What do you feel is more effective fo powerlifting, a single set with say 5 reps or multiple sets, such as 3 sets of 2, and why do you think so? This would be earlier in a cycle. Later on you could use, a single set for a triple vs. 2 doubles, or a single if thats all you got.
Reason i ask, is for years i trained with a standard periodization, 5's, 3's, 2's, and more recently singles. I've cut back on reps in warmups, and in benching due to some overuse issues where I'm recovering from shoulder problems.
As I've gotten older I've also adjusted my training, and platform lifts have improved with training only 2x a week. (This needed to be done for recovery, due to the physical demands of my job and work schedule.) I've also been less injured, so something is going ok. But was just curious about the sets vs. reps. I do have the manual and am trying to come up with a plan for my schedule.
Mike will of course be able to answer this much better, but the bottom line is you can't compare a set of five reps with a set of two reps regardless of the intended volume of the cycle. If you refer to your manual you will see that a set of five at a nine rpe is much different than a set of two at a nine rpe. What is changing is the intensity level of your training. I'm very familair with linear periodization and have adapted it to a reactive training format so I think I understand your confusion. Really dive into the manual and you'll see that the rep chart teaches you (at a basic level) to pick your reps based on desired training intensity not reps. Linear periodization does just that but sort of by accident. If you wish to use a linear periodization format, try stepping up the percentage (intensity) as you move toward a peak instead of changing the reps, I had alot of success with this style of reactive training and it may help you learn to program in the RTS style. I hope Mike chimes in here cause I know this is unclear and he much better understands how to explain his programing philosophy.
Thanks Nick, yea what I am trying to get out is confusing to me. Like I said, trying to work out this transition. Part of my question kind of questions what scheme would be better in regards to form and explosiveness. Like you say 5 reps at 9 is much different than 2 reps at 9. You understand I'm looking at the volume already.Obviously the weights would be higher in the true aspect of it.
Now usually the 5 rep or even 3 rep scheme at 9+, the last rep technique-wise sucks. So being that we really are only concerned with the single on the platform, I was wondering about the multi-set double. I know this kind of throws the RPE for a loop.
Just looking for opinions as we all end up tailoring our programs, hopefully to meet the individual. Just constantly learning, no matter what age.
I like the direction you guys are going. Here's a little more food for thought. Let's see where this takes us...
There are few Powerlifters who can grind out weights for longer than 5 seconds (meaning it takes them longer than 5 seconds from the start of the concentric portion of the lift to the finish) on a consistent basis. What this tells me is that the majority of Powerlifters are NOT speed-strength deficient. They are strength-speed deficient. Why 5 seconsd? That's about how long your ATP/CP energy system will last duing a maximum powerlift attempt. Keep this in mind and bear with me...
Your reps per set, RPE and training intensity (as a percent of 1RM) are all inter-related. The way you decide what to use is based on the training effect you want.
The lower the intensity, the less stressful each rep becomes, therefore the volume must be increased to induce the desired stress level. Lower intensity (and by necessity, higher volume, but equivelant stress) protocols will result in more morphological changes.
Side note: Morphological means more than "size" to a powerlifter. Even if muscles get no bigger, there are still cellular morphological changes that take place (number of nuclei per fiber, the density of contracticle proteins, etc) Basically, you can have positive morphological impact without gaining a ton of "weight" in the form of muscle mass. This is important for those who are concerned about weight class.
As you raise intensity, the effect is more neuromuscular in nature. It will affect your coordination, movement efficiency, and nerve impulse patterns to a greater degree (the book Fitness and Strength Training for All Sports by Hartmann and Tunnemann gives a fantastic explaination of this).
Also of note: Russian PL coach Boris Sheiko reccommends raising intensity form predominately 80% to 85% for athletes that have trouble grinding out weights. Additionally, as Powerlifters become highly qualified, they need greater training intensitites to continue improvement.
Your RPE's are also important. RPE's of 7 are good during the earlier sets for most typical PL's because it provides minor stimulus of speed-strength, which can be helpful for avoiding the situation I mentioned in the 1st paragraph. RPE's of 8 are very good for building technique and confidence. RPE's of 9 are good for strength building without compromising technique. RPE's of 10 are the ones I would suggest to use sparingly because of the increased stress to the body's systems. The benefits of 10 RPE's are that they go even further than 9's as far as building strength, but the technique breakdown is greater. Another benefit of 10's is the mental toughness aspect of the lift. If you really grind out a difficult set, it can sometimes be helpful for building the mental toughness to do it again next time.
From that, you should be able to design a protocol based on your desired training effect. If you like linear periodization, I would determine where on the sliding scale you want to start in terms of morphological or neural impact, the match it with RPE's. The reps should take care of themselves and the number of sets will fluctuate to correspond to your desired stress level. Here's an example:
Lifter wants to start the cycle with a heavy morphological emphasis (to the point where they even want to gain muscular size). They select 65-75% for this end. They also want to induce the greatest strength impact possible during this phase, yet at the same time take advantage of the increased volume to enhance technique. So the RPE's they select are 8-9. This turns out to be sets of 5-6 reps for 8-9 RPE's during this stage of training.
One more example of how this changes depending on individual inputs... This lifter is one of the rare ones I spoke about who can grind for longer than 5 seconds. He wants to develop speed strength, so he knows he needs his RPE's in the 7-8 range. He also wants to make morphological and neuromuscular impacts, so he selects 70-80% as his intensity zone. So this guy will be doing sets of 3 at 7-8 RPE's.
As you can see, both examples are for a specific stage of training. That's the thing -- I feel that if a training scheme is not coordinated using effects-based planning, then it is haphazard. Just arbitrarily moving from hi reps to low reps is not effects based. Understand the needs of the athlete, then diliberately plan stages of training to address those needs. If you like the linear style, that's fine. If you want to try a conjugate sequence or a block model or a concurrent approach... whatever. Pick one that makes sense to you and **model** your training accordingly, but don't just say "well, linear periodization goes from 5's to 4's to 3's..." (Brian, I'm not saying you're doing this, but there are many who do) and follow it blindly.
Very interesting read, Mike. Thought provoking, which is what make us improve.
The strength-speed deficiency you refer to brings up an interesting point. These "grinders" in relation to ATP depletion, do you think these are a result of sticking points in certain lifts/lifters as you usually see just out of the hole in the squat followed by a strong finish. It would seem that you nailed it on the head with the second scenario described 7-8 RPE triples, where the time frame of 5 secs., would really be maximized to get through the sticking point.
This is kind of where I am at now, coming off a meet, and early on in a new way of training.
The last few cycles I have finished the last 3 weeks with heavy singles in gear with RPE of 9.5-10. Yes, the mental aspect I have realized is huge. Last meet I PR'd in the squat with more than I attempted at home.
With the periodization, my recovery and mental focus became more negative due to the high stresses over a 11-12 week cycle. This past few weeks of the multi-set doubles have stimulated the muscles and re-juvenated my workouts. A good change, and I'll see where this cycle takes me.
I'm going back & forth between these boards and the manual, understanding more and creating an adaptation to my needs. Again, my concerns are a balance for recovery as a master lifter and a physically demanding job (24 hour shifts) as well as everyday life.
After writing above, i was thinking, maybe where I am going with this is more of a mental issue. (Insert joke) But, what I mean is that it is less stressful preparing for multiple sets of doubles at 7-8 than a single set of 5 at 9+ (obvious), while still incorporating muscle stimulation and incorporating the proper mechanics, from walkouts to setups, to the performance of the lift itself. Going back to my original post, wouldn't this seem to be a better approach leading up to the weeks of 9-10 RPE of singles, to transfer over to meet day?
Again, Mike posed two scenarios, which goes back to individuality.
You can vary the stress of either scenario. I would program the intensity based on desired training effect and let the volume dictate the overall stress of the workout.
