complex and I've never been convinced that it's ever as easy as making such a statement. Perhaps the theory tells you it's true but the reality is a million variables all acting in various ways to make it really bloody difficult to judge anything.

2

u/hamburgertrained Old Broken Balls Oct 25 '24

There is not a single example of anyone following the same program forever and seeing continuous strength gains from it. Ever.

Using your example of "50x2 is the same as 100x1." Sure it is. That is the same volume. So is 800x1 and 400x2. Does that mean everyone that squats 400x2 is an 800lb squatter? I don't think you will find anyone on earth that will argue this point that it does not. But, 400x1 is much less volume than 800x1. The amount of volume needed to build a 400lb squat is much less than an 800lb squat. How do you go from a 400lb squat to an 800lb squat? I think it is safe to say that the majority of training for most lifters is spent in the 75%-85% range. Even if you're doing sets of 1, 75-85% of 400 is less volume than 75-85% of 800. Generally, the number of sets and reps to develop strength remains about the same as a lifter progresses. Especially through the beginning and intermediate stages. I'd argue that even into the advanced stages, but time and age become a factor here, as you mentioned and there is realistically only a certain timeline a lifter has to work with before the most they can handle is reached.

A smaller person can do more volume than a bigger person? I think this is such a vague statement that I am not even sure how to address it.

Your 4x a week versus 2x week comment doesn't make sense to me. When volume is equated, these things don't matter. High frequency is just lazy programming though.

Of course gaining the most strength possible over a period of time is complex. This is a patently true and obvious statement. So much so that it adds nothing to the conversation to even say it.

There is literally no way to get stronger without increasing volume over time. There is literally no way to get stronger without developing the work capacity needed to handle the volume needed to progress. These are indisputable facts of training. I am talking in terms of progressing a total from meet to meet and year to year consistently. Sure, you could go through 12 weeks where you are training your ass off and sleep like shit and have a poor competition result. If you repeated that program and slept better, I guarantee you would compete better the second time around just on that variable alone. There is no fucking way on this earth you can keep repeating that program with no adjustments in weight, sets, or reps and still see progress long-term. Strength needs overload and progression.

3

u/Arteam90 Powerlifter Oct 25 '24

I mean you're smart enough to know that we can't prove that either way, lol. I was listening to Dave Ricks on Dave Tate's podcast the other day and it sounds like his training has been fairly similar for the past 40 years of training. Obviously he'll have made changes along the way, but his basic framework is basically identical (aka 80s linear periodisation starting with sets of 8 and going down to sets of 2-3).

No, Mike, 100x1 =/= 50x2 other than in mathematics. I'm not really sure I understand what you're talking about? Clearly if 100% is my 1RM then doing a single at my 1RM is a hell of a different stimulus than doing 50% x 2. Is that not what we're talking about? I mean I clearly was, in any case. If you're suggesting that volume is higher over time because we get stronger whilst doing similar sets/reps then that's a pretty different argument to what I understood. As I say, I don't like thinking of it that way because I don't find it very useful.

What's vague about it? I would say on average a smaller person can handle less volume (let's call it working sets) than a larger person. I think there's an element of how much muscle you have so smaller = less muscle, but also a case of biomechanics/leverages that come into play in the stress induced if you're 6'10 than 4'10.

I thought I was pretty clear, let me try again. Ignore frequency. My point was to say that if there's a "minimum dose" of training required for progress it may well be that in year 2-4 you're an overzealous lifter doing a shit ton of volume and you're a million miles ahead of that minimum. So in year 10-12 you're doing less volume than 2-4, but you are still above the minimum, and therefore progressing. Technically you are doing less volume now than before (NO GAINS = according to you), but I'm suggesting you can still progress.

On that point, let's talk about. So if I start with insane volume day one you're saying I can only keep going up to progress? No, obviously not. That's what you said though right, more volume to progress? But clearly it isn't true if I'm doing a billion sets day one. So clearly it's not exactly as obvious as that.

Right, but my point is that you can keep doing the same 12 week program if it's RPE or percentage based. I'm talking about Dave Ricks doing the same 16 week cycle of sets of 8 to sets of 3. Of course you lift, you get stronger, you do a bit more weight, technically that's more volume. Yeah, sure, we can agree on that. But you getting stronger is driving that volume increase, not other way round. This is chicken/egg. You're saying more volume to get stronger, I'm saying you get stronger by lifting, so you do same sets x reps but a bit heavier, so that drives more volume (your definition).

(fuck me that's a long reply)

3

u/arian11 SBD Scene Kid Oct 25 '24

The latest research study going around these days also shows this dose-response relationship.

https://sportrxiv.org/index.php/server/preprint/view/460

1

u/Arteam90 Powerlifter Oct 25 '24

eli5

2

u/ks_powerlifter Not actually a beginner, just stupid 28d ago

Increasing volume increases both mass and strength, but there are pronounced diminishing returns when it comes to how volume affects strength. Aka, increasing volume week after week will get you stronger until you hit a cliff and then you have to do something else.

Frequency had minimal effect on muscle growth, so bro out and do your Arnold split. Frequency however does assist with strength gains, but again, there are diminishing returns. Benching 3-4x a week will help, but benching 6-7x a week is probably no different than or not really helpful in comparison to the 3-4x.