Hypertrophy Past and Present (53) Progression Models and the Truth About Progressive Overload

0:00 Welcome back. Thank you guys for joining us for our 53rd episode. So, we've been here for over a year. We're still here, which I'm surely that means like we've made it in like the top x% of podcast. I'm sure there's some stat there that like I don't know 95% of podcasts don't make it through the first year. Maybe I'll make that stat up now. So, I feel like it's an achievement. congratulations, Chris. You made it through the first year. I I know you've been doing podcasts before that anyway.

0:30 In fact, we both have, so it's not that much of an >> Yes. But anyway, thank you guys for joining us for over a year of episodes. >> how are you doing today? >> Yeah, I'm doing well, thanks Jake. >> Just trying to think if we have any announcements we don't yet, but we will have some soon. So, stay tuned. >> We will have. Yes, very excited about that, but we shall keep quiet about it till next week.

0:53 >> We will. Yes, I shouldn't have said anything. Okay, let's jump into the goods. I'm going to give you guys a workout plan. We're going to talk about So, last week we did a golden era plan. I forget whose it was, but it was wild. Serge Serge, it was like 4 million sets or something absolutely insane like that. So, I thought, you know what? We need to swing the pendulum back. We need to go back to silver era. We need to look at a maybe a little bit more I guess sane type of plan. And we've got one from George Eiffelman today. Now, we have talked about George Iman, I think once before, and he was a fairly important figure in the Sylvia era. So, you know, the fact we've made it a whole year and only mentioned his name, I think, once is is pretty impressive. But Eiffelman sort of he was another one of these characters who bridged the gap between the early silver era and coming into the golden era or I I guess you would call it kind of early golden era.

1:46 He was competing in the he started competing in the late 40s and so he was kind of like I guess the generation after people like Steve Greaves and Reg Park. He still kind of cut his teeth in the the York barbell kind of scene. and he he didn't start winning competitions until like I think he won Mr. Mr. Philadelphia or something like that in maybe 1948 or late 40s and then he won the universe in in the early 60s.

2:15 So, he was very much a kind of like tail end of the silver era. And he's got an interesting backstory. I mean, you've talked about this kind of idea before where these guys back then before they stood they step foot in a gym, they were more active, like they were just doing more physically with their bodies than than most people are today. And they've they had acquired quite a lot of muscle. And and it's interesting with Iman because we've actually got some of his stats and he was in the mil I think he was in the Navy some defense force and in his time in the defense force he didn't lift weights like they they were using buckets of water and bags of flour and stuff like that and they were doing physical activity but they weren't actually you know in a gym and he gained something like 25 lb in his time in the military and so by the time he step stood stepped foot in a gym he was almost 200 lb. He was 19 190 195 something along those lines. So, it's interesting. If you were to then look at someone like Eiffelman back then, the amount he's going to be able to gain in the gym is going to be significantly less in total than if you've got a beginner today who, you know, has been sitting on the couch playing games, whatever, hasn't really been active.

3:27 And, you know, a lot of the time people will ask, well, how much can I gain? How much muscle as a as a newbie, as a beginner, how much can I gain in a year? And you've answered this before. It depends on what you've been doing. you know, if you've been sedentary, it's going to be a hell of a lot more than if you're someone who's out there, you know, hiking and and playing sports and whatnot. Anyway, so that was Eiffel. He was he was active before he stood from the gym. And what we've got here today is a plan that he was following in the late 40s. So, this is, you know, a few years into his training. He's he's started you know, working towards some of these competitions, Mr.

3:58 Philadelphia. And in the past episode of his, we covered a plan from the ' 50s where he talked about what was his favorite plan. That was his his most favorite routine. And so this is an earlier plan of his. And if you guys are interested, go back and listen to that episode. I think it's like maybe episode 38 or something like that. and compare how these differ because I actually think this is a better plan in my opinion. But you guys don't know what this plan is yet. So, let me enlighten you. So, it was a multi-et plan as well. I'll mention that. So, he he used at least two sets for each exercise. except possibly the first exercise. So, the first exercise was hack squat and he would often do this with three sets of five to 10 repetitions, but sometimes he would swap in a breathing squat. So, we have talked about the breathing squat before. So breathe squat will be a single set of 20 repetitions but you've broken it up. So depending on how you would perform it, it might be that you do 10 repetitions and that 10 reps will be more or less to like you know close to failure and then you would sort of do these little rest pause kind of mini sets and get 20 reps in total.

5:13 So sometimes he would do that, sometimes he would just do three sets or five to 10 repetitions. Then he would go from the squat and we talked about breath periods last week and it' be interesting it would be interesting to track how long one would need to rest for after doing a set of breathing squats. But anyway, so he then went into a wide grip barbell bench and again was three sets of five to 10 repetitions and then a flat dumbbell chest press.

5:38 Now my understanding the way Iman did these was it was a little bit more I guess more neutral grip. So, we've contrasted that wide grip bench to a slightly closer grip with the dumbbell chest press. And that was for two sets of five to 10. And then we have bent over barbell row. I think that was more sagittal plane. And that was three sets of 5 to 10. And then a behind the neck barbell press. I think he did these seated, but they were being done seated and standing at this time. And he did three sets of five to 10 for the behind the neck. And then we have a single leg squat. Now, I lied. This was done for a single set. Okay. Okay, so we do have an exercise here for single set. So single leg squat for one set of five to 10. So a pistol squat kind of variation. And then we got calf raises, three sets of 25, which we've talked about in the past in probably just a limitation on equipment and load that they can use.

6:28 And then a barbell curl for three sets of 5 to 10. And then a triceps pulley push down. So I guess what we would use with a cable, three sets of five to 10. So we have nine exercises in total. almost each exercise two or three sets with the exception of the single leg squat or maybe the breathing squat and relatively low I would say repetitions 5 to 10 you know similar kind of rep scheme we see from people like Steve Reeves as well.

6:57 What are your thoughts on that one? >> So this is interesting. I mean obviously everything I say here is kind of going to be sort of you know talking about minutia really because in essence it is a very silver era program there are lots and lots of programs that are very much like this you know so ultimately I'm I'm really splitting hairs with any kind of comments that I make on this there are things about this but having said that there are things about this that I I do like quite a lot and there are also things I don't like about it quite a lot. So it is polarizing me a little bit compared to the average or more common silver era program.

7:43 >> so I do like I do like the 5 to 10 rep range. I like that because often I mean I am very much I'm comfortable with with with a wider rep range. I think, you know, I can see practical reasons why people might want to go up as high as 15 sometimes. you know, but I'm generally much happier if I'm programming 5 to 8 to 5 to 7, that kind of zone. So, when I see 5 to 10, I'm I'm like I'm I'm I'm pretty pretty happy with that. I like that because I think it makes the most sense for post-workout recovery processes.

8:19 >> Yeah. >> On the other hand, I don't like the volume programming. Again, it works. There's nothing wrong with it. I mean, I've got a quibble around the the the chest work, but I'm I'm kind of I'm I'm, you know, like I would prefer to see a little bit more exercise variation and a little bit less, you know, multi-ET protocol. I think that is not a good use of time and and energy and recovery capacity. So, you know, I think there's that that sort of balance trade-off if you like. I would prefer to be on the variety side rather than on the you know kind of just raw volume side.

8:58 I counted it out and if you if you it's actually obviously if you count the superset it's it's 10 exercises not nine. >> Yeah that's right. With a breathing squat he would do that super set with a pullover as they generally did which usually they would do high reps 20 reps and not normally taken to failure. It was more like a light squat. >> So he's just doing high squats. wouldn't superset with pullover. Is that what you're saying? Cuz that's not what you've written.

9:22 >> I believe the way it was written, I believe he was insinuating that this superset would be done with the breathing squats, but >> but not with the hack squat, >> but perhaps not. I'll have to go back and double check how it >> doesn't really matter, but it's just interesting because the pullover would be obviously another back exercise and it would put the number of sets up in total. So, I counted if if you count that he was doing a pullover super setting with the hack squat, which we don't we're not sure about. If he was doing that, then you'd have 27 total sets, which is actually quite a lot.

9:52 >> I mean, it's not like a lot a lot a lot, but it, you know, it is, you're gonna notice, you know, like I'm much more comfortable kind of in that sort of 12 to 15 total kind of sets per workout. I think pushing up double that and I'm I'm squeaking. I think that's starting to become, you know, definitely a challenge. And I'm going to think that there's going to be exercise order issues towards the end of the workout, you know, unless they're being really spaced out with lots of inworkout nutrition and rest and that kind of. So, there's bits and pieces here that I'm not, you know, super happy about.

10:26 exercise selection. I mean, again, very classic silver era stuff that we've covered 100 times or 52 times so far on this podcast. I don't like doubling up the the chest work. I really don't like that. I don't even though that the wide grip is, you know, obviously the starting point which is going to get most you know, all the chest regions. Even if the dumbbell chest press is more sort of narrow grip, I'm still not I mean, I can see why he's doing that because he's then got the behind the neck press which is more middle delt and then he's trying to go for some anterior delt work. But the way he's programming it, I think it would be so much better if he had a steep incline version where he was getting very much more definitively, you know, kind of anterior delt rather than being very much clvicular pec pretty much in entirely. so I'm not I'm not really a fan of that combination, especially when he's doing multi-et stuff. Again, with the pec being so much more susceptible to damage, I really don't think that that will be the one muscle that I would kind of throw a load of volume out. I don't think it makes an enormous amount of sense. equally, you know, the the exercise selection more generally I really like. I like the squat, the bench, as in the wide grip bench. I like the behind the neck press, calf raise, you know, curl, triceps push down. Fantastic. Obviously, people are waiting for me to say that, you know, I'm missing the wide grip pull down or pull-up and I'm missing the stiff leg deadlift or the hamstrings exercise because that's what I always say. And we are missing those things and it'd be great to see them in. We don't actually have a shrug in there either, you know, and I think that's definitely something that I'd want to see. So, you know, it's a classic. You know what this a lot of the plants we've looked at don't really have any direct trap work and there's every now and then there will be some but a shrug was not that common. obviously they tended to be you know quite a lot of deadlifting.

12:23 Sometimes I would do like a deadlift with a shrug at the top. So I guess I'll relying more on those exercises but it's almost you know what do I leave out more hamstrings or traps? Probably about the same. hamstrings definitely is neglected quite quite severely. But yeah, I mean as is as is a wide grip kind of pull down or pull-up. So, you know, I mean that is just one of those things that tends to get tends to get ignored. But, you know, fundamentally, you know, done three times a week on non-consecutive days. This is a great program. Again, I mean, like a lot of the time when we're going through these programs and I'm picking them apart and saying what I don't like about them, you know, I often sometimes just neglect to emphasize that even with all my criticisms, this is still going to be 100 times better than most of what you're going to see online today, which is mad, but it's true.

13:16 >> Yeah. A couple of interesting observations, I think. So you've made the point there that that chest volume is obviously quite high and you know he could have been doing incline for example and there were people at York doing incline dumbbell chest press you know Steve Reeves was doing that for example so I don't know why he didn't do that but it is interesting nonetheless to observe that almost all these exercises he is doing three sets but the dumbbell chest press he's he's dropped one of those sets he's only doing two and I can only imagine because he's observed that there is you know some additional recovery demand if he did add that third set to that exercise because he's doubling up on on chest work. So, I think it's interesting to see that there's been some thought process there presumably based on his his own personal response to that workout. I don't, you know, anyone who writes a program, it's always nicer if things are even and uniform. You know, you always want to make everything look the same and then, you know, there'll be requirements that force you not to. So, there's obviously been something here that's forced me to drop that set. I imagine the single leg squat is an interesting choice and it's not something you see much of.

14:19 >> Yeah, I honestly just I forgot to mention that. I would just take that out. I mean, I don't see us adding anything at all. I mean, just as a very very quick kind of practical comment, if I were doing this routine or I'm modifying this routine to do, I mean, personally, I would just take everything down to a single set. and I would, just because I'm old, but I mean, you could still do, you know, two sets probably or even three if you wanted to per exercise. I would I would, I would take out the dumbbell chest press. I would take out the single leg squat.

14:57 >> and I would I would put in the the stiff leg deadlift. I'm keeping it in the silver era kind of equivalent kind of sort of limitations. I put in a stiff leg deadlift, put in a shrug, and I put in a Y pull pull down or pull-up. And that would probably make the routine pretty much perfect for me in in the context of this of this equipment limitation situation. Obviously, oh well, you know, you got leg curls and you know, kind of knee extension and all that kind of stuff.

15:26 Yeah, but I know, but I'm trying to keep it in the context of the equipment that we've got. >> So, it's actually not really very much that I'd need to do. >> No. No. And like you said, you know, your preference is to do single sets, but you know, someone could do two sets. >> Absolutely. do two sets for all of that. you could even push it to three, I think. >> Yeah. Yeah. And especially if you look at something like like triceps, you know, he's got the triceps push down.

15:49 He's got the close grip or the the, you know, more central pain chest press. He's got even, you know, behind the neck, like he's he's got a lot of variation in there for triceps, you know, or chest, you know, technically speaking, yes, he could have adjusted that slightly, but he's still he's still got exercises here for some of these muscle groups. Delts, another one where he's getting, you know, some regional differences in the exercise selection. So, you know, certainly could be a lot worse. I I think, you know, given limited equipment, a barbell, dumbbell, I mean, he does have a a pulley, but most of this is dumbbell on barbell. I think it's it's not bad. Yes, we're missing hams. Yes, we could do the back work a little bit better. Yes, there one or two exercises we don't need, but physiologically speaking, it's, you know, rep range good. Volume, most of that should be recoverable. I don't like the order of of putting like a a squat number one unless you're happy to wait five or 10 minutes before you do the and maybe he was happy to do that but >> he probably went over and chatted with his friend for like 15 minutes and came >> I mean if he was doing this at York I mean five those guys were spending hours just mucking about so yeah maybe but yeah all in all like I think this is a looks like a fairly fun workout and it's relatively physiologically sane I suppose to some of the stuff we've seen in in past episodes and in the golden era. Now, the 5 to 10 rep range. So, I thought that was interesting and I've this is a change I've made based on what we've talked about in in silver area plans is most of these guys were not using a very tight rep range. Some of the strengthbased guys were, you know, obviously we talked about people like Hburn a little bit and Reg Park and some of these guys who are using more, you know, doubles and triples and fours and fives and, you know, sometimes those guys will will work between, you know, one or two repetitions in that range.

17:44 But generally speaking, from a hypertroy perspective, 5 to 10, 6 to 12, you know, they ended up being the most common kind of ranges for people to work through. And in modern programming, you know, what I was taught and what I see most people do, we're kind of taught to use a very narrow range. You know, normally it's like six to eight or 8 to 10, 10 to 12. It's like two repetitions. And not that that's bad, and obviously we've got access to equipment now that people didn't have access to back then. But, you know, we've talked about, well, what are you getting differently out of a set of 10 and a set of five? Well, arguably a tiny tiny bit more fatigue. Like, not nothing really significant that that's that different. especially from a stimulus perspective. So, it makes sense to me to use these slightly larger ranges 5 to 10 and then have that flexibility where if your machine or your equipment doesn't allow you to do such small progressions in load and you know if going if going up in load means that suddenly you can't lift a single repetition with it. Well, you've got you know this huge range there to actually play with. So I think this makes for me personally I think this makes more sense just as a programming variable to use today especially for people have limited equipment than what we see most people doing.

18:59 >> Totally. And I mean like we were chatting about this before podcast and I said I always like to choose the exercise or the the equipment for the exercise based on how the the exercise feels rather than based on what the loading capacity is. So, you know, if if one piece of kit has very sort of limited loading kind of increments that they're fixed and I can't really change them very easily. but that that means there are big jumps, then I'm going to have to have a wider kind of rep range when I'm working with that piece of kit. Otherwise, every time I go up a notch, I'm going to be completely incapable of sticking in the rep range that I want to work in. but if I, you know, really want to use that piece of kit, then that's just a cost of doing business if you like. but I'd always prioritize the exercise, because of how it feels, because of what I'm trying to achieve in the location that I'm trying to work, you know, in the body, rather than saying, "Oh, no. I've got to work in this range, therefore, I've got to use this other piece of kit, which is not quite perfect for what I want to do. It doesn't feel very good, but it allows me to microlo." like well that isn't the way around that I'd want to work. I'd always want to go for the exercise the biomechanical reasons rather than the loading parameter reasons. So I'm in the same place as you. I think it's always better to have that that rep range kind of being a little bit more flexible.

20:26 >> Which brings us to what we want to discuss for the second half of this podcast which is progression models and and how to do that. what that means, what is I mean, we've talked about progressive overload before, but we'll just touch on that a little bit in context of what a progression model is and what that achieves and and you know, what kind of rate of progression might people be able to expect when they're in the gym. And, you know, I made this comment in the past where while we do see some pretty funky programs, I think that the most important determinant of whether program works for someone or not is the way that it's executed. And I think that too often people and this you know I don't want to blame individuals who are just following your program too much like I think that a lot of the time this comes down to instruction from the coach where there's there's poor expectation setting and there's poor instruction over how to you know whether that's reps and reserve whether that's rest periods whether that's just an expectation of how strong one should be getting or can expect to get and often I'll get messages from people being like I've plateaued I've you know I my chest you know this is this is a message I get like every week it'll be my chest can't recover from being trained three times a week and I'll say well have you dropped a single sets have you tried that how do you know and they'll be like yep a single set I can't recover from a single set it's always chest it's always or maybe biceps but usually chest and then I ask them well how are you like how are you determining that you're not recovering what are you how what rate of progression are you looking for and like always it'll be that well I I can't progress weight weekly you know, I can't I've gone two or three sessions and I haven't been able to progress. And I'll always write out like a basically I'll write out sort of like a headburn style, you know, double progression method for those people and be like, "Hey, just try this. Tell me how you go." And almost always I'll get a message back in a few weeks time, oh my god, I'm progressing again. I hadn't plateaued. And it's like, okay. So, it wasn't a recovery issue. It was simply that you didn't know what to expect as far as what progression actually is. So, maybe we start the conversation there. What is progression? What is progressive overload? What do these terms actually tell us? what do these things concepts tell us and then we can jump into the practicality of it all.

22:34 >> Yeah. In fact, if you don't mind, I'd like to go back even one step further and and kind of give us a runway into that because I've got I'm kind of hoping to really capture almost everything possible in this episode related to progression. So, let me add one bit on the front of that and and we'll kind of hopefully get a flying start into that concept that you just, identified. So, the thing I want to kind of start with is to, give people a little bit of history into why there's some confusion about what progression means and how we use it. is because we have two totally different histories or cultures or usages in this particular way. And one of the usages which is very popular in the Olympic weightlifting community in powerlifting to certain extent and it has been used in the strength training communities for bodybuilding in certain aspects. basically treats progression as a programming decision.

23:41 So basically somebody and it often fits into a block periodization type context. So somebody will be writing a strength training program and they'll go I'm going to program these things or these loading protocols or these sets reps you know whatever in this week and or these two weeks or these three weeks and then I'm going to change them and do this in the following weeks and then something else in these other weeks. So they are proactively changing the loading protocols over time and they are referring to that as progression.

24:14 and the often what you'll see is that either there will be an increase in the amount of volume that's being done or you'll see an increase in the intensity. Now that could be intensity in the oldfashioned way of talking about it which is percentage of one rep max or it could be in the kind of more commonly used today way of talking about which is the number of reps in reserve doesn't really matter and you'll see a progression in that terminology. So what they're saying is we are perhaps starting out with you know four or five reps in reserve then moving to two or three reps in reserve then finishing up with one or two reps in reserve. So they'll say this is a progression and then or alternatively it could be percentages of one rep max. They can say we're going to start with 75% move to 80% move to 85 and they'll call that progression. you know or it could be volume as I say you start out with one set two sets move three sets four sets again it doesn't really matter but the point is that you are increasing some aspect and they are describing either more workload being done training close to failure or using heavier loads. So in all of these aspects they are proactively programming an increase in either the load or the volume or you know sort of some other you know kind of parameter that is related to the strength training program. Is this making sense so far?

25:33 >> Yeah absolutely and you know most people I guess will have probably seen a program like that especially in a in a powerlifting context. People will be familiar with this where you know week one like you said will be x number of reps at this percentage week two will be this. It's it usually changes week by week doesn't it? It does. Now the important thing is that from a physiological perspective this has got nothing to do with progress or progression.

25:57 Absolutely nothing to do with that because it is totally physiologically possible unlikely because strength training works. Okay. So strength training works. So you're likely to see adaptions happening, but that's not the point. It is physiologically possible to do a program like this and not actually progress. >> And actually follow it properly like actually do the numbers, do the the sets, do the reps, everything that it has actually programmed. >> Yes. >> And not progress. Yeah.

26:27 >> Unlikely because strength training works. But it is feasible. And so what we need to understand is that the entire block periodization terminologies are not physiologically correct because they are assuming that you can proactively make a progression happen by writing it on a piece of paper and you can't. All you're doing is you're changing the within workout demands of you know kind of how fatiguing it's going to be and how many stimulating reps you're going to get at least from a bodybuilding perspective. So all that's changing is that you're, as I say, changing very slightly how much recovery you're going to get and how much recovery you need and you're changing how much of a stimulus you're actually providing.

27:12 What you're not doing is progressing by or you're not guaranteeing progression by doing that. There is no progression there. You are artificially creating the illusion of progression by progressing numbers on a piece of paper. that does not translate automatically to progression in the individual's adaptive processes. And this is super super important because I get many many many messages from people asking about progression and progressive overload and their entire worldview is rooted in what I'm describing now. This block period idea that you can write on a piece of paper what you want people to do and it's somehow going to make them progress. And it doesn't. It doesn't automatically do that. you're just describing something on paper that has nothing to do with physiological reality. Now, as I say, strength training works. So, you know, chances are that they will actually progress, but it has nothing to do with the progression that you are describing on that kind of model. You could equally program the exact same routine, three sets, you know, or even one set to failure three times a week, and it would do pretty much the same thing. I'm not saying it would do exactly the same but it could do and it actually could lead to progression you know equally well or not equally well again depending on the person. So >> that brings me to the other side of the equation. So what I'm saying is that is a worldview which has been kind of fored upon us by the periodization enthusiasts who I'm get I'm losing patience with daily actually. I'm getting to the point where I'm actually going to start being quite critical of if I'm not being very critical already.

28:47 we're going to start getting even more critical because I think they're actually being actively kind of problematic for an understanding of what's going on in in terms of the adaptions because the terminology is being used incorrectly. So the other way of thinking about progression is to say well if I'm watching what's happening in a strength training program and I am seeing that the person who is maintaining or the the the lifter who is maintaining the same proximity to failure whether that's two failure or they're leaving one rep preserve or whatever and they are actually increasing the number of reps that they're capable of doing and or they are now starting to put the weight up. I am receiving feedback from that training program that progression is happening as in I am observing writing down on piece of paper the numbers that they're achieving over the course of the training program that they are actually improving. So on the one hand we've got this proactive like inputbased progression idea where I'm like I'm telling them to do more and more and more each time and get stronger as if commanding them to get stronger is somehow going to make them stronger. But on the other hand, I'm simply observing the fact that they are now actually getting stronger and I'm receiving that information and it's an output of the training program. So, I think really what we've got to understand is that there are two totally different ways of using the word progression in the strength training communities which are overlapping. They do tend to come from different places and get used in different ways, but they are fundamentally different. One is like if I write down on a piece of paper that someone has to do these things in this order and get stronger then magically that's somehow going to make them stronger which I just don't agree with.

30:22 And on the other hand there is literally just observing the fact that the person is getting stronger and writing that down and noticing that it is happening which is output of the strength training that they are doing. Two totally different perspectives. One I think is fundamentally flawed and one I actually think is is correct which is the observation of what is actually happening. It's I'm trying to put my finger on the some subtle differences here and it's difficult because there's those kind of two polar opposites to an extent but then there's some overlap and middle ground as well. So I'm thinking of something like a method we've talked about in the past like the Heburn method which you could actually feasibly write down ahead of time these are the numbers you're going to hit.

31:04 >> Yes. >> So it looks very similar to what you've just explained there. >> Yes, it does. and that's kind of where you get somebody who is you know an absolute genius in kind of strength training both intuitively and you know probably in in kind of just the practical skill. I mean he was just very really really really good at what he did and he was able to figure out a rate of progression that would work for most people most time and I speak from you know extremely kind of practical experience of this having run heburn model for 18 months on the squat and yeah I literally didn't do anything else for 18 months just run the whole thing >> and yeah it it it waved loads essentially. And you're never really the same proximity to failure on anything at any really at any point in time. And there are kind of weeks when it feels a bit easier and weeks when it feels a bit harder. And it it's like it's a very very very artful piece of work that training program like that's the exception of Pearls of Rule. I think that kind of thing where you've got somebody who's who's able to create something like that and it does work. I mean, I think it's a strength program. It's not really a bodybuilding program.

32:24 >> but I think that's kind of the exception of the pro rule where you've got something that that good. but I don't think most of the other stuff works. It's almost as if cuz you look at something like that and what he's done, what Heburn did, and we've touched on Heburn in the past and basically just, you know, adding one repetition to one low rep set over over, you know, weeks and then eventually as you get up to, you know, three or four repetitions depending how you're doing it, you drop back down. And we'll talk about that sort of progressive model more in a moment. But it feels to me like there's a difference here between laying out an expectation of here's how quickly one can expect to get stronger compared to almost overlapping periodization onto a progression model and kind of explaining it away with you're progressing because we're, you know, hitting these different strength qualities or because we're, you know, advancing volume or because And it's it's it's pulling it forwards like it's this idea of like well we can we can cause the progression by doing X as opposed to you will be pro progressing probably at this rate and this is how you can continue to train given how much you're likely to be progressing and it's these are very minute differences but they they matter don't they?

33:44 >> Totally. Totally. And I think really the genius of of Hburn was that he understood that to create something reliable, it has to be small and contained. >> Yeah. So, it was like eight sets of two >> with a five rep max approximately and you gradually add an extra rep on each of your sets until you get to eight sets of three and then you put the weight up a little bit and then you start again >> and that is a small and contained kind of wave loading periodization model if you like that that works. and you know, he was really really good at obviously strength training programming to the point where he was able to create that. when somebody is creating something on the fly that they I mean he obviously did that loads of times on his own. He probably saw a whole bunch of other people do it, you know, and he gained a lot of experience with that particular progression model. in contrast, what I see in the kind of wider strength training community today, people are just throwing together programs and go, "Oh, just do these."

34:57 And like, honestly, you can't do that. You know, you can't just kind of guess the rate of progress, >> you know, and and start pulling programs together that you think are going to kind of work. You've got to limit. If you want to get to the point where you can create something as as effective as what Heburn did, you're going to have to limit yourself to a small I mean, I've tried I've tried to do it and I wasn't actually that happy with what I ended up with. I've tried to do it with you know, kind of three sets of five ris rising to eight and it kind of works. It just doesn't work for the same amount of time that the eight sets of two three works for.

35:37 you know, and I think you've got to kind of limit yourself to a relatively small kind of contained progression model and you've got to make sure it works for you for long periods of time and you've got to make sure it works for other people for long periods of time and then sure wheel it out and and like kind of popularize it. Fantastic. But that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is when people are constructing like on the fly large sort of full-on, you know, strength training programs across multiple exercises and the things are changing all over the place and there's percentages flying around and there's reps and reserve flying around and there's all kinds of things being changed and it's like there is literally no way you're going to be able to predict that that's going to work in the way that you're planning it in the way that you're fighting. And I think a lot of it comes down to and it's almost luck because it comes down to what variable has that person chosen to to periodize or progress or whatever in their plan because I've seen plans where people are progressing reps in reserve and they'll say this week you're going to do four reps in reserve. This week you're going to do three. This week you're going to do two. This week and it's like what?

36:44 How? >> Literally no reason to do that at all. >> Precisely. But then you might have someone who they've decided to periodize and maybe they are periodizing repetitions and they're saying we're doing the same load but we're adding one repetition each week or maybe they have like there's depending on what variable you decide to try to progress you might just be lucky and that's actually going to be beneficial for that person's actual progression. But if you pick the wrong variable like gion reserve you're just wasting half of those weeks. So yeah, I'm just thinking back to some of the periodized programs I've seen.

37:20 okay. Yeah, >> the point the point that I'm giving here is not so much that periodization is bad. I mean it is but what I'm trying to explain is that most of the confusion that we have today in the fitness industry about what progression means is because the terminology has come through two totally different pathways and has different you know if you like cultural settings and references and understandings and concepts behind it. So when people start talking about it they end up talking across each other.

37:53 This is why a lot of the time you've got a whole bunch of creators rightly making the case for progression being an output as in a a feedback like information source from the strength training program which is what we would think of it as as in you know are you getting stronger great that's progressive overload happening you know whereas you got a whole lot of other people going no progressive overload you it means that you have to add more into your program over time and I'm like no that's coming from the block periodization community which is fundamentally wrong it doesn't make any sense?

38:25 >> Yeah, it's it's interesting to to wonder when that change because you know, for example, I've seen videos of of Mike Mensah where he'll talk about the the thing that causes the progress will be say, you know, that that final repetition because you're doing something you've not done before. So, you need to get an extra rep you haven't done before. Otherwise, your body's not going to be forced to adapt. >> Yeah. You see, cuz that's just not true.

38:54 >> That's not how hypertrophy works. >> And so we're seeing terminology like or you know narratives like that coming up in the golden era. But then I don't see much of that in the silver era. In the silver era it's you lift you know generally they would talk about you know not lifting on the nerve or however they talked about it. So you're not going too fairly. You're going to the point of congestion they would say. So are basically it sounds to me like they're talking about one rep in reserve and then you try to add as you know load as you can as you realize that you can lift heavier and it's just more intuitive like can you lift heavier lift heavier can you lift heavier again this week lift heavier and sometimes you know we've talked about Heburn and and Bob Hoffman had a similar kind of model where and funnily enough he called it the double progressive method which is every second workout see if you can add a repetition right not what we would call a double progression method and terminology ology gets confusing. But you know some yeah sure sometimes these people would say oh this is probably how fast one can adapt. But they weren't talking about it in the sense of well if you don't add this rep you haven't grown from that workout. So there's clearly been this shift in understanding belief whatever that's happened 70s 80s.

40:02 >> Yeah. I mean like the skeptical amongst us might kind of say well you know at the point where anabolic steroids came in and made it impossible to tell what was going on people just started making stuff up. I mean, that's kind of how I would skeptically >> potentially they they were getting stronger every session and say, >> "Yeah." So, but anyway, all I wanted to do was to kind of just add on that little bit of historical kind of perspective because I don't think anything about progression, any conversation about progression is going to make any sense to anybody unless they understand that the >> the history has given us these two totally different kind of starting points. Yeah. And if you've got somebody who's talking to you and they're talking from this perspective of periodization thinking and you're talking about it from like a well are you getting stronger? Well, that's that's what is going to allow you to kind of display peripheral. If you're thinking about it as an output and they're thinking about it as an input, then neither of you going to be able to actually connect in the conversation that you're having. And that's I think what is happening most of the time on social media. You just got one group of people talking about it from this perspective, the other group people talking about from a different different perspective and nobody's actually able to understand what the other group are saying.

41:20 >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But we would say, well, okay, what is you know, what is progressive overload? Well, progressive overload is a horrible terminology because ultimately, you know, it really plays into the block periodization kind of ideas. it it really just means am I getting stronger? Am I able to lift, you know, either a slightly heavier weight or do more repetitions with the same weight as I did last time? Now, now somebody who's being really picky could say, well, you know, does it also mean that maybe I can you leave, you know, shorter rest periods or does it also mean can I use a slightly larger range of motion or I mean fine, okay, you can stretch the definition a little bit to include those things if you, you know, really wanted to. But generally speaking, in the context practically of most strength training programs, it really just means can I do more reps you know to failure or with the same proximity to failure or can I lift a heavier weight really?

42:16 >> I mean the simplest way to think about it is did I have to get stronger to be able to do this? >> Yes. Exactly. Exactly. That's the best way of actually having an umbrella term across the whole thing. So okay with that as our framework did we get stronger to achieve this thing? What does where does that land us? >> What it means is that an adaption had to have happened in order for us to be able to achieve those new numbers. So, one of the strength related adaptions, not actually in this context, not strictly just strength related adaptions, but if you're working in a rep range that's above like three, well, maybe five, then you also potentially got a little bit of muscular endurance. Now, it starts off being really a little bit. I mean like if you look at the kind of adaptions in terms of muscular endurance that happen across rep ranges one to five you're not really seeing any kind of improvements in muscular endurance as a result of heavy strength training. as you get above that and towards 10 yes you start to see a little bit but honestly it's not very much. when you clear 15 yeah it's pretty meaningful.

43:26 so yeah, if you're working in 5 to 10, you might see a little bit of muscular endurance related adaptions starting to help you as well. So it's not pure maximum strength, there's also a little bit of relative muscular endurance in there as well. so ultimately if we kind of just work on the basis of maximum strength, obviously you've got your coordination improvements, you've got coation reductions, which is more or less the same thing as coordination improvements.

43:52 We got mot increases and then on the peripheral side we've got hypertroenses lateral force transmission and maybe a little bit of tenon stiffness. Honestly, if we look at the kind of sort of strength training programs over time, if we're starting a new training program and we're doing exercises that we're not familiar with, basically you're going to see just gigantic improvements in coordination and and the accompanying reductions in co-activation. I mean, that's just going to happen. if we're not doing that, if we're doing exercises we're very familiar with, then we're not really going to see much of a change on that particular score. Obviously peripheral side, you know, circum is only really going to happen if we're kind of, you know, relatively that's a relatively novel stimulus to us.

44:37 lateral force transmission we don't really know very much about. so broadly speaking, tennis stiffness tends to plateau. So most of the time we're really kind of seeing hypertrophy as the main driver of you know kind of strength gains in well-trained people who are familiar with the exercises. Now does that mean you're not getting any of the other stuff if you're well trained? Well no it doesn't. You're still going to get a little bit of that kind of thing, but we are going to see that relatively speaking, hypertrophy is going to be a pretty big component of the strength gains of most people most of the time in routines that they are relatively familiar with. Now, interestingly, what most people tend to do when they've been doing a routine for a couple of months and they start to see that their gains and strength are really grindy, they start to go, "Oh, I need to do something different." And I'm like, no, you're just having it revealed to you precisely how fast hypertropy is contributing to your strength gains.

45:34 That's what's happening. >> That's really important point. And that's that's something I always try to to sort of drive home with clients. When people have come from a background where they've been changing plans every four weeks, doing new exercises every few weeks, and they're expecting to be progressing, you know, often, you know, adding 5 kilos or 10 kilos a week to a lift because it's a new lift for them. And then they get four, five, six weeks in and they start to see that slow down.

46:00 They start to think that that's them plateauing and like, okay, I need a new lift. I need a new exercise. I need a new phase. And the way I explain that to clients is no, actually, what's happening now is is now we're actually just seeing the hypertrophy. And yes, is like you said, there's going to be some of these other bits and pieces that are still coming along, but most of it now is actually be going to be due to adding contractile proteins as opposed to all these neural adaptions, coordination, etc. you were getting previously. Which is why, you know, we've talked about this in the past. If you're if you're programming new phases, sure there can be, you know, maybe repetitions might change, exercise might change, you might do some unilateral stuff, whatever. But by and large, the core exercise selection should really stay consistent across phases unless like, you know, why do you need to change it out? Okay, there's a better exercise you've identified. you want to split that that sort of muscle and then focus on different regions or maybe that exercise is hurting you but just changing it out because you're now progressing at a slower rate that's really where the magic is happening.

47:03 >> Yeah, absolutely. I mean ultimately you know that is a really really critical point that I think practically is very helpful to take on board that when we start to see an exercise progressing very very slowly because we've been doing it for a number of months absolutely is the time to you know be super clear about the fact that the rate of gains on strength on that exercise are slow because pretty much all of the strength gains are coming from hypertrophy and we've just got to let the rate of progress be what it is. And that's just such a great kind of encapsulation of what progressive overload really is, which is that it is a feedback to us about the success of adaptions happening in the context of the train program. Now I'm I'm saying adaptions because it is adaptions. It is all of the adaptions.

47:58 and therefore the rate of progress will be faster when there are more adaptions happening as in when we're unfamiliar with the exercise or we've got you know kind of capacity to increase recruitment or psychoagenesis or whatever it may be. You are going to see faster rate of progress because you are getting more individual adaptions. As you get fewer and fewer adaptions you will see a slower rate of progress. Doesn't mean that hypertrophy is happening at a different rate.

48:20 Hypertrophy is probably happening at the same rate all the way through. It's just that you were getting other adaptions earlier that you're now not getting later on. So progressive overload is the feedback that you are achieving some adaptions and the larger the rate of progressive overload, the rate of progress the more adaptions likely are actually occurring. and of course you know just because the rate of progress is slow probably just means that we're just getting hypertrophy towards the end of that you know kind of time spent training with that particular exercise.

48:55 So someone's not progressing, you can't just force that progression. Yeah, I think that's a key distinction to make here because the way people talk about progressive overload, they're like, well, you're not progressing because you haven't got enough volume. You just need to add more volume that'll get you to progress or you're not progressing because you haven't planned the progression in the way you sort of talked about earlier. And what you're saying is, well, no, no, no. you're not progressing because the program itself obviously has missed the mark in terms of the stimulus and the variables in recovery and whatever else. And that's what we need to be focusing on, not just saying, well, you know, we we need to just undulate volume or we need to undulate intensity or or whatever. Yeah.

49:36 >> So, this is a really important point. I mean, this might end up being a separate podcast topic to be honest. but I mean what we can say you know to begin with what we can say is that as I've said before stimulus is not really volume dependent. So what I mean by that is that if I do a single repetition of an exercise and it qualifies as a stimulating repetition. So let's say I've got a five rep at max and I do a single repetition and that h that is you has a high level of motion recruitment and it has a slow movement velocity leading to high level mechanical tension and I don't have any fatigue mechanisms present or very much fatigue present. So I'm I'm definitely getting my high levels of recruitment with my high level of effort. I'm definitely getting my high level of tension with my slow movement velocity that has accomplished a stimulus for hypertrophy. If I then do another repetition or several repetitions you know 48 hours later and then again 48 eight hours later and I'm avoiding any opportunity for atrophy to occur and I'm continuing to add the stimulus then I will end up adding muscle mass over time. There is no scenario where doing insufficient volume is going to be an issue there. I mean, okay, fine. If you're doing single reps, like, you know, kind of every other day, then it might take you 6 months to notice anything meaningful happening. But, you know, like if you're doing just a single set and you're getting five stimulating reps or you're doing maybe just one rip reserve or whatever, there is no scenario in which that is failing to achieve hypertrophy as long as my criteria for hypertrophy are being met. So if somebody is out there arguing that somehow that routine is failing because not enough volume is being done and that someone needs to go in and do two sets or three sets or four sets instead of a single set. I just fundamentally disagree with them because qualitatively you know the stimuli criteria are being met. Therefore hypertrophy will happen.

51:55 yes, if you do a little bit more volume, you will increase the magnitude of that stimulus and so you'll make progress very slightly faster, but you know, it's not linear. Your second set is going to give you probably 40% of your first set on top of what you're getting, which is not a huge amount more. and it's costing you in terms of fatigue, so it's going to affect the other stuff that you're doing. So genuinely speaking, I think it's fundamentally not really valid to say, "Oh, well, you're not pro you're not progressing on one set three times a week, therefore you should do two sets or three sets." I'm like, "No, if you're not progressing on one set three times a week, then either it's just that your progress is slow or that you've actually capped out and you need to fundamentally change the exercise that you're doing by increasing the capacity of motion. So you either need to, you know, kind of move the exercise earlier in the workout or you need to do single kind of limb, single joint stuff to try and get access to more motion recruitment or you need to do something that actually increases recruitment as an adaption. So maybe think about doing some isometrics before you even start the workout just like as a warm-up protocol to try and push motin recruitment to a higher level as an adaption. But simply just doing more volume is okay. You're going to move very slightly faster, but it's not qualitatively changing. I'm just what I want to be really clear about is that yes, you are quantitatively moving slightly faster, but you're not qualitatively changing anything. So, you know, if you were to say, well, you know, you're not progressing on this one set three times a week, therefore do three sets and you will progress. No, that's not valid. And what you what you can argue is you're progressing very slowly on one set three times a week.

53:35 And I think you could progress faster on two or three sets three times a week. Totally acceptable argument. What is not acceptable as an argument is to say one set is not creating a stimulus and three sets will create a stimulus. That is fundamentally so physiologically flawed is actually getting me quite worked up to even think about it. You know, it is not a valid statement. It is not a valid statement. It's not even an argument. I don't know how people can make that argument.

54:01 So I think that's really important because what you said there is if the requirements for hypertrophy are being met then like we need to identify that first and foremost right so I made this point a few weeks ago where I said I think people are are putting too much emphasis on progressive overload because to your point if if we know that the program is meeting those requirements we don't need to get that caught up in the progressive overload it's there as a limus test to see is the program actually working or not but if the requirements are there Why would the program not be working?

54:31 Right? So then ultimately what we've got is an issue of expectation. Yeah. So if we know the requirements are all met for hypertrophy to be achieved, then what we've got is is someone expecting to progress quicker than they actually are able to. And that's what you said there where you said, "Okay, maybe adding more volume might get someone progressing more quickly than they would be otherwise, but they are still hypertrophying." >> It does not change whether or not they will, unless they're doing a really silly program. Okay, fine. If somebody's training like, you know, body part split and doing one workout a week, then yes, at that point, the number of sets per workout does change whether or not they'll make progress because if they do three sets, they're just going to basically stay stunning. If they do five, then okay, they'll make a little bit of progress. but fundamentally, if they're training two or three times a week, then the number of sets does not determine whether or not they make progress. All it does is slightly change the rate of that progress. so yeah, I think basically as you say, what we want to do is say, well, look, is the program, you know, going to work? Is it actually physiologically plausible? in which case let it run for a couple of weeks and yeah look for a strength gain over a longer period of time and if it's there then yeah the program is working it's just happening slowly. So chances are not that you're gaining muscle mass really slowly actually it's that you're just not getting any other adaptions. I think this is a really important point.

56:01 People go oh I'm I'm not making I'm not gaining any muscle mass because I'm making strength gains really slowly. I'm like probably nothing to do with that. It's probably you're not getting any other adaptions at all. So actually your rate of hypertrophy could be the same as it was when you were making super fast strength gains and you were getting really excited. When you're getting really excited it was just coordination. >> Yeah. So the reality is your excitement is not a good metric for whether or not your muscle mass rate of progress is actually you know kind of good or bad.

56:31 >> Yeah. And if you to think about how much muscle are you actually growing realistically are you expecting that to translate to you know kilos and kilos on the bar every week? Well, obviously obviously not if we're talking about grams of of contractile tissue being being added. So the way I see it is progressive overload is just confirmation that the program is working and progressive models are just expectation management. Does that check out? well I think it so in the context of the Heepburn model that you introduced earlier yes I think that's completely fair to call Heburn model an expectation management tool. I think it is more than that. I think it is a very strong guideline for keeping people within a sort of set and rep and rep in reserve protocol because the reps in reserve and heburn are changing all the time and that's the genius of it.

57:28 That's the thing when you really sit down and start playing with it, you realize that your reps in reserve are moving and they're moving in a quite a subtle way constantly where you're kind of ending up brushing up against failure right at the very end, but you're not really getting there. And that just seems to hover around about the same kind of place all the time, which is the genius part. And that's where it's it's not only expectation management. It's actually kind of adaption prediction because it is literally predicting that your adaptions will take you to a certain point and leave you with reps and reserve at that particular point at that point in your kind of progress in the cycle. So it is it's both expectation management. also adaption prediction which is the bit that people think they can do with block periodization models and they can't because they're not at the level that Heburn was at and they're not really kind of limiting themselves to what he limited himself to. I mean he limited himself as I said before to a very very tiny kind of you know repet kind of protocol and it works whereas you know people with you know a fraction of his experience and understanding and and capacity are trying to do far more complex things and it's just not really working at all.

58:43 but what we can say is then yeah a a progression model is potentially an expectation management tool. but also it could be a framework you know because headburns is both of those things. It it's a framework that sits around what you're doing and it limits you and says you can't do in Heburn eight sets of two rising three you can't do anything other than eight sets and you can't do anything other than two or three repetitions. I mean that's that's kind of your limitations.

59:14 >> So it's a framework and it's an expectations management tool. If you kind of take the classic kind of way that most people today are programming bodybuilding kind of set protocols, they're going to do the same number of sets most of the time. Okay, you've got some crazy people doing, you know, kind of all kinds of weird things, but you know, like fine. Most people most of the time are doing the same number of sets per per workout, per exercise. and you know they're going to do sort of a rep range and when they get to the upper end of that rep range they're going to you know switch the weight up and they're going to start again at the bottom end of the rep range. and that's kind of what we saw actually today with the program that you introduced us to where you've got five to 10 repetitions.

60:01 and the idea being that you would start at five and then you would sort of increase up towards 10 and then you would add the weight and drop down back towards five again. And then we made the point that practically speaking that could be a little bit more malleable. Now actually if the equipment that you've got means that when you get to the upper end of that rep range you then switch to the next weight up and actually it drops you a little bit below your target starting point. Okay. Well then you know that's just what the equipment is forcing you to do. So instead of it being 5 to 10, it might be 4 to 11. And that's that's just because that's the dumbbells that you've got access to or that's the selectorized machine that you want access to and that's just pushing you in that particular direction. Now technically somebody could say well I just want to progress load and you can say well you're going to have a really really difficult time with that unless you've got like sort of really clever setup in your equipment. You got micro loading capacities and then technically yes you could stick around five or six reps all the time and you could microl load and make sure that you're always capable of doing that. Yeah. Not many people are going to do that though. similarly, you could also kind of say, well, I'm just going to carry on increasing repetitions forever. Well, you're going to run into fatigue issues by doing that because the higher up the rep range you go, the more you're going to start finding that you can't do as many you know, kind of other things in the workout, you can't do very you can't keep with your same kind of frequency protocols. if you kind of bump up against the top end of that rep range. So, broadly speaking, you're probably always going to have to have what I guess some people call double progression, which is, you know, I mean, it gets used, as you pointed out, in multiple different ways, different people at different times, but you could argue in this context, it just means, you know, I'm working with a weight progression and a rep range progression.

61:40 and I'm just going to manage those so I stay in this rep range all the time and just allow weights to increase over time. And the thing is that in the context of what a lot of people are doing, that process is just happening on its own. So we just go to the gym and we just lift a failure and we just write down where we get to or we got to or where we are getting to or whatever. And it's like, okay, well this time I didn't make any progress. Okay, well I write down that I didn't make any progress.

62:07 Next time I don't make any progress. Okay, well I write that down again. And the third time, okay, now I'm I'm adding repetition. Okay, great. Fantastic. And then it just kind of happens gradually over time. And then we just notice over a long period of time that progression is happening. And the wording progressive overload is is I say really distracting because it it sounds like we should be doing something proactive. But it's not really the case.

62:28 It's just telling us that we are progressing over time. And it's a totally valid way of of of of you know making progress and and you know verifying that the strength training program is is working. equally you could do exactly the same thing and you leave one rep in reserve all the time. you know that is doable. You just have to be very clear with yourself about what one rep in reserve feels like and then literally you are you know and that sounds like what a lot of silver era lifters were actually doing just leaving that last rep in reserve and just doing the exact same program. So it doesn't have to be trained to failure to work in exactly the same way. So I think that probably is the most practical answer for most people most time either two failure or one rep reserve within a rep range of you know and I like 5 to 8 5 to 10 5 to 7 whatever you want to do but again I think it works with you know a larger number of rep ranges than that.

63:21 >> Yeah. Good. So practically speaking easy. So you just you add a repetition as able to. That could be once a week. You know, some ways I like to do that. For beginners, I often say, "Look, every workout, you're probably going to add a repetition to each exercise and each set of that exercise." And then for someone who's intermediate, well, it might be that we're adding a a repetition to one set each workout. And then someone who's advanced, it might be we're trying to add one repetition to one set for that exercise per week. Obviously, if you're doing multiple sets compared to single sets, if you're doing an AB split, you know, that's going to differ a little bit, but just as a a bit of a rule of thumb, obviously beginners are going to be progressing a lot quicker than an intermediate, intermediate quicker than an advanced. So, you're saying, okay, there's added repetition, we get to the top of that rep range. And what I think is an a helpful practical point, and you've alluded to this, is this stuff is going to be based on the exercise. It's based on the equipment. So I might program people 5 to 10 and say look you know we're going to do whatever exercise we'll do every exercise 5 to 10. And I say you may find for the exercise you're doing some exercises may have smaller loading increments and you may just feel better going between 5 to 7 totally fine. Other exercises maybe you go down to five. the machine doesn't just doesn't feel good or maybe it's got you know larger loading increments and so maybe you need to go from 6 to 10 or you go from 5 to 10. I don't really mind. Yeah, we're giving I would give people a window there where hey this needs to suit you and it needs to suit the exercise and it needs to suit the machine or the equipment you've got access to and then you get to the top of that range whatever that is for you. You add a little bit of load and you come back down. Now there's two ways to do that. I mean really there's one way to do that isn't there is you add the smallest increment of load that you can right now typically I would say to someone ideally I want that to be about a percent per repetition we're coming down so you've gone from five to 10 okay we're going to go back from 10 down to five just like what we saw at the start of this program and I want you to add f about 5% total load because we're we're going down five repetitions. Now, what I find with people is that 5% load or that 1% per repetition we're dropping it should be it should be manageable for basically everyone. Everyone should be able to do that and find you know what I've gone to five and I feel like I've actually got a repetition reserve now.

65:45 Okay. So, I'm erring on on more of like a conservative side with that loading parameter and it again it allows me not to overshoot. Someone dropped down to five like I can't lift the load. I feel demotivated. Whatever. And worst case scenario, okay, we're two reps in reserve. we're getting slightly less stimulus for that one week. Well, it doesn't matter cuz next week we're upping it again. We're going to six. So, that's a really practical way of of doing that. That double progression method like you said there. You mentioned it's hard sometimes to just add load. I find if I'm using very low repetitions with people like sub five.

66:17 My preference is to try to microlo and to try to go let's add a the smallest increment of load we can, ideally fractional plates each workout, each week. And if that's too much, so you know, ideally we'll do something like a headburn method. We have multiple sets. We're adding cuz usually if we're doing less than five reps, we'll have multiple sets anyway. Let's be realistic. So then I'll say, let's add the smallest amount of load possible to one of those sets per workout per week. And if that is still too fast of a progression, then I'll normally just go between one repetition, just like Heburn did. I'll go from five to six or from four to five and then back down. So I find that the higher repetitions or I guess maybe the way to think about it the lower repetitions we've got it's it's more viable to just be relying on load and if we're using mortage repetitions but really we're going to have to be using a repetition scheme there as well as just progressing loading.

67:13 >> Yeah, totally. I mean, but I I would kind of, I would still want to frame that in the context that the the limiting factor in each workout really wants to be the either point of failure or the one rep in reserve or two reps in reserve or whatever reps in reserve the person is going to do. and then you're just getting feedback from the kind of loading protocols. I mean, you're refining your kind of loading protocols to kind of land people in a particular kind of rep range.

67:51 That's all you're doing. That's the sort of the the science behind what you're kind of sort of doing there. which is which is cool because I mean that it's a management of expectations and a management of of motivation as we've already pointed out which is great but it's not 100% necessary. You know, you could just go with the flow of what the equipment gives you. As I've said, kind of just I get stuck in whatever kind of commercial gym I'm in. And the selectorized machine is whatever it is.

68:18 And I kind of do a kind of a week or two with a particular load and then like I put the weight up and I just see how many reps I get >> and it is what it is. And that's okay, you know, >> and especially if it's single sets that like that's for my own training, that's what I do is single sets. Yeah, >> if I'm doing again, you know, say three sets of four to five repetitions, I'll be a little bit more strategic in managing my expectation without loading, but you know, I it's not popular, but like you know, I said this before, I think progressive overload is overrated.

68:51 I really think this idea of like beat the log book and it's been drilled into people and I understand why and understand it was important but I feel like we've gone too far and I feel like now it actually it causes anxiety in people and it it's it's now become a master and it's like well it was there all along just to serve us to show us that in fact we are progressing on a workout. We just need to be able to look back and show are we progressing you know from four weeks ago or two months ago or whatever.

69:19 >> Exactly. And this idea that we need to be beating the log book every single session, it's just not realistic. And and you know, you see this with with a lot of the silver era guys. How often will you look at a magazine or something and they'll be like, "Oh, this person, you know, Steve would incline bench, you know, 10 repetitions of whatever 135 lb dumbbells or whatever, and you look at it, it's like, how often was he doing that?" For this to be recorded for you, for everyone to know this is the weight this guy does for incline bench. What was he doing that for 2 years? you know, like how slow was this guy's progress?

69:51 And we knew that's what he lifted. And the idea now that you need to progress every lift every week, aim to do it, sure. But if you're an advanced lifter, I mean, you know, we've touched on this in the past, is at a certain point, maybe some of those lifts are there just to maintain what you've got and you're not actually going to progress them. >> Yeah, absolutely. And I have talked to people in the past who've who've made the same point to me in their own training that are like, I'm really not seeing any growth on this exercise. I'm just doing it because because if I don't then I shall lose the muscle mass that I've built.

70:22 >> Exactly. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. Drop it down to a single set. Do it twice a week. >> That's just how it is. but yeah, I mean I think the the the the key point here, the physiological reality is that the the improvement is a feedback mechanism to tell you that an adaption is happening. And if it's a exercise that you're very familiar with, then that should be mostly hypertrophy. in an advanced sort of muscle. again, advanced lifter is kind of a bit of an emotive term, but if the muscle is kind of at a very very well-developed state, then you know, you're not going to really see a very very fast rate of progress. And so it is going to be, you know, probably every kind of three or four workouts at best where you're going to see reps increasing or the load increasing. you know, but fundamentally that's just how fast the muscle gains are going to be. and there's not really anything we can do about that. Well, not to remain a natural lifter anyway.

71:26 >> So is there anything else practically speaking that's a helpful tip for people to know? I think it's helpful to people to know you're not going to always progress every single workout. If you are, it's probably cuz you're doing new exercises and that's not actually helping you in the way you think it's helping you. So, that's helpful. We've talked about here's a progressive model you can use. Double progression. Add a rep. When you get to the top of whatever range you're using, add some load, come back down, go again. We've talked about the fact that, hey, progressive overload is just there over time to show you what you're doing is working. It's not dictating your workout. It's not pulling forwards, adapt. It's not causing the muscle growth. It's just feedback. Is there anything else that would be helpful for people to know? You've mentioned like, you know, going to that zero reperve or one rep reserve being that sort of litmus test for working out your loading and whatnot. And you know, honestly, that's probably one of the most important points here is again if the parameters make sense, you're not doing stupid amounts of volume. You're not doing a frequency that doesn't make sense. If you are going to zero reps in reserve, one rep in reserve, two reps in reserve, and it truly is, then that adaption has to be happening really or you've maxed out your size potential, right? I think that's probably one of the most practical pieces here is a lot of these progression models we're talking about. Yes, a the managing expectation, but b they're also trying to keep people accountable to training close enough to failure. And as long as you're aware of that and you're aware, hey, you're not going to progress. If you are four reps in reserve, five reps in reserve, six, like you just let that float away and you use the same load, sure, you're not going to progress because you have gotten stronger and you haven't added the load over time and now you are five reps in reserve. So, as long as you're aware of that and you are taking yourself to a close proximity to failure, then all this other stuff, like I said, it's just feedback over time.

73:15 any any other practical points for people? >> honestly I think I just reiterate what I said at the beginning which is that if your interest in progressive overload and progress is more on the academic side and you're trying to understand you know what it is that people are talking about when they're talking about progress and progressive overload and what it means and how it connects to adaptions. Just be aware that there are these two totally different usages or descriptions or kind of ways of talking about it which have come from two totally different places in the kind of strength training you know historical context.

73:59 And so you will find that if you read certain sources or listen to certain people talk you will be getting either the kind of the block periodization culture if you like which I just fundamentally don't think is describing what's going on correctly or alternatively you'll be getting this kind of more adaption physiological kind of description of what is happening in terms of progressive overload which is a feedback which is what we're talking about. so you know, if you are interested in this area and you're reading and you're listening to people talk about it, that kind of thing, just be aware that that is happening. and that'll help you sort of make sense of the ways that people are talking about it, why there are these discre disagreements and and discrepancies. but yeah, from practical point of view, you know, most of the time I think most people are just going to be able to start working with an exercise try and work within a given rep range and modify it as they go along by simply noticing what rep range they land on when they put the weight up. So if I go >> It's pretty basic, isn't it?

75:04 >> Yeah. If I go like I've just started working out in the new gym a week and a half ago and there's a really really nice seated row machine which has a wonderful action, one of the best actions I've come across in seated rows for a very long time. So I really like it and it has it's selectorized and so I just put the kind of selector in on a weight and I got like sort of six or seven reps I forget. and then I pushed that up to eight and I thought well I'll put it up a little bit more.

75:32 put it up the next one and whatever reps I got is what the reps I got and then I shall now work in like the 5 to9 or 5 to8 whatever it is that I've discovered is appropriate for that situation and it might actually change over time you know it might find that as I get stronger on that machine it just tweaks slightly because some adaptions the coordination stuff is stopping happening and it might affect the way that I'm working in that range I don't know but I'm not stressing about it I'm just going to work with what the machine gives me facelifting gets this bad for over complicating things. And this is so simple. We're making this as simple as possible. I don't know if if you've ever used like the old Nordless equipment. So the ones before they were like thisized stuff that had like the it was this weird double prong that would go in. It was I didn't I have no idea why they did it like that. And so you'll have like each weight plate will have a hole and then you got this pin you go in that's got two holes or two pins to go into holes and you just have no idea what weight you're using, right? Like I I can't work out for the life of me and the plates are barely numbered as it is. And that has been a very useful tool in losing that emotional attachment to having to have this per like perfected progressive kind of model where I just I don't know it was it one up one down I don't know.

76:48 I just put it in and I go to zero eruption reserve and I got six reps out. Great. It doesn't it doesn't matter that much, does it? >> Well, that's that's the thing I think. you know, if if we are well, I mean, just just being a bit kind of kind of clear there. I mean again assuming that we're talking about single sets to failure. I mean things can get messy if we've got fatigue present from a previous set or a previous exercise with the same muscle group.

77:19 you know, yeah, broadly speaking, you know, if I'm going to use the you know, the seated row machine and I've just done a press before that and I do the press, then I, you know, it takes me actually because of the size of the gym I'm working in, the different floors I have to walk up, I have to walk up, you know, different floor and a mezzanine and across the way to get to the row machine that I want to use, threading my way through all these different pieces of kit. and get the the C to roast it down and do a W and then then start and then it's like okay well I did that number of I did that weight last time that's that that pin there and then put the pin up okay and then I just get what reps I get and it's okay well then that just goes in the log book and then just do it again do it again do it again over the next couple of weeks and see what happens and I think I think there's definitely a tendency to for people to overthink and get like sort of emotionally disturbed by either the lack of progress or whether or not they're doing it correctly or anything like that. And it's like you're you're you're you're just recording feedback. It's like how strong are you on the day? Fine. It goes in the log book of of the as a piece of information and then just look at the trends over time. I don't think people sort of are going to benefit sort of psychologically from trying to force themselves to hit you know you know sort of a new no strength goal every single time they go in the gym as a natural lifter. I don't think that's a good idea.

78:51 you know, I think it's better to treat it as feedback and, you know, just do the best you can on each day. >> Yeah. And you'll just see form and technique will start to break down if if one tries to do that. >> Yeah. That is that is definitely the risk. >> Yeah. Yeah. it's so funny to think that people would think that a set done near failure might not cause adaptions just because you didn't. >> Well, that's the same thing really as I mean like ultimately that's the intensities sort of argument where the volume argument is being made. So, like you made the the comment about Mike Mensah kind of sort of talking about needing to do an extra rep or hit failure or whatever in order to trigger the Well, that's really just the intensity kind of view of what the volume guys are arguing, which is that unless you do more volume, you're not really going to trigger. I mean, both of them are talking nonsense. It's like is the repetition stimulating or not? If it is stimulating, then qualitatively you have stimulated the adaption.

79:56 quantitatively it might be quite small but qualitatively you cannot say that the adaption hasn't happened you know and I think this is where physiologically sort of starting physiologically and trying to understand how things are actually being stated is really really important because it stops you making these ridiculously absurd claims like unless your you know intensity is off the charts then nothing's going to happen unless your volume is off the charts nothing's going to happen and it's you can't do that from external parameters you can't do that with volume and and you know sort of intensity and things like that. It's got to come from you know what is the physiological reality. if stimulating rep has happened then hypertro has been stimulated. End of story.

80:37 >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Okay. I think that's it for us. I've I've battled noisy birds construction site today. You >> Yeah. So hopefully you guys were less distracted than I was. We'll be back next week. I mean, that's that's my reward for our our one year and one week podcast episode, but we'll be back next week with a new topic. But just to quickly say, these topics that we've been doing lately have been topics you guys have been asking for.

81:08 And so they've, you know, they've been selected from questions you guys have asked either myself or Chris and you said, "Hey, we want to know more about this or I don't understand this topic." That's helpful. You know, we want to we want this stuff to be valuable to you guys. So, keep doing that. Keep letting us know what kind of stuff you're interested in, what topics you feel like there's maybe some ambiguity over. If it's a topic we've covered in the past and maybe, you know, we haven't covered it in depth as much as you guys would find helpful, let us know.

81:35 Okay, that's it. Thank you guys for joining us. We'll be back next week.