Reactive Training Systems

Mike Tuchscherer · Guru

RE: Workout Planning

Tall · Member

Mike Tuchscherer wrote:

Your first question is in regard to template. No, it doesn't always have to be like that. Template can change depending on a myriad of factors.

Cumulative fatigue is something that's managed through proper planning of a training cycle. If you plan correctly, you can have periods of overstress, but never to the point where it becomes overtraining. If something happens in your personal life, the Fatigue Percents should adjust to some degree. Sometimes they don't or don't adjust enough -- at this point you need to step in and do something for your recovery.

Yes, there are some similarities to Buchenholz and the Inno-Sport stuff. I learned a lot of stuff from them. But I don't think they got it 100% right (I don't think I got it 100% right either). I learned a lot of stuff from many other sources, too. But with regard to his work, I think people should get his book and read it. It's a VERY tough read, so if you do get it, pick your way through it slowly.

No problem! Keep 'em coming!

The Inno Sport stuff I thought was interesting, but further research says DB *may* have made some if it up.

Back to your training:

What key markers are you using to establish a 1rm increase on paper and how to do plan your training to test that 1rm out?

I see that you rarely use 5/6reps on your first exercise for example, so you aren't checking against a 5rm to see how your 1rm is moving, so are you assuming that at set levels of load an intensity your 1rm will move as the lift with those properties(weight/expected RPE) becomes easier?

As PL is about acheiving the best lifts in the format 1x3x3 do you beleive that in order to become more efficient singles with reduced rest periods (to induce fatigue) may have greater carryover than the use of doubles or triples?

Keep up the good work by the way, you're a very strong lifter.

Mike Tuchscherer · Guru

All very good questions...

I don't know if DB made any of it up. Some of it sure seems like it. I know some of it when cross-referenced with what makes sense to me, sounds like it was good enough to try, so I did. After I tweaked it around, changing stuff as I went, it got to where it worked well and I liked doing it.

As far as establishing a paper 1RM... I do that using the RPE chart. If it's accurate, you should be able to approximate a percentage of your 1RM using *nearly* any given set, thereby giving you a constant way to monitor your strength levels. It puts you more in tune with you body.

I rarely do 5/6 reps, but others using this system do. It's also not a set load. I modulate the intensity between 80% and 95% (which is plenty of range) from workout to workout. Yes, when the Rep/RPE combo gets easier, I know I'm getting stronger. I also anticipate this as I go.

Singles are good technique practice, but how much strength is developed is a matter of effort. Through some research Eric Talmant and his coach have conducted, I'd say strength is best developed when some sets are at a 9 RPE. Doing singles at a 9 would necessitate going into the high 90% range on a consistent basis, which raises other programming concerns. What I'm getting at is it's not necessarily the reps that build strength -- there's obviously more to it than that. But if all the pieces were managed properly, I think you'd see some great strength gains from singles (we'll see, I have a lot of them programmed for this Macro).

Tall · Member

Mike Tuchscherer wrote:

All very good questions...

I don't know if DB made any of it up. Some of it sure seems like it. I know some of it when cross-referenced with what makes sense to me, sounds like it was good enough to try, so I did. After I tweaked it around, changing stuff as I went, it got to where it worked well and I liked doing it.

As far as establishing a paper 1RM... I do that using the RPE chart. If it's accurate, you should be able to approximate a percentage of your 1RM using *nearly* any given set, thereby giving you a constant way to monitor your strength levels. It puts you more in tune with you body.

I rarely do 5/6 reps, but others using this system do. It's also not a set load. I modulate the intensity between 80% and 95% (which is plenty of range) from workout to workout. Yes, when the Rep/RPE combo gets easier, I know I'm getting stronger. I also anticipate this as I go.

Singles are good technique practice, but how much strength is developed is a matter of effort. Through some research Eric Talmant and his coach have conducted, I'd say strength is best developed when some sets are at a 9 RPE. Doing singles at a 9 would necessitate going into the high 90% range on a consistent basis, which raises other programming concerns. What I'm getting at is it's not necessarily the reps that build strength -- there's obviously more to it than that. But if all the pieces were managed properly, I think you'd see some great strength gains from singles (we'll see, I have a lot of them programmed for this Macro).

Thanks for the reply Mike.

As far as I understand it based on the research I've done so far, DB wasn't a real person and didn't have a private training facility in Germany.

Some of DB's stuff is interesting and definately requires some further investigation on my part. It ties in partially with Siffs work and Verkhoshansky's work.

Aha so you do a reverse lookup against your RPE table - makes sense smile

For a number of years some bodybuilders have referred to the final reps of an exercise (either the last reps of the last set where fatigue has set in and a small nudge is required from a spotter, or a back down set, or a drop set) as "the growing reps" (gym speak obviously) but there may be some truth in the fact of getting stronger through straining (i.e. @9 sets) - my question is: Would this need to be ~90%, or could strength occur by completing work sets in the prescribed range (say 75% to 85%) until those reps shift from a @7/8 to @9 (fatigue has been induced and reps become tougher), drop down the required fatigue % (10/6/4 etc) and complete the work until those sets start to become @9.

This would obviously require a greater total load (or volume) to get the same effects as working to a higher intensity (as %1rm) but it may do so without placing as much of a strain on the CNS.

Mike Tuchscherer · Guru

I want to point you to this conversation and see if it answers any questions.

http://rts.activeboard.com/index.spark?forumID=121829&p=3&topicID=21332837

Tall · Member

Mike Tuchscherer wrote:
I want to point you to this conversation and see if it answers any questions.

http://rts.activeboard.com/index.spark?forumID=121829&p=3&topicID=21332837

Wonderful. That's covered it nicely.

Did you manage to establish the impact on the CNS of the 9s?

Mike Tuchscherer · Guru

That is a pretty extensive question and it will be dependant on several other factors (such as time under tension, etc) that need to be taken into account. I don't know everything about it myself! I'd encourage you to start learning about physiology and what happens during sport actions. Fitness and Strength Training for All Sports by Hartmann and Tunnemann (not sure if I spelled them right) is a fantastic book and a good place to start looking for this info.

Tall · Member

Mike Tuchscherer wrote:

That is a pretty extensive question and it will be dependant on several other factors (such as time under tension, etc) that need to be taken into account. I don't know everything about it myself! I'd encourage you to start learning about physiology and what happens during sport actions. Fitness and Strength Training for All Sports by Hartmann and Tunnemann (not sure if I spelled them right) is a fantastic book and a good place to start looking for this info.

Lol. I wasn't being quite that technical biggrin

What I meant was if the @9s are your "strength reps" and you started to add more @9s into your training - how did you find the impact to your CNS? How did they affect your recovery?

i.e. I was being specific to you smile

I've got a shedload of books coming in the next few weeks, yours included.

Mike Tuchscherer · Guru

Well, I didn't add in more 9's because I felt the 8's were important as well in the given construct.

How they affect recovery in general would be dependant on a bunch of stuff, but if you use Fatigue Percents to auto regulate your training volume, I would expect the prolonged result to be minimal.

Tall · Member

Mike,

When you bench in a shirt what warm up protocol do you follow? I'm sure iv seen about 5 sets of really low numbers at the start of your shirted bench sets

-- Edited by Tall at 16:41, 2008-12-04

Mike Tuchscherer · Guru

I don't really record my warmups, because they're always the same. But here's what I do.

Bar
1 plate
2 plate
3 plate
4 plate
shirt on

then depending on where my work sets start, I might go straight into the work or I might go to 5 plates for a final warmup set.