Periodization Lifting Program: Am I wasting my 'noob gains'?
Options
Replies
-
MrM27 - you do realize SL 5x5 is based on something Reg Park created in the 60s, right? Mehdi just marketed it well. Which good for him, that doesn't make him an expert though.0
-
Not saying he's a dummy, in fact with the traffic out there from Tony Horton, et al, he's fairly savvy to have been able to cut through all that *kitten* to have his product come up high, and as a free to play product.
It doesn't mean he understands the reason 5x5 is effective, and creating programming beyond it. I did a little looking into his education, and essentially found nothing beyond what he would have used as an IT person. It doesn't mean he doesn't know, but if you strip away his ownership of the SL 5x5 brand, I don't see anything that makes him an expert.
Then again, for all I know there is a whole body of sports performance research from him I've been unable to find.0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »In linear progression you are not manipulating any variables, just simply adding weight between each session or week.
In periodization you are manipulating other variables such as percentages, reps sets etc.
Load, weight, % of 1RM (whatever you want to call it, semantics) is an acute training variable. So if you are changing the weight each session you are effectively changing an acute training variable. By your definition if we're manipulating a variable we are effectively periodizing the program.II. Linear Periodization
Before I begin, let me say that block periodization is an example of linear periodization, but not all linear periodization programs are done in
a block periodization format. Linear periodization is exactly what you think it is: it’s a planned-progression program that has the lifter
perform the same set-and-rep scheme every week while adding X amount of weight. Normally, that weight is five pounds per week
You know what I meant by variables. Yes, you're increasing weight week to week; however, nothing else changes.
Re-read the definition of Linear Periodization I posted. NASM defines periodization as "a systematic approach to program design." Is SL5x5 not systematic in-nature. Day A do this, next Day A add 5lbs, Next Day A, add 5lbs, sounds pretty systematic.
@Mr M: I've read it and all I have to say is I think Mehdi did a good job of introducing basic strength training to people in a way that's easily digestable and easy to execute. Although Rippletoe and Starr did it years before, Mehdi just was better at using the internet. With that being said, he took an existing training philosophy and put a label on it, that's it. I have little respect for anything he says.
Either way arguing about semantics is ridiculous and you can consider this progression or whatever else you want to, doesn't matter to me; I was only posting for the OP. Checking out...
My NASM per the 4th edition revised defines periodization as "Division of a training program into smaller progressive stages".
Practical Programming for Strength Training defines it as "A term most frequently used when referring to the organization of weight training programming into periods of time longer than the interval between two workouts."0 -
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.0
-
6 weeks isn't enough to even notice a large difference. I love Candito training but you'll need to do several cycles of it.
Follow something that forces you to improve over a long period of time. 5/3/1 is also very good for lifters or something like 8/6/4 for non competitors.0 -
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.
If you really want to try and stretch the definition so be it... but you're not manipulating volume and intensity in SL, and the progression is still from workout to workout. Those additional variables don't need to be manipulated because the stress and adaptation cycle of a beginner is much shorter.
Shifting from SL to an intermediate program would potentially fit that criteria if you look at it under the scope of a beginner lifter who planned out an entire years worth of training with the intention of moving into that program. However, highly unlikely I'd say... considering beginners don't know what they're doing generally speaking.
In any event... to answer OP... the only real downside to running a periodized plan versus one that has linear progression is that you may not progress as fast as you potentially could. So, that depends how important the time factor is to you.0 -
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.0 -
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?
0 -
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?
wrong0 -
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.0 -
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.
0 -
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.0 -
Intensity can be planned sure, but if you don't follow it, all you're doing is flapping your wang against the squat rack.LolBroScience 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.
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.
0 -
Intensity can be planned sure, but if you don't follow it, all you're doing is flapping your wang against the squat rack.LolBroScience 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.
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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 0 -
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.0 -
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions