Periodization Lifting Program: Am I wasting my 'noob gains'?

astronomicals

maybebaby34 wrote: »

Now boys...did this turn into a pissing contest? you guys got my head spinning! OP called herself a "'noob". I think helping her form a plan would be better than trying to prove who is right. Right?

wrong

LolBroScience

maybebaby34 wrote: »

Now boys...did this turn into a pissing contest? you guys got my head spinning! OP called herself a "'noob". I think helping her form a plan would be better than trying to prove who is right. Right?

We gave recommendations for which would be more effective beyond the definition of periodization.

LolBroScience

dbmata wrote: »

That just means you're adjusting fewer variables. You're still adjusting magnitude, and I think one could argue intensity. ( How many lifters go in and attack it like it owes them a slice of pie? So intensity is always a variable.)

It's not a matter of stretching the definition, definitions are by their nature either accurate or not. In this case it is accurate, particularly in the technical sense, which as all internet users know, is the best sense.

At the end of the day, it's still going to break a few eggs and make a few omelets. Now, if you want to talk about efficiency, then I think an argument can be made that using it as a cornerstone of a periodization program for an event is a poor choice.

Intensity as a measure of % of a 1rm max, not "bro I'm smashin these weights so hard today regardless of the percentage". You can be "intense" with flinging around 10 lb dumbbells in that case. You'll just look like a fool.

Look up the origin of periodization training... specifically linear periodization and let me know if that fits the criteria for SL. It doesn't.

Anyway, kermitthefrogthisaintnoneofmybusinessthough.jpg.

Lofteren

You can run an upper/lower split with linear progression. It doesn't have to be someone else's program btw. You can just make it up as long as you do so intelligently. Just an example:

Mon: Bench 5x5, Barbell Row 5x5, Bi's/Tri's superset 3x15

Wed: Squat 5x5, Front Squat 5x5, Hams 3x10-15, Abs 3x10-15

Fri: Overhead Press 5x5, Pull Ups 5x8-12, Bi's/Tri's superset 3x15

Sat: Deadlift 5x5, Box Lunges 5x8-12, Hams 3x10-15, Abs 3x10-15

Add 5lbs to the big 4 every training day.

It doesn't have to be exactly like this but you get the idea.

dbmata

LolBroScience wrote: »

dbmata wrote: »

That just means you're adjusting fewer variables. You're still adjusting magnitude, and I think one could argue intensity. ( How many lifters go in and attack it like it owes them a slice of pie? So intensity is always a variable.)

It's not a matter of stretching the definition, definitions are by their nature either accurate or not. In this case it is accurate, particularly in the technical sense, which as all internet users know, is the best sense.

At the end of the day, it's still going to break a few eggs and make a few omelets. Now, if you want to talk about efficiency, then I think an argument can be made that using it as a cornerstone of a periodization program for an event is a poor choice.

Intensity as a measure of % of a 1rm max, not "bro I'm smashin these weights so hard today regardless of the percentage". You can be "intense" with flinging around 10 lb dumbbells in that case. You'll just look like a fool.

Look up the origin of periodization training... specifically linear periodization and let me know if that fits the criteria for SL. It doesn't.

Anyway, kermitthefrogthisaintnoneofmybusinessthough.jpg.

Intensity can be planned sure, but if you don't follow it, all you're doing is flapping your wang against the squat rack.

Magnitude/ weight is the measure of % of a 1rm max, intensity would be the product of % of 1RM * Set/Rep schedule, modified by planned/taken rest.

"Periodization is an organized approach to training that involves progressive cycling of various aspects of a training program during a specific period of time."
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/periodization.html

"Periodization is the systematic planning of athletic or physical training.[1] The aim is to reach the best possible performance in the most important competition of the year.[2] It involves progressive cycling of various aspects of a training program during a specific period."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_periodization

I'm not going to be so crass as to just post up a list of more snips and links, but it all stays essentially the same, and yes, SL falls within the definition, even if on the user end there are fewer modifiable variables.

LolBroScience

dbmata wrote: »

LolBroScience wrote: »

dbmata wrote: »

That just means you're adjusting fewer variables. You're still adjusting magnitude, and I think one could argue intensity. ( How many lifters go in and attack it like it owes them a slice of pie? So intensity is always a variable.)

It's not a matter of stretching the definition, definitions are by their nature either accurate or not. In this case it is accurate, particularly in the technical sense, which as all internet users know, is the best sense.

At the end of the day, it's still going to break a few eggs and make a few omelets. Now, if you want to talk about efficiency, then I think an argument can be made that using it as a cornerstone of a periodization program for an event is a poor choice.

Intensity as a measure of % of a 1rm max, not "bro I'm smashin these weights so hard today regardless of the percentage". You can be "intense" with flinging around 10 lb dumbbells in that case. You'll just look like a fool.

Look up the origin of periodization training... specifically linear periodization and let me know if that fits the criteria for SL. It doesn't.

Anyway, kermitthefrogthisaintnoneofmybusinessthough.jpg.

Intensity can be planned sure, but if you don't follow it, all you're doing is flapping your wang against the squat rack.

Magnitude/ weight is the measure of % of a 1rm max, intensity would be the product of % of 1RM * Set/Rep schedule, modified by planned/taken rest.

"Periodization is an organized approach to training that involves progressive cycling of various aspects of a training program during a specific period of time."
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/periodization.html

"Periodization is the systematic planning of athletic or physical training.[1] The aim is to reach the best possible performance in the most important competition of the year.[2] It involves progressive cycling of various aspects of a training program during a specific period."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_periodization

I'm not going to be so crass as to just post up a list of more snips and links, but it all stays essentially the same, and yes, SL falls within the definition, even if on the user end there are fewer modifiable variables.

http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/periodization.html --- This is from the link you posted, if you scroll further down.

NONPERIODIZED MODELS
Linear: Volume (reps x sets) remains constant during training period. Intensity increases with load progression.

PERIODIZED MODELS
Traditional: Volume and intensity are systematically manipulated. Training cycle begins with a high-volume, low-intensity profile, then progresses to low volume, high intensity over time.

You are not cycling anything, you are not peaking, there are no phases. Constant reps and sets, adding weight session to session.

dbmata

What is the training period? A single cycle through the SL program? Or pairing it with other programming?

If we're talking a single run through of SL and nothing later, then ok, I'll concede the point.

If there is more programming afterwards, then I'm still back that it is part of a periodization program. Like I stated earlier:

me wrote:

That pretty much makes it simple to see SL 5x5 as a block in a periodization program, OR can be used in cycles as a periodization program. Each cycle through 5x5 being a smaller, progressive stage. Or the shifting from 5x5 to an intermediate progra would also fulfill the "smaller progressive stages" parameter.

LolBroScience

dbmata wrote: »

What is the training period? A single cycle through the SL program? Or pairing it with other programming?

If we're talking a single run through of SL and nothing later, then ok, I'll concede the point.

If there is more programming afterwards, then I'm still back that it is part of a periodization program. Like I stated earlier:

me wrote:

That pretty much makes it simple to see SL 5x5 as a block in a periodization program, OR can be used in cycles as a periodization program. Each cycle through 5x5 being a smaller, progressive stage. Or the shifting from 5x5 to an intermediate progra would also fulfill the "smaller progressive stages" parameter.

You posted the link and cherry picked.. you tell me? The program itself isn't inherently periodization like I pointed out back on page one.

This is not a scholarly article, but an easy video to look at it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsI8oSiuPMM

dbmata

Then I will tell you.

It's a part of a multicycle plan. Since even a newbie won't stay on it, they'll promote off, or quit.

LolBroScience

Hmmm ok so....by that train of thought...

If i run SL for a few weeks, switch to 5/3/1, and then switch back to SL, and then switch to the Texas method that's cool because it's periodization from a bird's eye view? Or, is that just program hopping?

As a newbie you're not planning your training that far in advance with the intent of progressing out of a linear progression model. You move over to periodization once you've exhausted the ability to progress through linear progression. You don't have a multi cycle plan. You milk it as long as you can.

dbmata

LolBroScience wrote: »

Hmmm ok so....by that train of thought...

If i run SL for a few weeks, switch to 5/3/1, and then switch back to SL, and then switch to the Texas method that's cool because it's periodization from a bird's eye view? Or, is that just program hopping?

Depends on what your goal is. You would be fulfilling the technical definition though. Would you being min/maxing? No, probably not.

You don't have a multi cycle plan. You milk it as long as you can.

Agreed there, it's the iron dairy.

JoRocka

I don't want to add anything- I just need to be in the middle of this for funsies. because- why not.

LolBroScience

dbmata wrote: »

LolBroScience wrote: »

Hmmm ok so....by that train of thought...

If i run SL for a few weeks, switch to 5/3/1, and then switch back to SL, and then switch to the Texas method that's cool because it's periodization from a bird's eye view? Or, is that just program hopping?

Depends on what your goal is. You would be fulfilling the technical definition though. Would you being min/maxing? No, probably not.

You don't have a multi cycle plan. You milk it as long as you can.

Agreed there, it's the iron dairy.

It's totally randomized. Do you think that you will progress program hopping like that? Perhaps, it will be a new type of periodization... non-progression periodization.