One of the things I like to do is find several training methods that are known to produce solid results and compare them looking for patterns. The RPE chart in reactive training is often the central unit in many programs whether it is obvious to the inventor or not. I ran across a sheiko-reactive training pattern while examining a intermediate or "rated sportsman" program. My interest was sparked on this topic after listening to an interview with Wade Hooper. He states that most of the work on the Sheiko programs are done in the 80-85% range. Indeed on the program that I was examining the was mostly true. Almost every 2nd to and final set were in the range of 80-90%. The interesting part of all of this is that no set ever jumps up above an 8 on the RPE chart.
The russians measure volume by number of bar lifts (NL). Which is definitly contrary to how RPE is done where the intermidate lifter uses fatigue percentages to monitor and judge neccessary volume. The russians are well known for their insane amounts of volume (steriods often come up in these conversations) but in training their intensity is lower than most (westside is at or above 90% weekly). I continued a more lengthy study into how volume and intensity were programed in both Reactive Training and Sheiko training. With a good understanding of both I started looking for the pattern. The question I wanted answered was, "Why does Reactive Training produce the best results working in the 9 RPE range and Sheiko produce solid resluts working in the 7-8 RPE range?"
The answer (as I hypothesis) is in fatigue. In Reactive Training we try to get to our goal weight or percentage as quickly as possible and then work from there until eventually dropping off due to fatigue. In Sheiko training the opposite effect is created. The lifter pyramids up to his goal percentage so its alot like dropping off before you set your goal weight. So by the time a Sheiko lifter reaches his goal percentage he is experiencing a similair level (there is probably a mathmatical way to estimate this) of fatigue to the RT lifter who has just dropped off. Therefore the lifter actually feels as though he is in the 9 RPE range although if he were to look at the RPE chart he would be in the 7-8 range.
THINGS FOR FURTHER STUDY: Try to create an excel sheet that can modify the RPE chart as neccessary to take into account varying levels of fatigue. Not really sure how I could apply that but I think it would be very helpful Try to relate the number of bar lifts the russian cycle is aiming at to the fatigue percentage that a Reactive Training program would aim at. This exercise would likely bring out a definite pattern and show the core neccesities for creating a great lifter.
Or maybe I'm full of sh!t.......who knows but maybe at least one person enjoyed the read
It occured to me after I finished writing my way too long post above that I should probably mention that I in no way am attempting to completly sumarize Sheiko or Reactive training, I am merely attempting to point out a single pattern in programming. I of course realize the complexity of reactive training and its ability to create methods to regulate training can never be summarized in a quick couple of sentences but as in most physilogical examinations I made a few assumptions in order to help control the random variable. In short I simplified it so a subtle pattern became more obvious.
Thanks for posting your results, Nick! I love stuff like this and wish I could do more of it myself. And don't worry about hurting my feelings with your analysis -- the post above indicates your position quite well and I think you're right on pace.
As far as my thoughts on your analysis -- I think that was very good. I have thought the same thing before, that by doing most of the volume up front, the Sheiko programs induce fatigue as you go, so by the end, the lifter is still lifting in the 8-9 range. From looking at Eric Talmant's videos, I'd say this is mostly true, especially as the residual fatigue mounts up as the prep cycle progresses.
Another interesting thing you mentioned was volume control. Eric and I (and Eric's coach Dave Bates) have spoken about the similarities and differences of what I do compared to a Sheiko program. I only log the information about my work sets -- within 10% of my top set for the day. They think that if I were to log everything from 50% up, my numbers would be similar to the Sheiko programs for my classification. They are smart guys, so I think they may be right.
But here is the difference as I see it -- there are Russian volume reccomendations that say, "if you are X classification, you should do Y NL per year." I think that works in the context of the Russian system. If you've been trained since you were young, that will work well. But what about the fat couch potato-turned-powerlifter? His GPP is the equivelant of a turnup. He does Westside thinking sled dragging will improve his GPP (not knowing that GPP takes years to develop). He gets stronger -- maybe to the point of being a CMS. If he were to do the CMS program (which is what many first time Sheiko users did before Eric started telling folks otherwise), he'll probably die a terrible death.
Contrast that with how the Fatigue Percents. If your GPP is terrible, it will let you know. If your GPP is awesome, it will let you know that, too. So the volume is customized, which is more necessary in a system where you don't grow up in a rigid directed physical preparation program.
Now, the Fatigue Percents are not the be-all-end-all of volume control. After a while, you'll notice that there are things you do unconciously to affect the volume of work you're doing. So they aren't as precise as they could be. That, and the nature of regulating based off RPE is accurate enough, but sometimes not precise. So after a while, as you use Fatigue Percents, you'll realize this.
When I did, I progressed in my program development. First, I used my training log to create a custom volume chart based on a number of sets (because that was the easiest thing to process). Then, as my patterns started to develop a little more, I created a custom volume chart based on NL, which is what I'm using to control volume now. The important thing to remember is that Fatigue Percents provided the base and makes the charts relevant. Once you have NL charts, your programming progresses again naturally toward Sheiko type derrivitives. While I still reach my top set fairly quickly (usually by set 3), I am no longer forced to do drop sets when it would be detrimental to my recovery.
The risk in using the volume charts (and something I have had issue with on occasion), is it's easy to forget to take what you learned into account. If you feel crappy, you have to manually adjust the volume. If you often feel crappy, then maybe this method isn't for you and you should stick to Fatigue Percents.
Mike i don't understand this part of your post.....
"Once you have NL charts, your programming progresses again naturally toward Sheiko type derrivitives. While I still reach my top set fairly quickly (usually by set 3), I am no longer forced to do drop sets when it would be detrimental to my recovery."
....if you are reaching your top set by set 3 and you no longer do drop sets how can your volume be high enough?? Or am i reading this wrong?
I worded that poorly. If I'm doing low stress (as I'm doing this week), my pattern of loading makes drop sets uneccessary, which is a nice mental break.
I still do drop sets and plenty of volume otherwise!
