Concurrent Strength Training & Running 2015: Eight-Week Workout Cycle II

i'm trying to think of a little framework in which to think about these tradeoffs between, say, "ultramarathon prowess" and "freakish strength". the model that comes to mind is that of the "production possibilities frontier".

however, my hunch is that the PPF actually looks more like the usual rounded one. or possibly it even bends around backward close to the axes meaning that the best strength performance does not occur by completely ignoring running, but requires a tiny bit of running. and, the other way at the other end of the curve.

of course, we'll never really know the shape of that thing without trying to map it out somehow. and, gathering the data (even on one's self) would be highly problematic. still, i think i can happily confuse my model for reality and say that it feels like it really makes sense that there is way more complementarity between these activities that we have been crediting them with (despite being hopelessly optimistic compared to the mainstream fitness propaganda).

my tiny datapoint that i submit in support of this hypothesis is that recently i have been doing more squats with more weight on more days as well as running more miles on more days (and this is on a 2-week timescale) and the result has been that i am running faster than ever. for example, yesterday, i thought i wasn't feeling that great due to sleep deprivation and running really fast the previous day, so i thought i would take it easy. then i looked down and my GPS and was running, uh, way fast: much faster than it felt like. so i decided to go for it and ran my second fastest mile ever as part of an overall pretty fast run.

maybe that's the genius behind training camps (not that i've ever been to one). not so much that you learn new tricks or eat fancy foods, but that you actually *do* something every day for the duration of the event. and strangely, if you have any aptitude or potential and do something repeatedly, there is a good chance that you get better at it. magic!

again, all these wonderful things are probably happening because i am far from the production possibilities frontier (and tailwinds and warm weather). but, they encourage me into thinking that the PPF is farther out and has more interesting mixes available than i previously thought.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. Can you draw me a picture or graph?
I think I get it overall, and I'm trying to think where I read a similar article about a decathlon training. Its very likely much more dependent on how many things you are focusing on as well.
So if you simply focus on running a mile and lifting I suspect you can get a lot further along that focusing on 10 different distances of running and lifting. If you know what I mean.

So now I have to ask you a question, how hard are your squats in general, and in comparison to your deadlift and how hard was the sub six mile? I'm wondering if maybe in the squat there is a sweet spot rate of perceived exertion that works really well with running, and vice versa?
 
Hey sorry I wasn't meaning that as a dig to your plan at all or that what you are doing is boring. Since I will likely just adopt a very similar thing.

No offense taken. Every plan has its pluses and minuses. One of the minuses of my current plan is the potential for boredom. If it's true that all novice and intermediate programs work, then the real criterion for choosing one over another is whether or not it suits one's personality, or time and energy. My current plan suits my personality, because I have a high tolerance for robotic repetition, but it wouldn't work for more of a Crossfit personality that seeks out new challenges in each workout. I think that Crossfit critics like Rippetoe miss this point. So what if it's not training steadily towards a single goal or set of goals. If it gets people to work out consistently, wherewas a 5x5 program would having them quitting from boredom after a month, then obviously the Crossfit program is the better one for that sort of person. Or, pursuing more of a Goldilocks principle, the plan you just outlined with a lot of lift variations could work quite well too, and yet lead just as steadily towards progress and strength gains as my plan. The advantage to sticking to the most conventional version of a lift is that I can control the dosages or percentages more precisely across varying rep-counts, and therefore it's a little easier to track progress. I'm highly motivated by PRs, even tiny advances, so this works well for me.

Mainly I feel like you are right in making me think about where my focus should be and lifting should be secondary. So having an excessively flexible plan with a few basic foci in the garage right now is probably the best course of action.

Yah, that seems right. Just shoot for maintenance or easy progress in the main lifts. The main focus should be on finishing Leadville in relatively good shape. In karate I used to train 4-5 hours a day, so I could lift weights, do the daily training sessions, spar, and work on technique all in the same afternoon. But we don't have that kind of time now, so progress will have to be much slower, and it's hard to get good at a lot of things at once.

I think ultimately the split plan like Wendler's is probably the quickest way to develop strength. However when you are on that plan you really need to focus every session to make sure the stimuli is adequate and then resting appropriately as you stated. It seems once you start sprinkling other stuff in the plan the ability of adding weight and reps becomes stunted and overall the effectiveness drops.

Yah, for me, the trouble with split plans is the relative inflexibility. If you miss Bench Day, for example, do you do it next time and mess up the weekly schedule, or do you wait until the following week, and leave a 14-day gap between training sessions? I don't know if you remember it, but I used to draw up flow charts to account for these contingencies, but they never really worked in practice. It's much easier just to do the same damn lifts every time and if you miss a day, there isn't much of a gap. You can simply skip whichever rep count you feel is the least important. For example, if I missed Monday's 5RM day, I could simply do it on Wednesday, skip the 8RM workout, and still get in the 3RM workout on Friday.

Which leads me back to the original plan, basically a variant of what you guys are running. I think this is where DJ's ideas become important as he is often working with people who are competing in something while trying to get stronger. I guess you could break it down to a few things:
Consistency - obvious
Easy - I think this is the most important, he states easy but I think I would look at it more like the common phrase "never miss a rep"
Progression - gradual small improvements over a realistic period of time, but also including progression from all formats
Comprehensive - the 6 movements basically
Do no harm - I think this one is important from a couple of different perspectives obviously from an injury standpoint, but also from a strength maintenance angle and intereference in other sports. The bare minimum should be no loss of strength with as little as possible interference.

That's a good list, and pretty much describes the logic underlying my current plan.

I guess all of this should essentially be my objective for each cycle. I think the last cycle I just simply overreached and was likely trying to push too many things at once?

Could be, only you can know for sure. Plus you have twice as many kids--that's lot of time and energy being used up right there. Under different circumstances, we would have one or two more too. Hanging out with the kids is by far my favorite part of the day.

Anyway Lee I think you are very cued into the progression standpoint and honestly if you take the next 8 month to roll through that I think you will be very successful especially with your built in corrections if you need them. Thanks for explaining it in a little more detail.

Yah, I'm very happy with it. It feels like I've finally found a way to cover all the bases that are important to me. The only problem right now is the Bench Press. As I detailed in today's log entry, I'm getting a little tired of it being so easy. I think maybe I'm being too rigid about tying it into the OH Press at a 3:2 ratio. I know I could probably be hitting new PRs right now, and with the Squat and OH Press becoming increasingly comfortable at the current rate of increases, I could probably deal with other elements of the workout becoming a bit more challenging. I could still keep the OH Press at a greater volume than the Bench Press--two extra sets for the 5RM day, and one extra set on the 8RM and 3RM days--so it might still catch up to a 2:3 ratio.

I also tried a 'stage' or descending sets protocol with the deadlifts yesterday, and that felt good, so I should probably be doing that more often too. Maybe I could do it whenever a lift load becomes an integer of five or 10, or something like that, to test the new 1RM PR.

BTW there are a couple points in this article that I read yesterday that I found interesting and related:
http://www.strengtheory.com/powerlifters-should-train-more-like-bodybuilders/

So, what can we take away from all of this?
•It’s undeniable that improved neural/motor learning factors will let you lift more via improved muscle activation, more efficient technique, better neuromuscular coordination (increased activation of synergist muscles and decreased activation of antagonist muscles) but…
•You can master a motor pattern over time with just about any training frequency, as has been demonstrated by elite strength athletes throughout time. Maybe increased training frequency will allow you to master a movement quicker, but if you’re planning on lifting for years and years, you’ll reach mastery regardless of training frequency (keep in mind, I’m talking about the relatively non-technical power lifts, not the more technical Olympic lifts).

So frequency of a lift doesn't matter in the long run, well for us if we are gonna keep doing this for years. I think this fits in with me rotating 3 lifts per movement.

Well frequency is tied to volume. If I do moderate daily volume (2-4 sets or 10-25 reps) 3x per week per lift, that becomes high volume on a weekly basis. If I do high volume (5-10 sets or 25 to 75 reps) once a week per lift, that also becomes high weekly volume. Nuckols and others have concluded that the key parameter is volume, but I don't know if it really matters if you get it with high frequency or low frequency, but a lot of people have argued that the high frequency approach works best for them. It all boils down to some kind of optimization of frequency, volume, and intensity. I take the stupid route and try to cover all three with my 5/8/3 rep-counts. I got the standard 3x5 or 5x5 protocol covered on Monday. On Wednesday, I'm doing more of a hypertrophy or dynamic effort protocol. On Friday, I'm doing intensity. So Frequency = 3x per week, Volume = moderate to high, Intensity = 1x per week. Is it the perfect ratio? Doubtful, but close enough for government work!

For muscle growth, volume is priority No. 1. There are two basic ways to go about accruing this volume:
  • Train “like a powerlifter” (heavy sets of 1-5, but more of them).
  • Train “like a bodybuilder” (mainly sets of 8-12)
The 3×10 workout only took 17 minutes, whereas the 7×3 workout took 70, and the subjects in the 3×10 group all wanted to train more, whereas the subjects in the 7×3 group were wrecked by the end of the study.

So if you can gain the same amount of muscle with ¼ the time in the gym, that probably means that, in the real world, the 3×10 group would have ended up gaining even more mass than the 7×3 group, because they had the desire and the ability to handle more volume than the study protocol allowed for.

I think this one is interesting simply because of his personal conclusion that the study participants spent less time in the gym (which is perfect for me). And they were not wrecked at the end of it. Which also is something I want right now to help intertwine my lifting and running. That leads me into thinking that adding higher rep lifts in each day might help keep the mental motivation up. I just need to focus on keeping the loads reasonable so I don't burnout.

I dunno, I'm always highly skeptical about those short studies, but Nuckols has a good critical eye. I'd also like to know what sort of loads they were using, and what their entire workouts looked like (no, I'm not going to look the study up). I would tend to think that after years of experimentation bodybuilders and powerlifters have probably come up with the right sort of training protocols for their goals. Of course, anything dealing with bodybuilders has to filter out the chemicals, and for powerlifters, we have to filter out both chemicals and those ridiculous suits they wear. Anyway, for me, the 8RM day is probably the hardest for me mentally. I couldn't do that more than once a week. Also, it leaves me just as sore if not sorer, so I don't know if it would be physically possible for me to do that three times a week. In the end, if you put all the training philosophies together, note how they all contradict each other, and then assume that it's impossible for anyone to be completely right or completely wrong, I think the only possible conclusion is that all protocols are beneficial, and we should probably try to work them all in somehow. Some do block periodization, but for me, a weekly wave or DUP seems to work best. I don't ever envision spending three weeks in intensity land, then three weeks in hypertrophy land, etc.

Here's nice article summarizing this approach: http://roughstrength.com/volume-intensity-frequency-relationship-strength-training/. Basically, it just says to learn the basic training concepts and then mess around until you come up with some that works for you, which is what we've concluded. But the key point is to educate oneself so that one's training choices are informed.

One thing I found interesting in that article was that powerlifting performance "was most strongly correlated to subscapularis thickness in all three lifts." After my workouts that's where I feel it the most. So hopefully that means I'm doing something right.

Alright now I am motivated I am going to take a run at that first day to see how it goes.
 
Yah, I'm very happy with it. It feels like I've finally found a way to cover all the bases that are important to me. The only problem right now is the Bench Press. As I detailed in today's log entry, I'm getting a little tired of it being so easy. I think maybe I'm being too rigid about tying it into the OH Press at a 3:2 ratio. I know I could probably be hitting new PRs right now, and with the Squat and OH Press becoming increasingly comfortable at the current rate of increases, I could probably deal with other elements of the workout becoming a bit more challenging.

I also tried a 'stage' or descending sets protocol with the deadlifts yesterday, and that felt good, so I should probably be doing that more often too. Maybe I could do it whenever a lift load becomes an integer of five or 10, or something like that, to test the new 1RM PR.

Yeah I just read that. Not sure what the best way to handle it is. I personally prefer to work the lifts at the level they are at and let the others catch up. The problem is if you do jump you will likely stall anyways so keep that in mind. You may also find eventually due to your anatomy that maybe the 3:1.8 ratio is more realistic but you won't really know this until your gains in both lifts begin to progress at an equal rate.

The press and bench have probably been the two most consistent lifts for me for a long time and 275/165 have been my rough max levels for a while which is right at that level. I think to get them to the 300/180 level it will be the same amount of work and time.

Thanks for the feedback, I am working in some of your thoughts to the plan. Especially the multi-volume schemes. It felt good today and I was able to blow through most of the workout quickly. I am also taking your dieting advice and am not going to worry about it anymore. I think cutting calories is the last thing I need to be doing now.

Yeah 4 kids is a bunch, I just hope they don't mind us dragging them all over for races! The older they are getting the easier things are getting though, except for the little one, whoi is becoming more difficult in his emerging toddler hood.
 
Yeah I just read that. Not sure what the best way to handle it is. I personally prefer to work the lifts at the level they are at and let the others catch up. The problem is if you do jump you will likely stall anyways so keep that in mind. You may also find eventually due to your anatomy that maybe the 3:1.8 ratio is more realistic but you won't really know this until your gains in both lifts begin to progress at an equal rate.

The press and bench have probably been the two most consistent lifts for me for a long time and 275/165 have been my rough max levels for a while which is right at that level. I think to get them to the 300/180 level it will be the same amount of work and time.

Thanks for the feedback, I am working in some of your thoughts to the plan. Especially the multi-volume schemes. It felt good today and I was able to blow through most of the workout quickly. I am also taking your dieting advice and am not going to worry about it anymore. I think cutting calories is the last thing I need to be doing now.

Yeah 4 kids is a bunch, I just hope they don't mind us dragging them all over for races! The older they are getting the easier things are getting though, except for the little one, whoi is becoming more difficult in his emerging toddler hood.
Thanks, that helps a lot. It's interesting you've found a similar ratio to be more or less natural. For me, I think it's mostly a matter of having overemphasized the bench press when I was younger, but it could be anatomy.

In any case, I think I've decided to bump up the Bench 1RM to 259, which is what it projects to with a 5RM of 220. Yesterday I did four and five reps at 224, so this seems like a good place to start, just a little on the easy side. Then I'll decouple the Bench progress from the Press progress and simply add one pound a week to the bench as well. Interestingly, even though the two methods lead to a 35-pound difference in my current 1RM Bench press, from 224 to 259, by the end of the year it's only a fifteen-pound difference, from 281 to 296, due to the different percentages a one-pound increase entails for the bench and press. That is, the Bench will now be progressing a slower rate of increase than the press, because one pound is a greater percentage of the press load. And by June of next year, if I somehow manage to maintain the same rate of progress for both lifts, the Press will have caught up to the Bench at a 2:3 ratio, 210lbs to 315lbs. So, in other words, all I'm really doing is allowing the Bench to reach a more realistic 1RM currently, but the OH Press still has a chance to get stronger relative to the Bench Press, especially since I'm handicapping the Bench with lower volume and ordering it later in the workout.

Like you say, I'll probably stall or slow progress in one or both of the lifts well before June of next year, but I'm feeling a little more comfortable delinking the lifts when I look at these projections. And if the current ratio is due to natural differences, so be it, it's not too far out of line with the ideal(ized) ratio of 2:3. On the other hand, if the difference is due to training history, then the Bench should stall out before the OH Press as I approach my genetic potential in both lifts by consistently training over a long period of time for the first time in my life.

At some point I may delink the deadlift and squat too, but right now it's still working pretty well to tie deadlift progress in with squat progress. If nothing else, it helps me comply with everyone's warnings not to overdo the deadlift.

Look forward to seeing how the new tweaks look in your plan.

Yah, dieting sucks, and anyway, a little body fat is healthy--being totally cut like a fitness model or bodybuilder is unhealthy and unsustainable without meticulous nutrition. For me, even 225 is probably OK. It's just a little frustrating that the renewed running hasn't started to make a difference yet, but I know it will eventually. Being thirty pounds overweight really stinks, and it would be nice to look a little more defined.

Yah, it's great when the kids start to get easy around 3-4. If I had started earlier and my wife had easier pregnancies, we'd definitely be popping out another one or two. My daughter just asked me to help out with her schools running club and to put monkey bars on our home playground, so I'm psyched to begin including them a bit more in my fitness routine. Maybe my wife will even jump on board eventually.
 
here is the traditional two-goods production situation with a single input for each. i am arguing without any basis whatsoever, that this is what we are looking at. or even that the value at zero-butter should be lower than points A and B. as in, at those very low levels, there is some complementarity between them (a tiny bit of running gives you the "endurance" to endure those heavy squat sets...). maybe we can try to have a silly analogy here: your children are screaming and you have a finitely sized toybox. you can make one child exceedingly happy by giving them all the toys, but then the other one is completely miserable. but, in the situation represented here, if you split the toys up evenly, say, both of them are more than half as happy as they would have been with all the toys. if we define a super-simple "social welfare function" as just adding up their "joy indices", we get more joy in the household by spreading the toys around rather than by concentrating them on the loudest screamer.
250px-PPF_opportunity_cost.svg.png


here is the pure/perfect substitution one. here, the children only care about how many toys they have. so if you split the toys up, they are each half as happy as they would have been with all the toys. our naive/simplified social welfare function here says that there's no free joy to be had. so, you (bare lee faints from revulsion to arbitrarily and self-servingly defined patriarchal cultural value judgements) maximize social welfare by allocating everything to the child who gets the most joy from the toys.
250px-PPF_opportunity_cost_straight.svg.png


this corner solution thing can be made even more ridiculous in the concave situation where any sharing is actively destructive and any mixed combination is clearly worse.
250px-PPF_opportunity_cost_inverted.svg.png


anyways, my baseless assertions are twofold:
1) we find ourselves closer to the origin of incompetence than the actual PPF
2) the real PPF is the bubbly looking one (leading to mixed strategies) rather than the pokey looking one (which leads to extreme specialization)

i presume you are thoroughly confused now. especially if the images fail to appear.
 
so, you (bare lee faints from revulsion to arbitrarily and self-servingly defined patriarchal cultural value judgements) .
Au contraire, I think by refusing to show a vertical bar path, and replacing it with these limpish alternatives, you are repressing the phallus as the ultimate arbiter of desire, condemning yourself to pursue unattainable optimizations of mother's love, forever trapped at an immature level of fitness.
 
decoupling it from the OH Press at a 3:2 ratio, and bringing it more in line with my projected 1RM

i thought that much of the point of the ratios was precisely to keep you from pulling a stunt like this and ripping your shoulder out? :) as in, if one lift is stronger than the others, you just let it coast along until the others catch up. that allows you to allocate some of the time/effort to building the weak ones. unless, of course, you want to specialize a little bit. i confess to continuing to try to build the pull-ups just because i think they're neat. what is the harm in letting your strong lifts stagnate a little while you work on the lesser ones? if our mystical experiences can be trusted, there are some prophetic words that hint that the "neglected" lifts may improve despite being ignored.

just trying to keep your future self consistent with what your past self said so that your present self can get you there....
 
if our mystical experiences can be trusted, there are some prophetic words that hint that the "neglected" lifts may improve despite being ignored.....

I don't know about this one, my experience has been use it or lose it, however lots of smarter people have said otherwise. But BA is right, you probably should consider the shoulder issue. I kind of forgot about that.

Thanks for the detailed explanation, that's what thought you were talking about. Now how do we limit the variables?
I also suspect that Rip would find squatting and running to fit the inverted graph.
 
i thought that much of the point of the ratios was precisely to keep you from pulling a stunt like this and ripping your shoulder out? :) as in, if one lift is stronger than the others, you just let it coast along until the others catch up. that allows you to allocate some of the time/effort to building the weak ones. unless, of course, you want to specialize a little bit. i confess to continuing to try to build the pull-ups just because i think they're neat. what is the harm in letting your strong lifts stagnate a little while you work on the lesser ones? if our mystical experiences can be trusted, there are some prophetic words that hint that the "neglected" lifts may improve despite being ignored.

just trying to keep your future self consistent with what your past self said so that your present self can get you there....
Thanks for your concern BA. It's also comforting to know that you find these ratios and related ideas interesting and worthwhile discussing. I often wonder if I'm not nerding out just a little bit too much here.

Anyway, there are a few things I should make clearer:

1) There is some variety of opinion among the rationalists about exactly what the right ratio is. Christian Thibaudeau's article on weightlifting numerology suggests a ratio closer to one like Abide's and my proposed changes, that the OH Press should be 60% of the Bench. This was also the ratio I started this cycle with, when I declared that the OH Press had caught up with the Bench. Then, in the second week, I realized Thibaudeau's ratio didn't conform to the Iron Ratio, so I decided to bring the Bench back down to a strict 3:2 ratio with the OH Press, which means the OH Press must become 66% of the Bench before it is considered caught up. I think Rip also suggested around 65%, but he didn't seem to think it needs to be real exact. In any case, I haven't done anything too radical, but rather simply gone back to the ratio I used in the beginning of this cycle.

2) Making the OH Press and Squat the weaker lifts to which the Bench and Deadlift, respectively, were linked served two different purposes. For the Squat-Deadlift link, I was using the Squat as a limiter on the Deadlift to prevent re-injury, but also to allocate more workout and recovery resources to the Squat, as you correctly note. For the OH Press-Bench Press link however, the rational was pretty much just to allocate more resources to the Press in order to speed up its development vis-a-vis the Bench. There was also some speculation on my part that the Squat and OH Press were 'balanced' lifts, and that the Deadlift and Bench Press were 'unbalanced' lifts, and therefore the former should always drive the development of the latter, but I don't think I suggested that this could only be accomplished via strict interpretation of the iron ratio 2:3:4:5. If I did, I take it back. I think greater volume could do the trick. And anyway, I'm not completely convinced of the balanced versus unbalanced lift hypothesis, although it does seem reasonable to me most of the time. There's just something about the Squat and OH Press that seems more foundational to me, just as a Chin-up seems more foundational that a Row for some reason.

3) So the left shoulder/bench press issue was never really part of the whole ratio business, whether or not the bench press is 150% (what I was doing last week) or 166% (what I was doing at the beginning of this cycle) of the OH Press. The shoulder issue was never really associated with load in general, and its solution has been (a) greater balance, in terms of volume, with the upper body pulls and the press, (b) improved technique, and (c) self massage and stretching when it gets sore anyway. In fact, I still experience a little soreness in the left shoulder after benching. I can usually just ignore it and it goes away by the time of the next workout, but once in a while I need to dig in my fingers and massage the trigger points. So it's completely different from the sacro-iliac/pulled muscle issue, which was an acute injury that I really want to avoid provoking again. The shoulder issue is more of a chronic but (currently) mild niggle that can easily be managed by massage, or, failing that, by less volume or frequency. If greater loads aggravate it, I can either reduce the loads again, or do the Bench Press less frequently, like only on Mondays and Fridays, skipping Wednesdays. I'm already doing it with less volume than the OH Press.

So it's nothing like it was a year or so ago, when it got really sore and painful after benching, but the left shoulder will probably always be a little bit aggravated by the Bench Press.
I don't know about this one, my experience has been use it or lose it, however lots of smarter people have said otherwise. But BA is right, you probably should consider the shoulder issue. I kind of forgot about that.
Hmnn, my experience hasn't been that I lose the bench press or lose it. Even with moderate effort and focus, it keeps improving. Several weeks ago I did three reps at 225, last Friday I did five reps at 224. I improved by two reps but I wasn't putting any effort into the Bench. So there must be some carryover from OH Press improvement and maybe the other lifts too. In fact, as my other lifts have improved over the last year, my bench press has improved by nearly 30 pounds without really even trying. The new powerlifting arch and leg drive might have added a few pounds as well.

The real question for me is: would greater effort in the Bench Press also have some carryover to OH Press? That's really key. Maybe holding the Bench Press back is actually holding both lifts back? Maybe just doing the OH Press at greater volume is enough to help it "catch up," since a lot of people say volume is the most important parameter anyway?

OH man, my soles feel nice and tingly after Saturday's gravel walk. Very nice.
 
Hmnn, my experience hasn't been that I lose the bench press or lose it. Even with moderate effort and focus, it keeps improving. Several weeks ago I did three reps at 225, last Friday I did five reps at 224. I improved by two reps but I wasn't putting any effort into the Bench. So there must be some carryover from OH Press improvement and maybe the other lifts too. In fact, as my other lifts have improved over the last year, my bench press has improved by nearly 30 pounds without really even trying. The new powerlifting arch and leg drive might have added a few pounds as well.

The real question for me is: would greater effort in the Bench Press also have some carryover to OH Press? That's really key. Maybe holding the Bench Press back is actually holding both lifts back? Maybe just doing the OH Press at greater volume is enough to help it "catch up," since a lot of people say volume is the most important parameter anyway?

OH man, my soles feel nice and tingly after Saturday's gravel walk. Very nice.

I suspect this is the big change but I could be wrong. I easily have a good 25-30 pounds more in me between a flat back bench and an arched one. I get an easy 2-3 inches less of bar travel by pulling down my shoulders and pushing up my chest. But who knows, on the other hand working at 80% on the bench like you have been doing could be more beneficial, or a combination of both? Or it could be the carryover, but how does that explain it when the OH press loads are 50% or less of your bench maxes?

I don't know I am not a big believer in the carry over affect between lifts like the squat/DL and the press/bench or vice versa. I think you still need to practice the lift to get beyond a certain point. For example why does my squat sucks so much in comparison to my DL. I could understand a 50lb. difference but I am easily in the +100lb difference range and most of that I think is do to me being a lazy ass with the squats.

Just an opinion though which is like an asshole right. Ha plus its only my experience I can really judge by.

Now when we start talking about more similar lifts like the incline press I might be more apt to believe. But I think that you have to at least have a carryover lift in the similar plane of movement, and close to the same loads maybe within 80% or heavier on the other end? Or maybe some extreme weaknesses that are strengthened by the other lift? Like a close grip bench?
 
I suspect this is the big change but I could be wrong. I easily have a good 25-30 pounds more in me between a flat back bench and an arched one. I get an easy 2-3 inches less of bar travel by pulling down my shoulders and pushing up my chest. But who knows, on the other hand working at 80% on the bench like you have been doing could be more beneficial, or a combination of both? Or it could be the carryover, but how does that explain it when the OH press loads are 50% or less of your bench maxes?

I don't know I am not a big believer in the carry over affect between lifts like the squat/DL and the press/bench or vice versa. I think you still need to practice the lift to get beyond a certain point. For example why does my squat sucks so much in comparison to my DL. I could understand a 50lb. difference but I am easily in the +100lb difference range and most of that I think is do to me being a lazy ass with the squats.

Just an opinion though which is like an asshole right. Ha plus its only my experience I can really judge by.

Now when we start talking about more similar lifts like the incline press I might be more apt to believe. But I think that you have to at least have a carryover lift in the similar plane of movement, and close to the same loads maybe within 80% or heavier on the other end? Or maybe some extreme weaknesses that are strengthened by the other lift? Like a close grip bench?
Yah, it's hard to say, because there are so many confounding factors. Last year my Bench Press 1RM went up 20 pounds, from 225 to 245, without really trying. So in that case, it had to be the greater attention to the other lifts. My back was holding me back. There's two ideas on how carryover might work I think. One is that other lifts develop the supporting muscles, giving you a better platform, and the other is that antagonistic muscles will inhibit full activation of their agonistic complements if they are weak, to prevent injury, via the Gogli tendon reflex. That's one reason elite powerlifters are capable of ripping their muscles right off the bone; they've become really good at repressing this reflex.

In any case, I think there is something of a consensus that the press carries over to the bench more than vice versa, but I could be misremembering that. One thing's for sure, and that's that I feel like my back is the area that is getting strongest overall, more so than my legs, shoulders, chest, or arms. The squat, deadlift, press, and upper body pulls all work the back to some extent.

Just a minor correction, but the last weeks my OH Press has been at 66% of my Bench, not 50%. This week it will be 60%.

I agree though, that the reason my Bench Press has been so much stronger than my OH Press is the fact that in the past, the Bench Press was always the centerpiece of my strength training. I used to deadlift too, but not quite as seriously, and never squatted. The OH Press was always more of a secondary lift. All this changed over the last year or two, so everything should be catching up to the Bench.

It will be interesting to see how the new powerlifting technique feels at heavier loads. It's been hard to tell how much it's helped at reduced loads. But last Friday felt pretty solid. And the wrist wraps are helping too I think, in reducing any remaining moment arm. I feel like the greatest advantage in using the powerlifting technique is in the leg drive. The arch is more of a way of making sure this drive is transferred efficiently. I don't know if I arch enough to shorten the ROM or bar path appreciably. Probably need to shoot some video at some point, because my subjective sense of these things isn't very reliable. I do know that I've gotten better at getting my feet back and flat on the floor.

Anyway, it'll be fun to start pushing the bench a bit more and see where I can take it. 315 would be awesome, although once again I'm stuck with the embarrassment of having a stronger Bench than Squat. Hopefully that will correct itself over the next 6-12 months.

Now that the Deadlift 1RM is over 300, that too will begin to get more challenging. So there isn't really any easy part of the workout any more. It used to be I could relax a bit during the Bench and Deadlift portion and then rev up again for the Pulldowns and Rows. I'll still do fewer bench and deadlifts sets on Monday and Wednesdays however.

Anyway, feels like progress, thanks guys for the inputs and 'being part of the journey.'
 
Hey I need some chronological advice. Should I stick with the same routine for the next two weeks and then do a decent analysis or shift over to the full body one and work out the kinks over the next couple of weeks? I'm leaning towards the former just to give it the full 8, but let me know what you think.

Yah, it's hard to say, because there are so many confounding factors. Last year my Bench Press 1RM went up 20 pounds, from 225 to 245, without really trying. So in that case, it had to be the greater attention to the other lifts. My back was holding me back. There's two ideas on how carryover might work I think. One is that other lifts develop the supporting muscles, giving you a better platform, and the other is that antagonistic muscles will inhibit full activation of their agonistic complements if they are weak, to prevent injury, via the Gogli tendon reflex. That's one reason elite powerlifters are capable of ripping their muscles right off the bone; they've become really good at repressing this reflex.

In any case, I think there is something of a consensus that the press carries over to the bench more than vice versa, but I could be misremembering that. One thing's for sure, and that's that I feel like my back is the area that is getting strongest overall, more so than my legs, shoulders, chest, or arms. The squat, deadlift, press, and upper body pulls all work the back to some extent.

Just a minor correction, but the last weeks my OH Press has been at 66% of my Bench, not 50%. This week it will be 60%.

I agree though, that the reason my Bench Press has been so much stronger than my OH Press is the fact that in the past, the Bench Press was always the centerpiece of my strength training. I used to deadlift too, but not quite as seriously, and never squatted. The OH Press was always more of a secondary lift. All this changed over the last year or two, so everything should be catching up to the Bench.

It will be interesting to see how the new powerlifting technique feels at heavier loads. It's been hard to tell how much it's helped at reduced loads. But last Friday felt pretty solid. And the wrist wraps are helping too I think, in reducing any remaining moment arm. I feel like the greatest advantage in using the powerlifting technique is in the leg drive. The arch is more of a way of making sure this drive is transferred efficiently. I don't know if I arch enough to shorten the ROM or bar path appreciably. Probably need to shoot some video at some point, because my subjective sense of these things isn't very reliable. I do know that I've gotten better at getting my feet back and flat on the floor.

Anyway, it'll be fun to start pushing the bench a bit more and see where I can take it. 315 would be awesome, although once again I'm stuck with the embarrassment of having a stronger Bench than Squat. Hopefully that will correct itself over the next 6-12 months.

Now that the Deadlift 1RM is over 300, that too will begin to get more challenging. So there isn't really any easy part of the workout any more. It used to be I could relax a bit during the Bench and Deadlift portion and then rev up again for the Pulldowns and Rows. I'll still do fewer bench and deadlifts sets on Monday and Wednesdays however.

Anyway, feels like progress, thanks guys for the inputs and 'being part of the journey.'

Yeah the leg drive and back tension are the two key things for me too. It just feels so much more stable that way. You know I occasionally shoot video on some lifts and watch it right after to adjust for my next set. It's a nice way to make small modifications in a workout. It really only works though for heavy lifts for me, since lighter ones are very easy to keep form perfect.

Yeah sorry I was just estimating you max bench at around 275 so 135 working sets were half of that. And please don't remind me about having a stronger bench than squat. I am almost thinking about doing a max set of 100kgs in both just to see which is really stronger.
 
Hey I need some chronological advice. Should I stick with the same routine for the next two weeks and then do a decent analysis or shift over to the full body one and work out the kinks over the next couple of weeks? I'm leaning towards the former just to give it the full 8, but let me know what you think.



Yeah the leg drive and back tension are the two key things for me too. It just feels so much more stable that way. You know I occasionally shoot video on some lifts and watch it right after to adjust for my next set. It's a nice way to make small modifications in a workout. It really only works though for heavy lifts for me, since lighter ones are very easy to keep form perfect.

Yeah sorry I was just estimating you max bench at around 275 so 135 working sets were half of that. And please don't remind me about having a stronger bench than squat. I am almost thinking about doing a max set of 100kgs in both just to see which is really stronger.
Well, there's the notion of a cycle as a chance to reflect on where we're at, and the notion of a cycle as a period of time to experiment with a 'program' and see how it compares to other programs. But if you've already decided that your split program isn't something you want to pursue after this cycle, then I think your idea of switching to your anticipated cycle three program with two weeks left in this one, to work out the kinks, is probably the way to go. In the past I've never shied away from changes if I thought they would lead to greater progress. I dunno, but it's hard to imagine ever strictly following a program for a long period of time. We're constantly getting feedback as we go through our routines, why would we ignore it if it's telling us something isn't working? That's why I'm going to try to up my bench this week. It just seems like I'm needlessly holding myself back. If I find I'm wrong, I'll go back to de-emphasizing it.

I guess there's the danger of program-hopping, but for me, it's more the pursuit of a repertoire of workable options than a set of ideal programs. So far I've found two: a full body routine with six lifts and a full body split routine with three of the six lifts per workout. Now I'm trying to optimize frequency, volume, and intensity for the full body, six lifts option. If I switch to a full body, three lifts per workout split routine, I might have to rethink how frequency, volume, and intensity would play out in that.

The real goal is probably finding a set of options that's good enough that I no longer have think very much about it. I'll have a template with a certain amount of flexibility built in to deal with fluctuations in mood, energy, and time. Right now, the full body, six lifts, 5-8-3 rep-count wave with microloading is looking pretty good for me. There's enough flexibility to keep things interesting and realistic, but the workouts are becoming pretty mindless and workaday too, now that everything is charted.

Yah, getting everything tight is key. That might be the most important thing I've learned about lifting over the last year. I think I did it out of instinct for the deadlift and squat, but on the bench, half my body would basically be limp. That's probably the main disadvantage of pulldowns too. Unlike the pullups, you can do them without bringing in the lower body. Lately though, on my heavier sets, I've been allowing the knees to come up off the floor during the last part of the pulldown, to really flex my 'core.'

I'm pretty sure I could 1RM more on my squat than my bench press, but the form wouldn't be pretty. I'm doing my best to squat with perfect form, so that when the loads start to get really heavy, I have that down pat. Still, it's mysterious how the bench could even come close to the squat. The arms, chest and shoulders are so much smaller than the legs, glutes, and hips, right?
 
Well, there's the notion of a cycle as a chance to reflect on where we're at, and the notion of a cycle as a period of time to experiment with a 'program' and see how it compares to other programs. But if you've already decided that your split program isn't something you want to pursue after this cycle, then I think your idea of switching to your anticipated cycle three program with two weeks left in this one, to work out the kinks, is probably the way to go. In the past I've never shied away from changes if I thought they would lead to greater progress. I dunno, but it's hard to imagine ever strictly following a program for a long period of time. We're constantly getting feedback as we go through our routines, why would we ignore it if it's telling us something isn't working? That's why I'm going to try to up my bench this week. It just seems like I'm needlessly holding myself back. If I find I'm wrong, I'll go back to de-emphasizing it.

I guess there's the danger of program-hopping, but for me, it's more the pursuit of a repertoire of workable options than a set of ideal programs. So far I've found two: a full body routine with six lifts and a full body split routine with three of the six lifts per workout. Now I'm trying to optimize frequency, volume, and intensity for the full body, six lifts option. If I switch to a full body, three lifts per workout split routine, I might have to rethink how frequency, volume, and intensity would play out in that.

The real goal is probably finding a set of options that's good enough that I no longer have think very much about it. I'll have a template with a certain amount of flexibility built in to deal with fluctuations in mood, energy, and time. Right now, the full body, six lifts, 5-8-3 rep-count wave with microloading is looking pretty good for me. There's enough flexibility to keep things interesting and realistic, but the workouts are becoming pretty mindless too.

Ok thanks for the input I am still considering it, I think you really need at least 8 weeks to get a reasonably true idea of how things will go maybe even 12. I'm a little nervous about shocking my system as I was sore this morning from my Saturday lifts.

Hey your post brought up another idea. Any chance you think we should put together some standardized metric's we can use to measure progress for a cycle? I was thinking about organizing some thoughts and keeping the general standards the same for each cycle. Such as maybe having two foci or general goals per cycle, specified progression, volumes, total loads, frequency, and any others we can think of? Then we also might be able to have some comparison data?

I seem to remember reading that smaller changes for programming work better than wholesale program jumps. Or at least it leads to better consistency? That might be the reason I just stick out the next two weeks and then really workout the next plan so I have a good base to move forward with.

Yah, getting everything tight is key. That might be the most important thing I've learned about lifting over the last year. I think I did it out of instinct for the deadlift and squat, but on the bench, half my body would basically be limp. That's probably the main disadvantage of pulldowns too. Unlike the pullups, you can do them without bringing in the lower body. Lately though, on my heavier sets, I've been allowing the knees to come up off the floor during the last part of the pulldown, to really flex my 'core.'

I'm pretty sure I could 1RM more on my squat than my bench press, but the form wouldn't be pretty. I'm doing my best to squat with perfect form, so that when the loads start to get really heavy, I have that down pat. Still, it's mysterious how the bench could even come close to the squat. The arms, chest and shoulders are so much smaller than the legs, glutes, and hips, right?

I don't know, I think the bench might be more equivalent to an upper leg press (lame description sorry) for the upper body than the other three lifts. I took an average bench compared to squat for a PL meet and that average was 72% of the squat. I couldn't find what one of the true good benchers average results were though? Scot Mendelson had a much higher bench than his other lifts so who knows.
 
i'd recommend toughing out your plan for the last two weeks unless something obvious interferes (e.g., i'm off on travel for these last two weeks of the cycle, so it is first de-jet-lag and then it will be lots of running, pushups, pullups, and maybe pistol squats). i will just extract out the two reasons you have already alluded to: 1) nothing else matters if you fail to achieve consistency and moderate volume, 2) you need to give things a long enough chance to have the possibility of seeing results or non-results.

it's like when people complain about having to pay extra for their 51-lb bag on the airplane when a 50-lb bag is "free". can't you just let me skate by without paying? it's only one pound! well, uh, you have to draw the line somewhere. how about thinking of it as a 45-lb limit with a 5-lb grace and you've exceeded that, so pay up! beginnings and ends are always difficult times, but we are now "mature" and have "perspective" and realize that (lord willing) there will be many more beginnings and ends to deal with, so we shouldn't sweat any individual one too much. :)
 
Ok thanks for the input I am still considering it, I think you really need at least 8 weeks to get a reasonably true idea of how things will go maybe even 12. I'm a little nervous about shocking my system as I was sore this morning from my Saturday lifts.

Yah, I would say at least 12, and even then, how do your really know how well it went, when n=1? It still amounts to a subjective sense of it. Rates of progress might increase or decrease, and these are measurable, but who's to say the rate would be different with a different program at the exact same point in your training history? You can't really compare a current program to a past program because the past program has fed the results of your current program. You'd almost have to train for three three months, stop for three months, and then try another program for three months to get some sort of objectivity, and even then it's questionable. So for me, I don't see any reason not to change if you feel it's not working. However, if you have some doubts, then sure, keep at it and reassess after another few weeks. No harm done; as long as you're lifting consistently, it probably doesn't matter that much.

Hey your post brought up another idea. Any chance you think we should put together some standardized metric's we can use to measure progress for a cycle? I was thinking about organizing some thoughts and keeping the general standards the same for each cycle. Such as maybe having two foci or general goals per cycle, specified progression, volumes, total loads, frequency, and any others we can think of? Then we also might be able to have some comparison data?

Something to consider, what did you have in mind?

I'm pretty happy with the scheme I've worked out, so I would be hesitant to modify it simply to make comparison easier. The goals are pretty much the same too, and I don't see them changing in the foreseeable future: 2:3:4:5 ratios with 5=400 for the Deadlift, 4 =320 Squat, 3 = 240 Bench, 2 = 160 Press. However, the press is already close to that and the bench is over it, so really the goal is mostly to get my squat and deadlift up, and have the presses go wherever they will go, and have the upper body pulls keep pace with the presses. Since I don't think I'll ever let my deadlift get too far ahead of my squat, even if I end up delinking them, all things considered, the squat is really my centerpiece, so if you want to base things on that, it might work. I don't foresee reducing volume on that, but as soon as the OH Press catches up to the Bench Press, I'll reduce its volume, and the Deadlift volume will probably always be limited.

Maybe we could chart percentage increases for the three performance lifts? I dunno, I guess I would need to see an example.

I seem to remember reading that smaller changes for programming work better than wholesale program jumps. Or at least it leads to better consistency? That might be the reason I just stick out the next two weeks and then really workout the next plan so I have a good base to move forward with.

Yah, that sounds right to me. Whenever I lift consistently, good things happen, and small tweaks are all that's ever required. It's still just progressive overload over time, everything else is details. That said, I'm currently really sold on the full-body, high frequency and volume approach. I don't foresee changing much until I start to plateau. According to Nuckols I think, "plateauing" itself can be an illusion. What's really happening is that one's rate of progress is slowing as one nears one's genetic potential. If you absolutely stall, your program is inadequate or you've already developed all that mother nature is going to give you. I think Nuckols has said he's added hundreds of pounds to his lifts with the volume approach and a fairly linear progression. Could be wrong about that though. I tend to read these things hurriedly during breaks. I think Wendler has also said that his 5/3/1 program can work for years. Most advanced cats do some sort of block periodization, but I'll never be advanced so I don't care. I'm not willing to do anything really complicated just to squeeze out a few more PRs.

I don't know, I think the bench might be more equivalent to an upper leg press (lame description sorry) for the upper body than the other three lifts. I took an average bench compared to squat for a PL meet and that average was 72% of the squat. I couldn't find what one of the true good benchers average results were though? Scot Mendelson had a much higher bench than his other lifts so who knows.

Actually, that seems like a pretty good description. It would be easier to note the similarity if we called it the "arm press," or "lying arm press" versus "seated leg press.". The other three lifts are more organic, aren't they? If it weren't for the bench press mystique, one could probably sub dips and standing cable presses for the bench press. But a naturalistic or functional approach has its limits too.

A bench at 72% of the squat fits in pretty well with the 3:4 ratio. Scot Mendelson is a bench specialist who wears one of those silly shirts.

(Edit: I just read he also holds the raw record. Never mind the following rant)

I think we have to look at raw powerlifters for a better comparison with what we do. The gear really skews things away from the deadlift towards the squat and bench, adding hundreds of pounds to the latter, right? Frankly, wearing gear to improve a lift is about as ridiculous as letting swimmers wear fins, or letting cyclists store downhill energy in batteries to supplement their uphill riding. It makes sense if you lift things or dive or cycle for a living to use a prosthetic device, but they have no place in competition as far as I can see. Most sports try to minimize the influence of technologies. According to Dan Kovacs, raw lifting is making a comeback, so may others apparently feel the same way I do.
 
(Edit: I just read he also holds the raw record. Never mind the following rant)

I think we have to look at raw powerlifters for a better comparison with what we do. The gear really skews things away from the deadlift towards the squat and bench, adding hundreds of pounds to the latter, right? Frankly, wearing gear to improve a lift is about as ridiculous as letting swimmers wear fins, or letting cyclists store downhill energy in batteries to supplement their uphill riding. It makes sense if you lift things or dive or cycle for a living to use a prosthetic device, but they have no place in competition as far as I can see. Most sports try to minimize the influence of technologies. According to Dan Kovacs, raw lifting is making a comeback, so may others apparently feel the same way I do.

Haha yeah but If you look at his two records they are about 400lbs different. So that's what the suit gives you. I figured his other lifts were also done in gear which is why I used him as an example. So the actual total load ratios are comparable.

I just gave it as an example that with the right genetics your bench press can be very close to the other lifts. So maybe the whole benching the same as you squat isn't such a big deal and really depends on the person.

Granted our squats still need work though.
 
Something to consider, what did you have in mind?

I'm pretty happy with the scheme I've worked out, so I would be hesitant to modify it simply to make comparison easier. The goals are pretty much the same too, and I don't see them changing in the foreseeable future: 2:3:4:5 ratios with 5=400 for the Deadlift, 4 =320 Squat, 3 = 240 Bench, 2 = 160 Press. However, the press is already close to that and the bench is over it, so really the goal is mostly to get my squat and deadlift up, and have the presses go wherever they will go, and have the upper body pulls keep pace with the presses. Since I don't think I'll ever let my deadlift get too far ahead of my squat, even if I end up delinking them, all things considered, the squat is really my centerpiece, so if you want to base things on that, it might work. I don't foresee reducing volume on that, but as soon as the OH Press catches up to the Bench Press, I'll reduce its volume, and the Deadlift volume will probably always be limited.

Maybe we could chart percentage increases for the three performance lifts? I dunno, I guess I would need to see an example.

I don't mean to modify you original plan, but more maybe add a couple of cycle checks in addition to the long term goals.

So next cycle we can focus on squats and presses. On week one when you do your 3 rep set we can try to test a max 3 rep set right after the warmup and then keep drop back down to the workset for the rest. Then on week eight do the same thing to chart short term progress? It would help having some actual max data to work with too, to build some progressions once the plateaus begin. Or we could also do a max set or 3 on week one and then a max rep set in week 8 with the same weight?

I was also thinking of tracking some additional metrics of things that have the biggest impact on the lifts in addition to what we already are like:
Total loads per lift and total daily loads, and reps. (Volume, Average intensity, density?)
Sleep
Weight
Maybe RPE?
Total lifting time

https://www.t-nation.com/training/log-your-training-like-a-boss

What do you think? I think we have so many variables floating around keeping a consistent data set would be beneficial for me.
 
Haha yeah but If you look at his two records they are about 400lbs different. So that's what the suit gives you. I figured his other lifts were also done in gear which is why I used him as an example. So the actual total load ratios are comparable.

I just gave it as an example that with the right genetics your bench press can be very close to the other lifts. So maybe the whole benching the same as you squat isn't such a big deal and really depends on the person.

Granted our squats still need work though.
Yah, still, he's been criticized for being a bench specialist. I watched a video of him where he said his rationale was that benching is what most guys care about, so he makes more money being known as the world bench press record holder than a guy with better totals. Plus, my understanding, which could be completely wrong, is that gear raises the bench press the most, the squat the second most, and the deadlift the least, so geared lifting skews the ratios quite a bit. I don't think anyone's raw bench ever comes close to their raw squat, but I haven't really looked into it.

Genetically, my longer limbs probably mean my deadlift will always be better than my squat. For the bench, I'm still convinced it's mostly a matter of having trained it the most when I was younger. I would expect that if I continue training with my current consistency over another 2-3 years, my squat will be 133% of my bench at some point, maybe as soon as next year.

I don't mean to modify you original plan, but more maybe add a couple of cycle checks in addition to the long term goals.

So next cycle we can focus on squats and presses. On week one when you do your 3 rep set we can try to test a max 3 rep set right after the warmup and then keep drop back down to the workset for the rest. Then on week eight do the same thing to chart short term progress? It would help having some actual max data to work with too, to build some progressions once the plateaus begin. Or we could also do a max set or 3 on week one and then a max rep set in week 8 with the same weight?

I was also thinking of tracking some additional metrics of things that have the biggest impact on the lifts in addition to what we already are like:
Total loads per lift and total daily loads, and reps. (Volume, Average intensity, density?)
Sleep
Weight
Maybe RPE?
Total lifting time

https://www.t-nation.com/training/log-your-training-like-a-boss

What do you think? I think we have so many variables floating around keeping a consistent data set would be beneficial for me.
I dunno. I like training at a 90% effort level all the time. It ensures good form and easy recovery. Right now I could probably squeeze out a 275-300 squat single, but my form would be very shaky and if I fail there would be risk of injury. For max triples at a lower weight, the injury risk would still be there. I'm with BA in taking an ultra cautious approach from here on out and avoiding injury at all costs. Even if I reach my goals and pump out a 400 deadlift, etc., it will be a training max, and not a true max.

I experimented quite a bit with percentages and rep-counts, so I feel pretty confident I'm working at around 90% effort level for each of my rep-counts, for each lift: 100% = 1RM; 95% = 2RM; 90% = 3RM; 85% = 5RM, 75% = 8RM. If my true maxes at each rep count don't correspond exactly to these percentages, I don't think it really matters, so for me, there's no real reason to test anything. But I would think it would be useful for you to go through the same process of projecting training or true maxes at various rep counts. Sometimes your loads seem to be somewhat arbitrary.

On my charts, I already keep track of total loads per lift, totals per day, and reps. That's what those bar graphs were all about. I was kind of teasing BA about using graphs to explain something that's easy to understand in simple prose, but with the bar graphs it's easy to see that my weekly plan does a decent job of varying intensity and volume.

I don't think I'd be interested in monitoring sleep or weight. I'm supposed to weigh myself once a week, but the weight hasn't started to come off yet, so it's frustrating. The running is starting to feel noticeably easier though, so it's just a matter of time before it shows up in fat loss. I've been through this before, I know how it goes. Actually, yesterday I was able to tighten my squat belt a little more than usual, so maybe it's already starting to come off. Opps, scratch that, I weigh 257.

RPE, for me, is always 90%. If I ever start to feel overtrained, then I'll reduce weight on Wednesday's 8RM day and make it more of a recovery day, with RPE more like 70-80%.

Total lifting time for me is always around an hour. I would really not enjoy tracking the exact time, as this would put pressure on me to get through each lift in a certain amount of time. I already have a curfew, because I usually lift right before I pick up the kids, and they have to be picked up by 6pm or we pay a fine. In general, I don't think density training is for me.

So, sorry I'm not more game for your ideas, but I think you could easily copy elements of my chart so that we could compare what I'm already doing. I know it's not that clearly marked, so don't hesitate to ask about stuff that's hard to follow. We could eliminate the upper body pulls and just compare volume and average intensity for the four performance lifts. It would be very easy for me to add some boxes based on those formulas. In fact, I think I'll do that right now.

P.S., felt good to bench heavier yesterday. Thanks for your input into the decision. It was the right thing to do.
 
Yeah sometimes I think I need a little more feedback to make some better progressions. I could go back to a linear progression, or the wave like progression but I think leaving myself a little flexibility by having a starting and finishing point and leaving the 8 week variation up to feel.

For some reason I have a hard time seeing some progress that's why I think I will keep track of a couple of extra items, plus kilometerage running and biking. Might give me a better idea of the whole picture.

Ok so I will do total weight per lift and workout for the lifts that are easily measureable
DL-SLDL-PC
Squat-Gob Squat-TB DL
Bench-CGBP
Press-Inc Press

I may also add some ramp up sets for the bigger lifts. But I am not sure as then it will be hard to compare starting and ending loads

I really want to monitor weight to figure out how loss really affects my lifts, or should we do weight belt holes for monitoring! Yeah time probably doesn't matter to much maybe just lift/run/bike days per week may be enough. I'll put it together in a database and build some charts maybe the visual will help give me some clues?

Yeah those bar graphs are what made me start thinking a little more about. Visuals can sometimes make you notice things that don't stick out with numbers. And if you build up enough cycle the trends can be interesting. The only difficult thing in comparability.

So to clarify your 90% comment, you take your rep max x 90% for your training load? I need to look more closely at your spreadsheets.

Hey speaking of belts, I think I am going to look for a new squatting belt. The one I have is really digging into my pelvis when I am down and it prevents me from doing more than 2-3 reps at a time. unless I want a big red irritation on my hips. Do you have a recommendation for size? I think the one I am using is a 4in 10mm belt.