129. Strength-training-manual-volume-1-for-members.pdf

Strength Training Manual The Agile Periodization Approach Volume One

Mladen Jovanović

Published by: Complementary Training Belgrade, Serbia 2019 For information: www.complementarytraining.net 2

Jovanović, M. Strength Training Manual. The Agile Periodization Approach. Volume One

ISBN: 978-86-900803-1-1

978-86-900803-2-8 (Volume One)

Copyright © 2019 Mladen Jovanović

Cover design by Ricardo Marino Cover image used under license from Shutterstock.com E-Book design by Goran Smiljanić

All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the author except for the use of brief quotations in a book review.

Published in Belgrade, Serbia First E-Book Edition

Complementary Training Website: www.complementarytraining.net 3

Table of Contents Preface to the Volume One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Precision versus Significance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Generalizations, Priors, and Bayesian updating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Large and Small Worlds• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Different prediction errors and accompanying costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Classification, Categorization and Fuzzy borders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Place of Things vs Forum for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

Qualities, Ontology, Phenomenology, Complexity, Causality . . . . . . . . . 17 Philosophical stance(s) and influential persons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 What is covered in this manual?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

2 Agile Periodization and Philosophy of Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Iterative Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Phases of strength training planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Qualities, Methods, and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Dan John's Four Training Quadrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

Goals Setting and Decision Making (in Complexity and Uncertainty)•. . . . . 33 OKRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

Designing MVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

Is/Ought Gap and Hero’s Journey•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

Evidence-based mumbo jumbo• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Certainty, Risk, and Uncertainty•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 4

Optimal versus Robust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Positive and Negative knowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Barbell Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

Randomization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Latent vs. Observed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 Inter-Individual vs. Intra-Individual. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Substance vs. Form• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Other complementary pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Explore – Exploit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Growing - Pruning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Develop – Express. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Maintain – Disrupt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61

Structure - Function. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Weaknesses – Strengths. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 The Function of Muscles in the Human Body. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Grand Unified Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

70

Shu-Ha-Ri and Bruce Lee’s punch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72

3 Exercises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 General vs. Specific. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Grinding vs. Ballistic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Grinding movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

78

Ballistic movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Control movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Simple vs. Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Fundamental movement patterns• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Grinding movement patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

Ballistic movement patterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Combining movement patterns with the Time-Complexity quadrants. 86 Exercise Priority/Emphasis/Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Session Position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Use of the Slots and Combinatorics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 The use of Functional Units in Team Sessions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 1RM relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 5

Upper Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Lower Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Combined. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 What should you do next? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 4 Prescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Three components of Intensity (Load, Intent, Exertion) •. . . . . . . . . . 103 Load-Max Reps Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Load-Exertion Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Not all training maximums are created equal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Purpose of 1RM or EDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 How to estimate 1RM or EDM? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 True 1RM test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Reps to (technical) failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Velocity based estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Estimation through iteration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Total System Load vs. External Load?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Comparing individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Simple ratio (relative strength) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Allometric scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Percent-based approach to prescribing training loads• . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Prescribing using open sets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Prescribing using %1RM approach (percent-based bread and butter method) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Prescribing using subjective indicators of exertion levels (RPE, RIR). . 140 Prescribing using Velocity Based Training (VBT) . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Other prescription methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Modifications of the percent-based approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Rep Zones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Load Zones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Subjective Indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Velocity Based Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Time and Reps Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Prediction and monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Ballistic Movements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 6

What is 1RM with ballistic movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 What is failure with ballistic movements (and how many reps to do)•. . . . 162 Appendix: Exercise List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 About. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

7

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Preface to the Volume One When I started writing the Strength Training Manual, I wanted it to be a simple and short book with heuristics and reference tables. As I began to write, I soon realized that the readers will have hard time understanding how to actually apply those heuristics and tables, as well as understand the whys behind them. Additionally, writing is not a simple act of dumping material on paper for me, but rather an act of exploration and discovery. Therefore, as I wrote, new things emerged and I wanted to play with them, attack them from multiple perspectives to see how robust they are. In the end, this made the Strength Training Manual much larger and much slower to write than I originally intended. The reasons why the Strength Training Manual e-book comes in volumes are as follows. First, I can split it in chunks, which, for those who embark on any writing adventure, is much more manageable. Second, I wanted this to be available to the readers as soon as possible, so that I can collect the feedback and improve the text for the potential paperback/hardback edition. Third, reading 600-page e-book is much harder than reading 200-something e-book. Fourth, the profit. E-book version of the Strength Training Manual published in volumes is available for free for the Complementary Training members, which makes it an additional benefit of the membership. In a nutshell, publishing in volumes seemed like a good idea and a solution. Only time will tell if I was right or wrong. In this Volume One, first four chapters are published, plus the exercise table from the Appendix. This Volume is heavier on the philosophy and the Agile Periodization behind my strength training planning, although chapters 3 and 4 are much more practical and provide multiple useful tables and heuristics. As always, I am looking forward to your critiques and feedback. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or spot any kind of bullshit. Mladen Jovanović 8

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

1 Introduction As a strength and conditioning coach, I have always collected and referenced numerous tables, heuristics and guidelines (such as various rep max tables, Prilepin table, exercise max ratios to name a few) that helped me create strength training programs. Unfortunately, these were usually spread all over the place: numerous books and papers, countless Excel sheets and PowerPoint presentations. Every time I wanted to quickly find something to reference and possibly to compare, it was a major pain in the arse finding it. So I decided to put them all together in one place, where I can easily find them and use them, possibly have it at arms reach in the gym. Thus, I decided to create this manual. But please note that this manual is not an in-depth how-to book, but a simple collection of useful tables and heuristics that you can use as a starting point when designing your strength training programs. Having said this, it is important to quickly go through some of the rationale and warnings before diving into the material. It is a bit philosophical, but please bear with me for the next few pages.

Precision versus Significance “As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precision” - Lofti Zadeh The material in this manual is WRONG. It is not precise. It will vary, sometimes a lot, between exercises, individuals, and genders (all 457 of them). This should be expected since day-to-day motivation and readiness to train, improvement rates, testing errors, among others, are not constant and predictable, but rather represent sources of uncertainty, often experienced when working with athletes or dealing with 9

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

any kind of performance enhancement. It is therefore up to you to update it with the information you possess and gain through training iterations. Figure 1.1 below depicts perfectly the difference between precision and significance, and the aim of this manual.

Figure 1.1. Difference between precision and significance. Image modified based on image in Fuzzy Logic Toolbox™ User’s Guide (MathWorks, 2019)

Generalizations, Priors, and Bayesian updating



Not sure if there is anything else that pisses me off more than hearing someone say: “You cannot generalize!”. Yeah right, I will approach every phenomenon in the Universe as unique and genuine. Not sure we have the brain power for that - that’s why we try to reduce the amount of information by generalizing. There is no science without generalization. That’s why we have generalizations, laws, archetypes, stereotypes. But smart people are not slaves to generalizations - they start with generalizations, but quickly update them with new information to improve their insights. For example, one can say that females are generally weaker than males (yeah, sexist generalization), which means two things: (1) average female is weaker than the average male, and (2) randomly selected female will be very likely to be weaker than randomly selected male in the population. Of course, we also need to take into account how much weaker, but without making this a statistic treatise about magnitudes of effects, one cannot claim that all females are weaker than all males. Even if we start with this generalization before working with a new female individual client or athlete and assume generalization is true 10

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

and we apply it to this individual as well (let’s call this prior belief), we need to update this prior belief with observations and experience while working with this individual, who might be a future or current world class powerlifter (and probably stronger than 90% of males). This means that we need to update our prior beliefs (e.g. generalizations, or heuristics) with our own observations in the process called Bayesian updating to gain insights which will educate our decision making.

Prior Insight Observa�ons Figure 1.2. Bayesian updating, simplified

This manual is full of generalizations. Hence, you need to look at them as a starting point, which you should update with your own observations, experience, experimentations, and intuition. Just don’t be a dumbfuck and blindly believe and adopt everything that has been written. Again, use it as a starting point (prior).

Large and Small Worlds The real world is very complex and uncertain. To help in orienting ourselves in it, we create maps and models. These are representations of reality, or representations of the real world. In the outstanding statistics book “Statistical Rethinking” (McElreath, 2015), author uses an analogy, originally coined by Leonard Savage (Savage, 1972; Binmore, 2011; Volz & Gigerenzer, 2012; Gigerenzer, Hertwig & Pachur, 2015a), that differentiates between Large World and Small Worlds: “The small world is the self-contained, logical world of the model. Within the small world, all possibilities are nominated. There are no pure surprises, like 11

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

the existence of a huge continent between Europe and Asia. Within the small world of the model, it is important to be able to verify the model’s logic, making sure that it performs as expected under favorable assumptions. Bayesian models have some advantages in this regard, as they have reasonable claims to optimality: No alternative model could make better use of the information in the data and support better decisions, assuming the small world is an accurate description of the real world. The large world is the broader context in which one deploys a model. In the large world, there may be events that were not imagined in the small world. Moreover, the model is always an incomplete representation of the large world and so will make mistakes, even if all kinds of events have been properly nominated. The logical consistency of a model in the small world is no guarantee that it will be optimal in the large world. But it is certainly a warm comfort.”1 Everything written in this manual represents Small Worlds - self-contained models of assumptions about how things work or should work. Although they are all wrong, some of them are useful2 (to quote George Box), especially as a starting point in your orientation, experimentation, and deployment to the Large World. It is important to remember the distinction between the two. I embrace the integrative pluralism (Mitchell, 2002, 2012) in a way that there are multiple models (Page, 2018) that we should use to explain, predict and plan intervention in the Large World.

Different prediction errors and accompanying costs



Since all models are wrong, but some are useful, we need to make sure they don’t come with harmful errors and potential costs. We can make different types of errors, and they come at different costs. Let’s take a simplistic model of predicting 1RM (onerepetition maximum, or maximal weight one can lift with a proper technique): Table 1.1 represents a common scenario for predicting 1RM. The top row contains two TRUE values (150kg and 180kg) and on the side, we have two predictions. The grey diagonal represents correct predictions, while red diagonal represents erroneous predictions. Type I is undershooting (predicting 150kg when the real value is 180kg), 1 Excerpt taken from “Statistical Rethinking” (McElreath, 2015), page 19 2 “All models are wrong, but some are useful” is aphorism that is generally attributed to the statistician George Box. Nassim Nicholas Taleb expanded this aphorism to “All models are wrong, many are useful, some are deadly”

12

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

and Type II is overshooting (predicting 180kg when the real value is 150kg). Does making these two errors come with different costs if the predicted 1RM is implemented into the training program? Hell yes!

150 kg

180 kg

150kg

Correct

Error I (undershoo�ng)

180kg

Predicted 1RM

Real 1RM

Error II (overshoo�ng)

Correct

Table 1.1. Different types of prediction error

It must be noted that undershooting a lot is still safer than overshooting a little. This is because when you undershoot, you can still perform training sessions and easily update, while if you overshoot, you will hit the wall quite quickly, and potentially injure someone or create expectation stress and/or heavy soreness. Plus, in my own experience, it is easier to ask for more from an athlete, than less. Furthermore, imagine that your program calls for 3 sets of 5 reps with 100kg, and your athlete feels great and performs 8 reps in the last set instead of the situation where your program calls for 3 sets of 5 with 110kg and the athlete struggles to finish it, or might even need to strip the weights down. Performing better than it has been written in the training program is always motivational (first situation), whereas the opposite can be very discouraging (second situation). Collectively, this approach represents protection from the downside (i.e. injury) which can further allow us to invest in the upside (i.e. strength training adaptation). But more about this in the next chapter. The problem is that we cannot get rid of errors - we can balance them out by accepting higher Type I error while minimizing Type II error, or vice versa. In this manual I accepted the fact that when making errors (and I do make them), I want them to be Type I errors, or undershooting errors since they come up with much less cost that can easily be fixed through few training iterations. Because of that, you might notice that some percentages in this manual are quite low. Therefore, I suggest you take a similar philosophy when deciding about percentages and every other guideline in this manual: lean on the side of conservatism and safety first. 13

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Classification, Categorization and Fuzzy borders



As it is the case with generalization, classifications and categorizations (which I consider synonyms here and use interchangeably) are aiming to reduce the number of dimensions and numbers of particular phenomena at hand (with the aim of easier orientation and action). This eventually means that items in one bracket or class might differ, while items from different brackets or classes might be similar. Besides, there are multiple approaches to classifying phenomena which might have different depths or levels of precision (see Figure 1.3). To paraphrase Jordan B. Peterson: “Categories are constructed in relationship to their functional significance”, meaning there are no objective or unbiased approaches to categorization and classification, and they depend on how we aim to use those categorizations3. For example, powerlifter might classify strength training means, methods, qualities, and objectives differently than Olympic weightlifter or a soccer player. This is because they experience different phenomena and demand a different forum for action. But if you ask your average lab coat to perform unbiased and objective classification, he or she will usually perform it as a place of things type of classification. Categorization is not an exercise in futility, but rather helps us make better decisions (more educated and faster decisions via information reduction and simplification). This simplification has some similarities with heuristics (fast and frugal rules of thumb that help to avoid overfitting in a complex and uncertain world). Hence, categories should have functional significance. In other words, you want to use those categories somehow. Therefore, one should stop categorizing once there is no functional significance. That said, categories should be in the lowest possible “compression” (lowest resolution) that still conveys enough pragmatic information. Since there are numerous ways to categorize certain items (see Kant’s thing in itself4), the way we approach categorization and what we see, depends on what we plan using it for (see Figure 1.3). I might be wrong, but this reminds me of both phenomenology5 (things as they manifest 3 Also check essentialism versus nominalism, realism versus instrumentalism/constructivism and how they are integrated with pragmatist-realist position (Borsboom, Mellenbergh & van Heerden, 2003; Guyon, Falissard & Kop, 2017) 4 From Wikipedia (“Thing-in-itself,” 2019): “The thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is a concept introduced by Immanuel Kant. Things-in-themselves would be objects as they are, independent of observation” 5 From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Smith, 2018): “Literally, phenomenology is the study of “phenomena”: appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things, thus the meanings things have in our experience. Phenomenology studies conscious experience as experienced from the subjective or first-person point of view.”

14

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

to us) and pragmatism6 (practical application), although they are radically opposed philosophical positions (together with analytic philosophy, which can be considered your average lab coat objective and unbiased approach to classification). It is beyond this manual (and my current knowledge) to discuss these topics, but in my opinion, philosophy is very much alive, and it needs to be taken into account especially with the recent rise of scientism7 in sport science and performance.

"Thing in itself"

Classifica�on 1

Classifica�on 2

Classifica�on 3

Classifica�on 4

Classifica�on 5

Figure 1.3. There is no bias-free, objective way to classify phenomena. Classification depends on what you plan to use it for8

Place of Things vs Forum for Action Classification thus serves a dual purpose: place of things and forum for action. By term place of things, I refer to simply classify phenomena relative to some objective criteria (this is usually physiological, anatomical or biomechanical criteria), or using an analytical approach. On the other hand, the forum for action refers to a classification based on how we intend to use these classes in planning, action, and intervening. In this manual, I am leaning more toward forum for action approach in classifying phenomena, mostly as strength and conditioning coach of team sports athletes, rather than powerlifting or a weightlifting coach. This doesn’t mean that powerlifting and weightlifting coaches cannot use this manual (at the end of the day, we have common 6 From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Legg & Hookway, 2019): “Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that – very broadly – understands knowing the world as inseparable from agency within it.” 7 Belief or stance that all things can be reduced to science (Boudry & Pigliucci, 2017) 8 Thing-in-itself: "What do you see? Depends on what do you want to use it for". Modified based on the image from Maps of Meaning 5: Story and Meta-story course by Jordan B. Peterson (Peterson, 2017)

15

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

physiology, anatomy, psychology, and experience shared phenomena in training), but that they might classify things a bit differently because their forum for action differs than the forum for action of the non-strength-sport athletes. It is also important to mention that class membership is not a TRUE/FALSE state (although it does simplify things a lot), but rather fuzzy (or continuous) membership. For example, is split squat double leg or single leg movement? For simplicity (Small World model) it is easier to assume it belongs only to one class or category, but in real life (Large World) we know it is not that easy to make a hard border between classes (thus, it can be 60% double leg, and 40% single leg, or what have you). One helpful approach, that helps me at least in minimizing how much I break my own balls over categorization, is to ask “How do I plan using this classification and for whom?”. Also, remember that you do not need to be very precise, but rather meaningful and significant in helping yourself orienting from the forum for action perspective (see Figure 1.1).

Qualities, Ontology, Phenomenology, Complexity, Causality



Most, if not all, coaching education material regarding planning and periodization comes with highly biased classification using objective physiological and biomechanical approaches (place of things; analytical approach (Loland, 1992; Jovanovic, 2018)). These fields have a monopoly on defining ontology9 (“What exists out there”) of qualities and methods: maximal strength, explosive strength, VO2max, anaerobic capacity, you name it. Some individuals tend to wave around with this scientific method, as something objective and unbiased, but they are just value signaling, because they are using a scientific approach, and you, the little dungeon dweller, are not. But unfortunately, there is no objective or unbiased approach, and you, the dungeon dweller, might engage phenomena classification as you experience it (phenomenology) and you should not be embarrassed about your subjectivity. Yes, you should understand anatomy, physiology and biomechanics, but they should not hold the monopoly over how you classify the phenomena of importance to you. They are necessary, but not sufficient knowledge. Since these fields define what is real (ontology), it is natural to follow up with an approach that assumes these qualities as the building blocks of periodized training 9 From Wikipedia (“Ontology,” 2019): “Ontology is the philosophical study of being. More broadly, it studies concepts that directly relate to being, in particular becoming, existence, reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.”

16

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

programs. Beyond this, we assume very simplistic causal models (Small World models of what causes what), where we further assume there is some magic training method, or intensity zone, that drives adaptation of the qualities we need to address. For example, we might claim that reps >90% improve maximal strength and that reps with 65% done fast improve explosiveness. This is bullshit. Even worse than this is the Load Velocity curve with associated qualities and intensity zones. Unfortunately, or luckily, things are not that simple. Yes, we can use these as Small World models, representations and heuristics (which they are), rather than the factual state of the world (ontology). First, different individuals will manifest different phenomena and will demand different quality identification as a forum for action. For example, what is holding back a world-class powerlifter in the bench press of 200kg might be lockout strength or bottom strength (and these are phenomenological qualities). Thus, one might approach intervention with these qualities in mind. This will not be the case for your average soccer player since his bench press performance is not the ultimate goal, but rather one aspect of what we might consider important for him (i.e. horizontal pressing). Biomechanically speaking, they are identical (place of things), but phenomenologically, they are very much different, especially in defining the qualities from the forum for action perspective and deciding about intervention to improve them.

Methods Repeated Effort Method

Repeated Effort Method

Max Effort Method

Dynamic Effort Method

(<65% 1RM)

(75-85% 1RM)

(>90% 1RM)

(50-60% 1RM)

Complexes, WODs, Circuit Training

Anatomic Adapta�on

Hypertrophy

Maximal Strength

Rate of Force Development

Strength Endurance

Quali�es Figure 1.4. An overly simplistic causal model of methods and qualities

17

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Second, assuming there is an associated training method or intensity zone that magically hits identified quality is a pipe dream. The causal network is very complex and at the end of the day, we do need to realize and accept the fact that we are experimenting using a case-by-case approach. There are still useful priors we can rely on (e.g. scientific studies, best practices, old school methods) as a starting point in our experimentation and updating process, but at the end of the day, we are experimenting, and following some Russian lab coat’s program is a warm comfort of certainty assumptions.

Philosophical stance(s) and influential persons



Someone more versed in philosophy than myself currently, can probably put me in certain philosophical stance brackets (i.e. classify me). My current reasoning, besides being complementarist10 is that of integrative pluralist (Mitchell, 2002, 2012), pragmatist-realist (Maul, 2013; Guyon, Falissard & Kop, 2017) and phenomenologist. I am highly influenced by works of Robert Pirsig and his Metaphysics of Quality11 (Pirsig, 1991, 2006), Jordan Peterson (Peterson, 1999; Peterson, Doidge & Van Sciver, 2018), Nassim Taleb (Taleb, 2004, 2010, 2012, 2018), and Gerd Gigerenzer (Gigerenzer, 2015; Gigerenzer, Hertwig & Pachur, 2015a). These philosophical stances and personas are highly influential on my approach to training (and life in general) and that will be quite visible in the chapters to come. For that reason, I find it important to pinpoint to the sources. I do think, especially with the recent rise of scientism (Boudry & Pigliucci, 2017), particularly in our domain of sport performance and science, that philosophy is more than needed. This introductory chapter and the following on the Agile Periodization are very much philosophical and are covering mine philosophical stances.

What is covered in this manual? It was important to vent the above out before presenting the rest of the material. I take the percent-based approach to strength training since I find it a great prior for being implemented concurrently with any other approach (velocity based, RPE based 10 Complementary Training is the name of my blog (www.complementarytraining.net) that I started in 2010, with the aim of reconciling opposing concepts in training using the complementary approach (Kelso & Engstrøm, 2008). 11 You will probably read the word Quality numerous times in this manual

18

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

approach, open sets and so forth), and because it can give a ballpark of where weights should be. When I was working with soccer athletes, I first tried to implement open sets (only prescribing reps) and to teach them how to fish by allowing them to progress and select weights themselves by keeping a training log (which was usually forgotten or slipped under treadmill). This failed miserably, since they didn’t give many fucks regarding strength training. They wanted to get it done and play rondo. Therefore, I decided to calculate the weights and the number of repetitions they needed to lift. You know - being a Hitler and master of puppets. However, after that, I realized how all these formulas and tables differ for a given individual, exercise, on a daily basis. I needed something that is prescriptive enough to avoid fuckarounditis (“Tell me how much I need to be lifting” and to make sure progressive overload happens over time), but also flexible enough to take into account errors and uncertainties, individual differences, and rates of improvement. That is how this manual was born. This manual starts with Chapter 2 on Agile Periodization (Jovanovic, 2018), which provides a rough outline of the concept, particularly iterative planning component, and how it is applied to strength training planning, objectives classification, and goals setting. Chapter 3 discusses strength training movements classification, as well as the ratios between their maximum (which can be quite useful in estimating max for novel exercise, at least until one gains more observation regarding the exercise in question and update this model). Chapter 4 discusses 1RM estimation (particularly estimation through iteration idea), rep max tables and how they can be useful. Chapter 5 discusses the planning of the strength training phase and set and rep schemes. Chapter 6 covers the review and retrospective of the strength phase (which I titled Rinse and Repeat). Appendix consists of multiple chapters including case studies, as well as full list of exercises, the most important tables and all set and rep schemes discussed in the book. As already stated, the objective of this strength training manual is not to go into theoretical nitty-gritty details, but to provide all the useful tables, formulas and heuristics at one place.

19

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

2 Agile Periodization and Philosophy of Training Agile Periodization is a planning framework that relies on decision making in uncertainty, rather than ideology, physiological and biomechanical constructs, and industrial age mechanistic approach to planning (Jovanovic, 2018). Contemporary planning strategies are based on predictive responses and linear reductionist analysis, which is ill-suited for dealing with the uncertain and complex domain, such as human adaptation and performance (Kiely, 2009, 2010a,b, 2011, 2012, 2018; Loturco & Nakamura, 2016). The word agile comes from IT domain, where they figured out that industrial age approach to project management (i.e., waterfall) doesn’t work very well in highly changing and unpredictable environment of the software industry and markets (Rubin, 2012; Stellman & Greene, 2014; Sutherland, 2014; Layton & Ostermiller, 2017; Layton & Morrow, 2018).

Iterative Planning Iterative planning consists of iterative processes of (1) planning, (2) development, and (3) review and retrospective. These can be applied on different time scales, and here I selected three as well: (1) release, (2) phase, and (3) sprint (see Figure 2.1). Sprint can be considered one microcycle, the phase can be considered mesocycle, and the release can be regarded as one macrocycle, for those familiar with more contemporary periodization terms (Bompa & Buzzichelli, 2015, 2019). Why did I choose different names? To act smart? First of all, different frameworks demand different language. Second of all, planning in this framework, as opposed in contemporary planning strategies, is iterative rather than detailed up-front. Taking all 20

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

of that into account, it is essential to use the terminology which will better represent the iterative planning approach and differentiate it from more common planning strategies as well.

Plan Plan

Phase #1

Plan

Sprint #1

Review & Retrospec�ve

Plan

Sprint #2

Review & Retrospec�ve

Plan

Sprint #3

Review & Retrospec�ve

Plan

Sprint #4

Review & Retrospec�ve

Plan

Sprint #5

Review & Retrospec�ve

Plan

Sprint #6

Review & Retrospec�ve

Plan

Sprint #7

Review & Retrospec�ve

Plan

Sprint #8

Review & Retrospec�ve

Plan

Sprint #9

Review & Retrospec�ve

Plan

Sprint #10

Review & Retrospec�ve

Plan

Sprint #11

Review & Retrospec�ve

Plan

Sprint #12

Review & Retrospec�ve

Review & Retrospec�ve

Plan

Release #1

Phase #2

Review & Retrospec�ve

Plan

Phase #3

Review & Retrospec�ve Review & Retrospec�ve

Figure 2.1. Iterative Planning consists of three time-frames: release, phase and sprint, each having a planning component, development component, and review & retrospective component (which are needed to update the knowledge for the next iteration)

21

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up These three time-frames are needed to implement both top-down and bottomup planning, which I consider to be complementary (Kelso & Engstrøm, 2008), rather than dichotomous (see Figure 2.2).

Top Down Release Planning

Phase Planning

Sprint Planning

Bo�om Up Figure 2.2. Top-Down and Bottom-Up planning as a complementary pair.

Top-down refers to seeing the big picture, deciding about goals, objectives and strategies and answering the question "What should be done and why". Bottom-Up refers to starting with “what can be done now and how”. Bottom-up begins with the problems at hand (e.g., equipment and facilities, level of athletes, and so forth), rather than with a vision (which is the goal of the top-down approach). Sprint planning is mostly concerned with figuring out what can be done and how (within constraints of the bigger picture established with release and phase plan). To utilize bottom-up approach, one needs to embrace the concept of MVP, or minimum-viable program12, which is the least complicated training program that serves one as a vehicle, while one discovers what can and should be done and how. 12 The original idea comes from Lean Startup book (Ries, 2011) where MVP stands for Minimum Viable Product

22

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

An essential concept of MVP is that all qualities identified as important (from the lowest resolution, or from functional significance perspective) are being addressed. For example, making sure there is some speed/sprint work, quality strides, jumps, lifts (major movement patterns being addressed) trumps worrying about chest flies, rear deltoideus work or whether Nordic curls are better than RDLs. MVP is the epitome of precision vs. significance conundrum (see Figure 1.1). It is a myth, that when someone starts working with a team, they will immediately know the objectives and what should be done (top-down approach) to improve performance. That is bullshit. You need to figure out what you are dealing with first, figuring out the problems before deciding about vision and long-term phases. Here is the example: imagine starting to work with a soccer team and approaching planning from these two perspectives: Top-Down: The vision is that we need strong, fast, fit and healthy athletes. We will start with whatever the fucking phase-potentiation/periodization framework is modern nowadays. For example, start with the anatomical adaptation phase, followed by max strength phase, followed by power and then finally maintenance. This is of course planned before actually seeing the athlete and the facilities. Why? Because if you don’t, you don’t have a long-term plan and are clueless as a coach. And because Russian textbooks say so. Bottom-Up: I have 3 dumbbells, athletes who never lifted in their life, and a head coach who doesn’t believe in physical preparation for soccer. What am I supposed to do to get the MVP, build the trust with athletes, coaches, and board, and go from there? I am not saying that the top-down approach is not important, but since it has been overemphasized in the contemporary planning and periodization literature, while still missing to address issues from where the rubber meets the road, I believe that what we need to do is to emphasize bottom-up approach more, to reach some type of balance in the planning universe (pun intended). I also believe that both are important and complementary, because if the only type of planning you do is bottom-up, how you are going to judge the results without bigger picture, objectives, and vision. This is the reason why both top-down and bottom-up approaches are implemented in Agile Periodization using three components: release, phase, and sprint (see Figure 2.2). Within each of these components (release, phase, sprint), there are three distinctive and formal parts: (1) plan, (2) development, and (3) review and retrospective. Let's see how this can be applied to strength training.

23

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Phases of strength training planning Strength training planning can be seen as consisting of three iterative components: 1. Establish EDM (every-day maximum) 2. Plan the training phase 3. Rinse and repeat Each of these phases will be covered in more details in following chapters (Chapters 4-6), but it is essential to see how they correspond to the iterative nature of sprint and phase components of the Agile Periodization (see Figure 2.3)

1 Establish EDM 2 Plan the Training Phase

Horizontal Planning

One Phase (block)

Ver�cal Planning

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Workou A1 Workout B1 Workout C1 Workout D1

Saturday

Sunday

Next vertical planning stage Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Workou A2 Workout B2 Workout C2 Workout D2

Saturday

Sunday

Next vertical planning stage Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Workou A3 Workout B3 Workout C3 Workout D3

Saturday

Sunday

Next vertical planning stage Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Workou A4 Workout B4 Workout C4 Workout D4

Saturday

Sunday

One Sprint (microcycle)

3 Rinse and Repeat Figure 2.3. Three iterative components of strength training planning

In my view, these three components are building blocks of the bottom-up approach, and this whole manual revolves around these three. I do believe that these shorter iterative programs are needed to course correct and adapt to the newly discovered observations and insights (see Bayesian updating in the previous chapter) compared to longer top-down phases.

24

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Qualities, Methods, and Objectives Coaches (luckily not all of them) often use the following mental model (Small World; see previous chapter) that is dominated by physiology and biomechanics reductionist approach (Figure 2.4):

Methods Repeated Effort Method

Repeated Effort Method

Max Effort Method

Dynamic Effort Method

(<65% 1RM)

(75-85% 1RM)

(>90% 1RM)

(50-60% 1RM)

Complexes, WODs, Circuit Training

Anatomic Adapta�on

Hypertrophy

Maximal Strength

Rate of Force Development

Strength Endurance

Quali�es Figure 2.4. An overly simplistic analytic causal model of methods and qualities

Since physiology and biomechanics define the place of things, we also automatically assume that we know what to do with it (the forum for action). However, there are a few issues with this. Firstly, qualities identified are usually related to some physiological model of performance (for example in endurance we have VO2max, Lactate Threshold and Economy as main qualities), or latent variables or constructs13. Secondly, we immediately assume that once we identify those qualities, there are training methods that can directly hit those qualities (sometimes we also refer to “training zones” or “zones of intensity”). Unfortunately, this is a flawed model. The more realistic model is the following (see Figure 2.5)

13 These latent variables or constructs are usually referred to as bio-motor qualities (e.g., strength, speed, power, endurance, flexibility). From a realist perspective they represent real ontological qualities (i.e., they are the cause for the observed variable, i.e., strength as a quality cause your manifested performance in the bench press or a squat). Instrumentalist or constructionist perspective assumes that latent variables represent just a numerical construct that helps in explaining manifested observations (i.e., manifested performance in the bench press and squat can be correlated because you have strength trained) (Borsboom, Mellenbergh & van Heerden, 2003; Borsboom, 2008; Maul, 2013). More about these topics will be covered later in the chapter.

25

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Methods Repeated Effort Method

Repeated Effort Method

Max Effort Method

Dynamic Effort Method

(<65% 1RM)

(75-85% 1RM)

(>90% 1RM)

(50-60% 1RM)

Complexes, WODs, Circuit Training

Anatomic Adapta�on

Hypertrophy

Maximal Strength

Rate of Force Development

Strength Endurance

Quali�es Figure 2.5. More realistic model, where there is no clear cut between Qualities and Methods

As mentioned in the previous chapter, rather than relying solely on physiology and biomechanics to define what there is (although, I am by no means underestimating the importance of knowing these disciplines and analytical approach) and what should we do with/about it, I want to take more phenomenological (and pragmatic) approach in this manual. How does this relate to strength training? We tend to define objectives and methods of strength training using the analytical approach of biomechanics and physiology (Jovanović, 2008a,b,c; Jovanovic, 2017a,b): 1. Maximal and Relative Strength - The goal is the development of maximal strength - The method used for developing this motor quality is Maximal Effort, or ME 2. Explosive Strength - The goal is the development of explosive strength, or the ability to produce great force in the least amount of time - The method used for developing this motor quality is Dynamic Effort or DE 3. Muscular Hypertrophy - The goal is the development of muscular hypertrophy, without going into the debate of sarcoplasmic vs. myofibrillar hypertrophy - The method used for developing this motor quality is Submaximal Effort, or SE (mostly for functional or myofibrillar hypertrophy) and Repetition Effort, or RE (primarily for total or sarcoplasmic hypertrophy) 26

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

4. Muscular Endurance - The goal is the development of muscular endurance, fat loss, anatomic adaptation and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (depending on the context). Some also put ’vascularization’, ’glycogen depletion’, ’mitochondria development’ as the goal of this method - The method used for developing this motor quality is Repetition Effort or RE So, we believe, that for example, if one wants to improve max strength, one needs to use >85-90% 1RM loads. But then we have athletes coached by Boris Sheiko (Sheiko, 2018) who usually lift weights lower than 80% 1RM and are some of the strongest in the world. So, these categories create paradoxes because they make us falsely confident in the involved processes leading to a specific goal, but unfortunately, we are dealing with complex systems and uncertainties. What is the solution? In my opinion, the answer is using complementary phenomenological objectives. Phenomenological approach defines qualities as they manifest themselves in our experience or performance (Loland, 1992; Jovanovic, 2018). For example, powerlifter in the competition struggles to lift his opener (first weight), and that sets him up poorly for the other tries. From the analytical (i.e., biomechanical and physiological) standpoint, one can dissect this to rate of force development, fast twitch synchronization, or whatever I-want-to-sound-smart constructs. But from the phenomenological perspective, one struggled to find the right mindset and use the suit in the right way. Defining qualities like this gives more meaning and create affordances14 for action (something that is lacking in analytical approach - see Is/Ought problem later). Another example might be an endurance runner (not the best example in Strength Training manual right but bear with me for a second)15. This endurance runner’s result in 1500m competition is 3 minutes and 56 seconds. His VO2max is 68 ml/kg/min. And how the hell does this help in figuring out the forum for action? What should he do to improve? Phenomenologically, we might notice that he lost the pace in the last lap by losing his rhythm. And this gives us more affordances for action - in other words, the forum for action. The coach can make better prescription based on the phenomenological analysis. So, rather than prescribing VO2max intervals (that sounds ‘scientific’ and ‘objective’), she might make this athlete focus on his speed and pace after a long run. Could he be a high-level 1500m without high VO2max? Or without elastic force generating ability? Hell no! To put this in philosophical terms, high VO2max is a necessary condition to be a high level 1500m runner, but it is not sufficient. Thus, one cannot make simplistic 14 Affordances are what the environment offers the individual (“Affordance,” 2019). Also see (Davids, Button & Bennett, 2008; Renshaw, Davids & Savelsbergh, 2012; Gibson, 2014; Chow et al., 2016) 15 Outstanding book on endurance training, as well as the critique of the simplistic analytical models is Science of Running by Steve Magness, which I highly recommend checking (Magness, 2014)

27

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

causal reasoning that one needs to perform VO2max intervals (e.g., 4x3min @105% MAS or vVO2max), to improve VO2max, which will improve 1500m performance. The causal network is very complex and unpredictable, which doesn’t mean understanding physiology is unnecessary, but understanding it is not sufficient when it comes to enhancing athletes’ performance. Similar problems are experienced in other domains, for example, psychometry, with the concepts of IQ, g-factor and Big Five factors of personality (Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1998; Molenaar, Huizenga & Nesselroade, 2003; Borsboom, Mellenbergh & van Heerden, 2003; Molenaar, 2004; Hamaker, Dolan & Molenaar, 2005; Borsboom, 2008; Molenaar & Campbell, 2009; Cramer et al., 2012; Borsboom & Cramer, 2013; Schmittmann et al., 2013; Bringmann et al., 2013; Maul, 2013; Nesselroade & Molenaar, 2016; Borsboom et al., 2016; Guyon, Falissard & Kop, 2017; Kovacs & Conway, 2019). If you are interested in this topic, I suggest you check the provided references. The key takeaway is that causation is not as simple as Figure 2.4. When it comes to strength training, using analytical perspective, strength qualities are (1) maximal strength, (2) explosive strength, (3) strength endurance, and (4) hypertrophy. The question is how do they differ and manifest themselves in powerlifter versus soccer player? How do they differentiate into finer qualities? In my opinion, the scientific analytical approach needs to be complemented (sometimes even replaced, or started at least) with a phenomenological analysis of the qualities and methods. We do need to understand that we are dealing with uncertainty and complexity, and pluralistic approach of using multiple Small World models is needed, rather than ideological belief in only one model (Mitchell, 2002, 2012; Page, 2018). This means that all pre-planning serves only as a prior (see previous chapter on Bayesian updating) which needs to be updated and experimented with, using the iterative approach of Agile Periodization. Following long-term periodization phases of the Russians gives us a false sense of certainty and comfort, but at the end of the day, we are experimenting. It is important to realize that from the phenomenological perspective, qualities have a hierarchy. The higher the level of the athlete, the more one needs to dig deeper and with a finer resolution to figure out rate limiters that need to be addressed. This is the difference between specialist (e.g., powerlifter) versus generalist (e.g., soccer player) and their approach to strength training. From an analytical perspective, in my opinion, this finer differentiation is missing. They both need maximum strength, hypertrophy, and the rate of force development. But they have different phenomenological qualities that are required, and hence training will be different. To wrap up this philosophical treatise on qualities, please consider the gross phenomenological strength qualities defined by coach and legend Dan John (John, 2017):

28

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

ANACONDA STRENGTH I love using goofy names to explain concepts to athletes. Anaconda strength is the internal pressure we must exert to hold ourselves steady against the forces of the environment or an implement. A highland game athlete tossing a caber is fighting forces in every direction, yet maintaining his or her body as “one piece.” Anaconda strength is the body squeezing and the inner tube of the body pushing back to keep integrity. ARMOR BUILDING This is the kind of training that fighters, football teams, and rugby athletes already understand. Armor building is the development of calluses or body armor to withstand the contact and collisions with other people and the environment. ARROW This is the concept of learning how to turn yourself into stone. In football, this the contact in tackling and blocking; in throwing, it is the block to put the energy into the implement. This might seem very similar to (1) Maximal Strength (Anaconda Strength), (2) Hypotrophy (Armor Building) and (3) Explosive Strength (Arrow), and it actually is similar, but it is defined more from the phenomenological perspective, and as such, it will make more sense to the average soccer player or the head coach, because they think and understand “phenomena” rather than scientific abstractions (“Yeah, this method will increase your intra-muscular fast twitch coding, which should transfer to you being more explosive on the pitch”, versus “This will make him ‘snap’ out of defender’s reach, like shot from the sling”)

Anaconda Strength

Armor Building

Arrow

Vanilla Training

Mongoose Persistence

Figure 2.6. “Phenomenological” classification of strength training objectives

We can see that these objectives are very meaningful, but not very precise (see Figure 1.1). Although I might use these objectives when categorizing set and reps schemes, I am by no means forcing anyone to use these types of classifications - use whatever is meaningful and actionable to you. Having said that, I might still use different categorization when defining set and rep scheme (i.e., general strength schemes, maximal strength schemes, hypertrophy schemes and so forth). In my view, Dan John’s 29

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

objectives give us the lowest resolution categories that can guide our decision making while using the coaches’ language. Two additional categories that I added to Dan John’s model are (1) Mongoose Persistence, which is your usual MetCon, Strength Endurance, and Explosive Endurance or any other dangerous definition you might use, and (2) Vanilla Training. Mongoose Persistence represents the ability to prolong work, to reduce rest between burst of strength and explosive power feats and so forth. Why “Mongoose Persistence”? Because mongoose fight snakes, and we already have “Anaconda Strength” in there. When it comes to team sports, I am not very convinced this should be viable strength training objective, but it can certainly have some importance, although small (i.e., core circuits, off-legs conditioning for the injured, and so forth). Vanilla Training refers to your average low intensity, control, stabilizing, prehab, Pilates type of work. If you ask Dan Baker, that is around 90% of my training time (he saw me training a few times). Since this manual promotes multi-model thinking (pluralism), there might be multiple categorizations that have functional significance for you in your own context. One does not need to use analytical-’unbiased’-’objective’ scientific approach to objectives categorization, but one certainly needs to understand those disciplines (necessary versus sufficient discussion). You certainly are not the useless piece of shit if you are not using scientific analytic approach, and I want to empower you to build your own categorization based on your functional significance and phenomenology. Taking a phenomenological stance, anaconda strength, armor building, vanilla training, mongoose persistence, and arrow are very potent as a forum for action when it comes to strength training for team sports athletes. Powerlifters and other strengthbased athletes might need more resolution in the categorization because they have different phenomena they need to wrestle with. Dan John’s categorization of objectives is more than enough for team sport and other non-strength athletes (i.e., strength generalists).

Dan John's Four Training Quadrants It is very easy to get lost in the number and level of qualities that one might need to develop. One quite handy model that helps in orientation is Dan John’s model of four training quadrants (John, 2013) that is based on two continuums:

30

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

1. The number of qualities an athlete must have to excel at a sport, and 2. How good the athlete needs to be at each of those qualities relative to how good any athlete can be at that quality For the sake of simplicity, these two continua are split in two (high and low), which results in a quadrant (see Figure 2.7). Understanding where you belong is quite handy to avoid getting lost. Quadrant I represent physical education. Kids need to learn and acquire a bunch of low-level qualities. Team sports athletes, combat sports athletes, and some occupations belong to Quadrant II, where lots of high-level qualities are needed. Recreative athletes usually believe they belong to this quadrant, but that is a false belief. Quadrant III is pretty much everyone. In quadrant III, athletes or recreational athletes need few qualities at the low level (e.g., being mobile, not break one’s bones when falling off the chair, minimal aerobic endurance). Quadrant IV is your specialist - few qualities at the highest level. These are powerlifters, Olympic weightlifters, sprinters and so forth.

Low Level Of Quali�es

High Level Of Quali�es

Low Number Of Quali�es Who Specialists, like powerli�ers, track and field athletes, Characteris�cs Few quali�es at the highest level

Who Most people Characteris�cs Few quali�es, at low level

High Number Of Quali�es Who Team sports, combat sports, few occupa�ons Characteris�cs Lots of high-level quali�es

Who Kids, physical educa�on Characteris�cs Lots of low-level quali�es

Figure 2.7. Dan John four training quadrants. Image created based on the infographic available at the On Target Publication website (John, 2015).

31

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Quadrants model is quite useful in figuring out where you belong, and how your training should be structured. The material in this manual can be applied to all four quadrants since it provides a decision-making framework that can be implemented together with Dan John quadrants. For more information about four quadrants, I highly suggest reading Dan John material.

Goals Setting and Decision Making (in Complexity and Uncertainty)



Ah, the goals setting. If you are not setting goals, you are an utter piece of clueless shit that is aiming nowhere, right? Well, let me start by quoting Scott Adams from “How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big” (Adams, 2014): “To put it bluntly, goals are for losers. That’s literally true most of the time. For example, if your goal is to lose ten pounds, you will spend every moment until you reach the goal—if you reach it at all—feeling as if you were short of your goal. In other words, goal-oriented people exist in a state of nearly continuous failure that they hope will be temporary. That feeling wears on you. In time, it becomes heavy and uncomfortable. It might even drive you out of the game.” “The system-versus-goals model can be applied to most human endeavors. In the world of dieting, losing twenty pounds is a goal, but eating right is a system. In the exercise realm, running a marathon in under four hours is a goal, but exercising daily is a system. In business, making a million dollars is a goal, but being a serial entrepreneur is a system.” Another quote, from Jason Fried’s “It Doesn’t Have to Be Crazy at Work” (Fried & Hansson, 2018): “So imagine the response when we tell people that we don’t do goals. At all. No customer-count goals, no sales goals, no retention goals, no revenue goals, no specific profitability goals (other than to be profitable). Seriously. This anti-goal mindset definitely makes Basecamp an outcast in the business world. Part of the minority, the ones who simply “don’t get how it works.” We get how it works—we just don’t care. We don’t mind leaving some money on the table and we don’t need to squeeze every drop out of the lemon. Those final drops usually taste sour, anyway. 32

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Are we interested in increasing profits? Yes. Revenues? Yes. Being more effective? Yes. Making our products easier, faster, and more useful? Yes. Making our customers and employees happier? Yes, absolutely. Do we love iterating and improving? Yup! Do we want to make things better? All the time. But do we want to maximize “better” through constantly chasing goals? No thanks. That’s why we don’t have goals at Basecamp. We didn’t when we started, and now, nearly 20 years later, we still don’t. We simply do the best work we can on a daily basis.” Charles Munger says the following on the value of long-term plans (quote from “Seeking Wisdom” by Peter Bevelin (Bevelin, 2013)): We have very much the philosophy of building our enterprise that Sir William Osler had when he built the John Hopkins Medical School from a very poor start into a model medical school for the whole world. And what Sir William Osler said - and he quoted this from Carlyle - was: “The task of man is not to see what lies dimly in the distance, but to do what lies clearly at hand.” We try to respond intelligently each day, each week, each month, each year to the information and challenges at hand - horrible assaults that have to be deflected, things that have to be scrambled out of, the unusual opportunities that come along - and just do the best job we can in responding to those challenges. Obviously, you look ahead as far as you can. But that’s not very far. But if you respond intelligently and diligently to the challenges before you, we think you’ll tend to end up with a pretty good institution Scott Adams is talking about goals versus systems, which is quite similar to the classification of goal setting we tend to use in performance domain: Outcome goals - For example, getting a medal on the Olympic Games is an outcome goal Performance goals - Improving your bench press 1RM for 5kg is a performance goal Process goals - Making sure you train bench press three times a week, with a total of 50 reps over 75% 1RM is a process goal. I am not that extreme as Scott Adams and Jason Fried, but I get their messages, which is quite stoical: control what you can, and what is really important. And the only things we can control are the process goals (sometimes not even them, at least not to the degree we hope to). Figure 2.8 explains it perfectly:

33

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Figure 2.8. Perfect depiction of Stoic philosophy of focusing on things you can control, and which are important. Image modified based on Carl Richards sketches at Behavior Gap (Richards, 2017) .

But we do need some direction and understanding qualities and objectives as priors (see previous chapter) is an important starting point. But it is a myth that one immediately knows what the goals and objectives are - most of the time we do need to discover them (and update them) through action and intervention using MVP (minimum viable programs). John Kay, in his book “Obliquity” (Kay, 2012), makes a distinction between direct and oblique approaches to decisions and problem-solving, which I believe are more than related to planning strength training (see Table 2.1).

Objectives and goals

The Direct Approach

The Oblique Approach

High-level objectives are defined, clear and can be quantified

High-level objectives are loosely defined and multi-dimensional

There is a clear distinction between high-level goals and the states and actions that make their achievements possible

There is no clear distinction between objectives, goals, states and actions. We learn about the nature of high-level objectives by creating the states and performing the actions that contribute to their achievement

Interactions

Interactions with others are limited The outcomes of interactions with others depend not just on the actions we and their responses depend on the perform, but also on the social context in actions we take which our actions are performed and on other’s implementation of them

Complexity

The structure of the relationships among objectives, states, goals and actions is understood

Knowledge of the structure of relationships among goals, states and actions is imperfect and acquired as the process goes on (continued on the next page)

34

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

(continued from the previous page) The Direct Approach The range of options is fixed and Problems are known incomplete and uncertainty widespread

The Oblique Approach Only a limited number of options are identified or perceived as available. In defining objectives, closure means deciding what to bring in and what to leave out

Risk in the environment can be described probabilistically

The environment is the uncertain. Not only do we not know what will happen, but we do not know the range of events that might happen

Abstraction

The problem can be well described by a single analytic model

Appropriate simplification of a complex problems depends on judgement and knowledge of context

Summary

- Objectives are clear - Systems are comprehensible - We know the available options - What happens happens because someone intended it - Rules can define the system - Direction provides order - Good decisions are the product of good processes

- We learn about our objectives as we strive for them - Systems are complex and depend on unpredictable reactions - We can consider only a few possibilities - There is no clear link between intention and outcome - Expertise is required, tacit knowledge is essential - Order often emerges and is achieved spontaneously - Good decisions are the product of good judgment

Table 2.1. Characteristics of direct and oblique approaches to decisions and problem-solving. Based on work by John Kay (Kay, 2010, 2012).

I believe that the direct approach is equal to the top-down approach, and the oblique approach is equal to the bottom-up approach of planning. Contemporary planning strategies (and periodization books) assume predictability of the system, using the analytical approach in defining the qualities and objectives, and top-down (direct) approach to planning. This is highly influenced by the industrial age approach to management (Kiely, 2009, 2012, 2018; Jovanovic, 2018), but it just doesn’t work in the complex domain such as training athletes. Agile Periodization takes another route: oblique or bottom-up. This is because most of the time we do not know the objectives right off the bat and we have no clue how things will emerge over time. But this is not to say that aimlessly experimenting is the goal or method of Agile Periodization. Au contraire - we do need directions that are set with the phase and release planning process. Figure 2.9 depicts the big picture of goal settings and decision making in the Agile Periodization framework: 35

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Top Down

Phase Planning

Performance Goals

Sprint Planning

Process Goals

OKRs

Oblique

Direct

Vision

Oblique

Outcome Goals Direct

Release Planning

MVP

Bo�om Up Figure 2.9. How everything fits together in the Agile Periodization framework

OKRs OKRs stand for Objectives and Key Results and are now currently hot-topic goal setting framework in the IT industry since this approach provides transparency and alignment in teams implementing Agile Project management (Wodtke, 2015; Doerr, 2018). In simple terms, OKRs represent the following: I will ________ as measured by ____________. I will (Objective) as measured by (this set of Key Results). I do believe that OKRs system can span both Outcome and Performance goals (“I will win the powerlifting competition by improving my total for 15kg”) and Performance and Process goals (“I will improve my bench press by accumulating 50 reps >75% 1RM in a week”). OKRs is extremely useful goal setting framework and I urge you to check the following references for more details (Wodtke, 2015; Doerr, 2018). My only issue with OKRs is that they also lean more towards direct or top-down approach, since you do need to know what the goals/objectives are, to define key results 36

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

(besides how do I know that accumulating 50 reps >75% 1RM in a week will increase one’s performance goals?), but luckily OKRs are Agile and iterative which allows them quick updates based on discovery across sprints and phases. For example, one might figure out that the easiest way to reach an outcome and performance goal (e.g. increasing total) is not through improving one’s bench press, squat, and deadlift, but by decreasing bodyweight and entering lower weight division. It is hence important to make OKRs oblique as well.

Designing MVP MVP stands for minimum viable program. MVP is the program that is simple enough to hit all (or most of) the a priori identified important qualities (in the lowest resolution; see previous chapter, and 1/N heuristic later), and flexible enough to be adaptable to newly discovered objectives and goals (Ries, 2011; Jovanovic, 2018). Hence it serves as a vehicle for discovery while still being robust enough to work in different scenarios and uncertainties by providing a minimum viable performance of the athletes. Figure 2.10 contains a simplified example of what MVP is for a powerlifter:

Walkout

Walkout

Squat

Strength in the hole

Deadli�

Strength in the hole

Walkout

Squat

Strength in the hole

Explosivness

Explosivness

Explosivness

Grip strength

Grip strength

Grip strength

Strength in the hole

Bench Press

Squat

Deadli�

Strength in the hole

Deadli�

Strength in the hole

Finish

Finish

Finish

Structure at the bo�om

Structure at the bo�om

Structure at the bo�om

Explosivness off the chest

Bench Press

Lockout

Not this!

Explosivness off the chest

Bench Press

Explosivness off the chest Lockout

Lockout

Nor this!

THIS - MVP!

Figure 2.10. MVP is making sure that all the major qualities are being addressed at the functional significance level (lowest resolution). Later on, as one discovers, more precise plan and a program can be created

Is/Ought Gap and Hero’s Journey Just because we have set the objectives and are aware of the current state (place of things), we do not know how to act (the forum for action) (Jovanovic, 2018). I call this the is/ought gap (see Figure 2.11):

37

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

IS

OUGHT Figure 2.11. Is/Ought Gap

Just because we know one 1RMs, EMG activities, rate limiters, phenomenological qualities and what have you, we still lack the idea of how to act. What should be done? Most of our ideas of how to act come from the previous experiences, best practices, scientific journal, ideologies and so forth (let’s call this the known), which can be considered a prior when setting up an experiment (training phase) for an individual or a group of people. But how they will respond, is completely unpredictable. Of course, we know that lifting weights will make one stronger (the known), but we cannot predict one’s response (we can predict the direction of the response, but not exact quantity). We have an idea where certain things might take us (from group-based and averagebased approaches as used in the scientific studies and from those walking the path before us – representing the collective known), but we do not know how it will work for a particular individual at particular time and place. This is even more of a problem when one is breaking a personal record, and especially when one is trying to breach the world record performance. It is the unknown, the Chaos. This can be seen as archetypal Hero’s journey myth (Campbell, Moyers & Flowers, 1991; Peterson, 1999; Campbell, 2008; Neumann, 2014; Farrow, 2017, 2018). Individual needs to step from the known (Order) to the unknown (Chaos) to bring something useful back (you can call this to step out of his comfort zone). If I am a rookie, improving my personal bench press from 70kg to 80kg, will demand me getting to the unknown (“What is that thing you call lifting weights? Oh fuck, I am sore!”) and bringing back something useful for me personally (performance gains). Many have done this before me, so I can use this knowledge to gain direction and orientation (collective known, prior and Bayesian updating - see previous chapter). When I detrain, and start training again, I have an idea of the terrain and what it takes (unless I get older by 20 years and gain a shitload of weight, then the terrain is different) so it will be a bit easier. If I am elite, at 38

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

the brink of the world record, then - shit, I am alone! I am entering into the unknown, not only for myself but for collective performance as well (assuming no one has done it before). Phenomenologically, this is the archetypal story of the Hero’s journey. I am a bit sick of seeing Hans Selye theory of adaptation and supercompensation (Kiely, 2016; Cunanan et al., 2018) in training books, so this is an alternative phenomenological explanation: one needs to step into Chaos (somewhere you personally haven’t been before, at least, not in the recent times, or when no one has ever been before) to bring something useful back (Figure 2.12). And this is not only related to physiology. That’s why it is a meta-story. In the known domain, the path is broadly predictable on a population-wide basis whereas, at the individual level, it is not. In other words, known and unknown are different for the individual vs. collective in general.

What should be:

What should be:

The ideal future

The ideal future

What is:

The unbearable present

What is:

The unbearable present

Figure 2.12. Training as Normal Story and Revolutionary Story (Regeneration of Stability from the Domain of Chaos). Modified based on Jordan B. Peterson work (Peterson, 1999)

Before you start to question my sanity, I firmly believe it was important to introduce these archetypal meta-stories as the explanation of your journey through strength training. From the phenomenological perspective, it can be portrayed as such, and I think it can infer more forum for action, than analytical physiological/ biomechanical place of things approach. Long story short, you are a hero, embracing a journey into the unknown, to bring something useful back and enlarge the known circle 39

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

(which can be considered performance potential). The path of those before you can give you some direction, not exact scripts (see Figure 1.1, priors and Bayesian updating in previous chapter). Which brings me to evidence-based practices

Evidence-based mumbo jumbo Waving evidence-based flag is a simple virtue signaling for the lost lab coats. Citing and referencing studies and meta-studies done on grade motivated studentathletes while bitching on the old school as something terrible, and you unscientific practitioner, with the aim of providing evidence for the intervention, is a fragilista and intellectual-yet-idiot (to use Nassim Taleb’s terminology (Taleb, 2004, 2010, 2012, 2018)) wet dream. In my opinion, these sources of knowledge represent only one aspect of prior information (from the known domain, see Figure 2.12) we can use to start experimenting with. I have represented this in Figure 2.13 Figure 2.13 represent more complex Figure 1.2 on Bayesian updating. I have tried to combine the famous Deming PDCA (plan-do-check-adjust) (“PDCA,” 2019) loop with the iterative aspect of updating prior information with the experiment (intervention). Is/ Ought gap represents the embedded and inescapable uncertainty of how interventions will work. This is especially the case in a complex domain such as human performance and adaptation. Equally to evidence-based (using scientific studies and meta-analysis), the data-driven approach should be treated as only one source of prior information in decision making and should probably change the name to ‘data-informed’. These two are not fail-safe, predictable, certainty strategies - they are necessary to be considered, but far from sufficient in guarantying wanted outcomes. It is the same story with preplanned periodization schemes - if those fancy blocks seem to be working, then most if not all athletes would reach personal best, or at least seasonal best, at the major competition. Yet, that number is not very optimistic (Loturco & Nakamura, 2016). Well, if performance goals are tough to reach in individual sports, then team sports are even more notorious, uncertain and unpredictable. So, just because you are using ‘evidencebased’, ‘data-driven’ or ‘Eastern European periodization’ approaches, at the end of the day, you are still experimenting and gambling against unpredictable complex systems and environments. They do provide warm comfort though. If put at the right place, these strategies represent one source of prior knowledge, that needs to be updated through iterations and experimentation. This is the idea that Agile Periodization embraces and focus on wholeheartedly. 40

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

PLAN

DO

Best prac�ces & tradi�on

CHECK

Uncertainty (randomness, noise, error)

Scien�fic literature Opinion and wisdom of the crowds Heuris�cs & models

OUGHT

Experiment

Observa�ons

Randomiza�on

Barbell strategy

MVP

Current state & context

Priors

Pseudoscience, noise & ideology

IS

Plan

Intui�on Preferences

Itera�ons

Objec�ves Previous experimenta�on

Insights

ADJUST Figure 2.13. The evidence-based approach of using studies and meta-studies is just one component of the prior that needs to be updated with the iterative intervention and experiment for a particular individual and a group

Certainty, Risk, and Uncertainty Similar to the already discussed direct versus oblique decisions and problem solving, decision making differs in predictable versus unpredictable environments (Gigerenzer, 2004, 2008, 2015; Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011; Neth & Gigerenzer, 2015; Gigerenzer, Hertwig & Pachur, 2015b,b). What needs to be done is to differentiate the worlds of certainty, risk, and uncertainty (see Table 2.2). 41

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Realm Certainty

Type of Problem All op�ons and consequences are known for certain (known knowns)

Type of inference Appropriate Tool Deduc�ve Logic inference

Risk

All op�ons and consequences are known, and their probabili�es can be reliably es�mated (known unknowns)

Induc�ve inference

Uncertainty

Ill-posed or ill-defned problems (unknown unknowns)

Heuris�c inference Heuris�cs, ecological ra�onality

Probability theory, sta�s�cs

Table 2.2. Three Realms of Rationality: Certainty, Risk, and Uncertainty. Modified based on (Neth & Gigerenzer, 2015)

Dave Snowden with his Cynefin framework (Brougham, 2015; Berger & Johnston, 2016) differentiates between certainty (obvious), risk (complicated), uncertainty (complex) with the additional domain of chaos (Figure 2.14):

COMPLEX

COMPLICATED

Cause and effect seen in retrospect and do not repeat

Cause and effect separated over time and space

Good practice (Sense-Analyse-Respond) Predictive planning Rules Expert Analysis

Emergent practice (Probe-Sense-Respond) Pattern management Heuristics

“More stories like this, less like this” Sensemaking; stories; monitor coherence

CHAOS

Cause and effect not usefully perceivable

Novel practice (Act-Sense-Respond) Act to bring stability Crises management Experience informs decisions; action is required;

Data provides options; experts interpret; measure goodness Disorder

OBVIOUS

Cause and effect repeatable known and predictable

Best practice (Sense-Categorize-Respond) Standard operating procedure Automation Data provides answers; anyone can interpret; measure best

Figure 2.14. Dave Snowden’s Cynefin Framework. Image modified based on work by Dave Snowden (Brougham, 2015; Berger & Johnston, 2016; Fernandez, 2016).

The takeaway point is that different domains demand different decision making. The question is to which domain sports performance belongs to? Well, if you consult contemporary planning strategies that were highly influenced by Taylorism and industrial age approach to management, they belong to Complicated domain (or risk domain). In this domain, probabilities of events are known, and with certain mathematical tools (like expected utility formulas), one can calculate the optimal choice. But, to paraphrase Nassim Taleb: “Life is not a casino!”. 42

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

In my opinion and experience, our domain is a Complex domain. We just cannot oversee and nominate all the potential outcomes, their probabilities, and costs. Let me quote the description of excellent free course “Introduction to Dynamical Systems and Chaos” from David Feldman (Feldman, 2017): “Deterministic dynamical systems can behave randomly. This property, known as sensitive dependence or the butterfly effect, places strong limits on our ability to predict some phenomena. Disordered behavior can be stable. Non-periodic systems with the butterfly effect can have stable average properties. So, the average or statistical properties of a system can be predictable, even if its details are not. Complex behavior can arise from simple rules. Simple dynamical systems do not necessarily lead to simple results. In particular, we will see that simple rules can produce patterns and structures of surprising complexity.” The bold emphasis is mine and it is related to the already stated idea that we can predict the average effects and directions of intervention, but we cannot predict the details and exact values. For this reason, we combine the prior knowledge and beliefs with iterative experimentation through MVP. Please remember the Small Worlds versus Large Worlds from the previous chapter, wherein Small Worlds we are able to nominate all the outcomes and probabilities, but they are simplifications of the Large Worlds. This process is useful, but let’s not forget the distinction. This puts all these “optimal loads”, “optimal progression”, “optimal sequencing” approaches on its heads. They are interesting and useful priors we can consider but trying to find ‘optimality’ in complex domain is flawed and based on predictable and stable assumptions and behaviors of the system and its environment. As outlined in Table 2.2 and Figure 2.14, Complexity (or uncertainty on Table 2.2) domain demands the use of probing, heuristics and satisficing (good enough) approaches.

Optimal versus Robust The

whole

analytical

(physiology/biomechanics)

approach

utilized

in

contemporary planning (as seen in the top-down approach) is based on the predictable behavior of the system, in which optimal decisions can be estimated. There is an optimal training load distribution, there is optimal intensity zone for developing certain qualities, there are optimal days for high loads and so forth. This is, of course, the property of the Small World, where all outcomes can be nominated and their 43

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

probabilities calculated, hence optimal decision can be estimated. But this optimality revolves on the assumptions that things are stable and predictable, and they usually are not. Figure 2.15 depicts an example of how optimal day to perform speed work in team sport fails miserably when faced with the unforeseen event (for example head coach not giving a shit about your speed work):

Difference between OPTIMAL and ROBUST planning strategies OPTIMAL is the “best” solu�on under given constraints and assump�ons of the “Small World” (model, or the map of the “Big World”). For example, the “op�mal” �me to do speed training in team sports, would be G+3 or G+4 (3rd or 4th day a�er a game). The problem with ”op�mal approach” is assuming constraints will stay fixed as well as assump�ons are true. But if they change, or are not true representa�on of the “Big World”, then the “best” might also become the worst. In the given example, the weather might be really bad, and one cannot perform sprints at op�mal condi�ons or at all, which means that using the “op�mal �me” will make athletes being two weeks without speed work. This “op�mal approach” soon becomes “dangerous”.

Sunday

Speed Monday

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday

Game Friday

Saturday

Sunday

X

Game

Speed

Monday

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday

Game Friday

Saturday

Sunday

Speed Monday

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday

Game Friday

Saturday

Sunday

If something happens, athletes will miss speed work for 14 days!

ROBUST is a solu�on that is “good enough” under mul�ple condi�ons and assump�ons. It is “sa�sficing” solu�on, rather than the “best”, but it seems to be performing good enough under different condi�ons. Using the example above, more “robust approach” would be to “microload” speed over the week. If condi�ons change, the athletes won’t be nega�vely affected. This solu�on is not “op�mal”, but it is “robust” to perturba�ons.

Sunday

Game Monday

Speed Speed Speed Tuesday Wednesday Thursday

Speed Friday

Speed Saturday

Sunday

Monday

X

Game

Speed Speed Speed Tuesday Wednesday Thursday

Game Speed Friday

Speed Saturday

Sunday

Game Monday

Speed Speed Speed Tuesday Wednesday Thursday

Speed Friday

Speed Saturday

Sunday

ROBUST > OPTIMAL Figure 2.15. Difference between optimal and robust planning on the example of speed work in team sports

To quote Gerd Gigerenzer: “When faced with significant irreducible uncertainty, the robustness of the approach is more relevant to its future performance than its optimality.” And this cannot be emphasized enough in the Complex domain. So rather than trying to figure out the ‘optimal’ scenario (from physiological and biomechanical perspectives), try to find the most robust scenario that will be satisficing (good enough) when assumptions break (Jovanovic, 2018; Jovanovic & Jukic, 2019). The concept of MVP revolves around providing the most robust plan one can rely on when the shit hits the fan. This is also the basis of the bottom-up approach to planning. Certain solutions might not be ‘optimal’ from physiological perspectives, but they will be more robust to logistical issues (such as missing sessions in Figure 2.15).

44

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Positive and Negative knowledge Nassim Taleb brings the distinction between positive knowledge and negative knowledge (Taleb, 2012). Positive knowledge relates to the knowledge of things that work, while negative knowledge relates to the things that don’t work and are probably harmful. Stuart McMillan, sprint coach and CEO of Altis, stated that 80% of success is knowing what doesn’t work and what not to do. I wholeheartedly agree with this, since negative knowledge is more robust than positive - things that don’t work most likely won’t work across scenarios, while things that work probably work across a smaller number of scenarios. This can be extended to via Positiva and via Negativa approaches to intervention (Taleb, 2012). Via Negativa means succeeding by not going bust or improving by not injuring someone. Via Negativa, therefore, means avoiding the downsides. On the other hand, via Positiva means pursuing the upsides. Similar to positive and negative knowledge, via Negativa is more robust - it works across various scenarios. Most people fail similarly, while people succeed differently. Understanding what doesn’t work for sure trumps knowledge what can work. One particular story I like to use to demonstrate via Positiva and via Negativa aspects is the following. Imagine fire starts in the kindergarten full of kids. Janitor of the kindergarten sees the smoke, alarms everyone and extinguish the fire. No harm done. Newspapers calls him a hero. This is via Positiva. In some alternate universe, this same janitor a day before during a regular inspection spots few cables melted in the electricity cabinet. He switches the electricity off in the kindergarten for 30min (while everyone bitch on him) and reinstall the wires. Fire never started. He is an asshole for shutting down cartoons for 30min. This is via Negativa. Also, next time someone brags how many Olympic champions she has coached, ask her how many died in the process and have never seen the spotlight. Via Positiva and via Negativa can be expanded to interventions for improving performance. For example, via Positiva is about adding the good stuff, while via Negativa is removing the limiters and pruning the unnecessary stuff (see later growing and pruning complementary pair). Becoming stronger by lifting more is an example of via Positiva strategy, where becoming stronger by getting rid of that extra fat layer (or improving chaotic sleep hygiene) is an example of via Negativa approach. First get rid of the stupid and unnecessary stuff, before adding new stuff. Via Positiva and via Negativa represent complementary aspects of different approaches to intervention. And this is the basis of the robust approach in MVP and Agile Periodization: make sure to avoid the downsides (adverse effects, or via Negativa) first, before chasing the 45

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

upsides (positive effects, or via Positiva). Or as my boxing coach used to say: “Make sure you are defended before you attack”. And this brings us to the concept of the barbell strategy.

Barbell Strategy Via Positiva and via Negative approaches can be combined with a decision making strategy outlined by Nassim Taleb (Taleb, 2012; Jovanovic & Jukic, 2019): barbell strategy (see Figure 2.16). Barbell strategy has two ends: the left end is focused on protecting from the downside, while the right end is focused on chasing the upside. The distribution is not 50:50, but asymmetrical where the left side of the barbell is more dominant.

Low Risk

High Risk

Protect from the downside “Conserva�ve”

Invest in the upside “Aggressive”

Figure 2.16. Nassim Taleb’s Barbell Strategy

Protecting from the downside involves using the most robust strategies in uncertainty, and one of the most researched is 1/N heuristic, which we covered indirectly in the MVP discussion. 1/N means that all important qualities (at the lowest resolution) should maintain some volume of, in our case, training dosage. This means, that even if we screw everything else up, we are still going to avoid the catastrophic downsides. This is the via Negativa approach: we try to avoid the downside, by simplifying and stripping down unnecessary complexity of the training program and hitting all the important qualities in the minimal amount, pretty much all the time. This is indicated by an equally distributed pie chart on the left side of the barbell on the Figure 2.16. In 46

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

training, this could mean microdosing or making sure that all the important qualities receive a minimal effective dose of work on almost every day (Jovanovic, 2018; Jovanovic & Jukic, 2019). Strategies for planning using microdosing will be mentioned again in Chapter 5. Once we covered the left side of the barbell, we are free to experiment and invest in high-risk-high-reward decisions. For example, we might emphasize or saturate a given method that we speculate will improve a rate-limiting quality (e.g. specialized exercises for the bench press lock-out for a powerlifter), or we might plan to spend 20-30min in the team session to develop power and speed, or we take the manifested opportunity to hammer the athletes without (or with less) fear of them getting sore the next day (because we have been microdosing important qualities). The barbell strategy can also be applied to the classification of phenomenological strength qualities (see Figure 2.6) where certain qualities are more likely to improve performance by protecting from the downside, rather than reaping the benefits of the upside. For example, in team sports, increasing strength can act as a shield that makes athletes more robust and more receptive to specific loads, rather than directly improving performance. Thus, it protects from the downside. Figure 2.17 contains a hypothetical distribution of phenomenological strength qualities into protecting from the downside versus pursuing the upside, from a non-strength sport perspective. This will again differ from sport to sport, but the take-home message is that we need to think about intervention and its effects in complementary aspects of protecting from the downside versus pursuing the upside.

Arrow Anaconda Strength Armor Building Vanilla Training

Avoid downside

Anaconda Strength Mongoose Persistence

Pursue upside

Figure 2.17. Phenomenological strength training objectives can be distributed on the barbell

The barbell strategy also helps us in bridging the Is/Ought gap (see Figure 2.11) by taking the shield (protect from the downside) and sword (reap the benefits of the upside) to fight the Dragon of Chaos (pun intended) (Figure 2.18). 47

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Figure 2.18. Fighting the Dragon of Chaos (Uncertainty) demands the use of the shield to protect from the downside (protect your own ass first), and a sword, to pursuit the upside (kill the dragon, take the Princess/Gold). Image used under license from Shutterstock.com (delcarmat, 2019)

Randomization Let me start by quoting from the outstanding book “Seeking Wisdom” by Peter Bevelin (Bevelin, 2013): “Being flexible and learning a variety of options to choose from to deal with the world is of great value. This implies that finding new ways to deal with the world is superior to overtraining old patterns. For example, studies of honeybees show that they navigate according to a map-like organization of spatial memory. When bees are over-trained to find a single nectar site, it is easy for them to find their way back to the hive from that site, but not very well from other sites. But when the same bees are trained to many nectar sites, they are much better in finding their way home to the hive from a range of different locations. Further studies suggest that we learn better when we mix new information with what we already know. “ 48

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

All our efforts to find the best or the most optimal training plan and stick to it might be actually making athletes fragile (Jovanovic, 2018; Jovanovic & Jukic, 2019). They adapt to a certain, what we deem optimal, schemes and if anything changes in the competition they are screwed. Make athletes adaptable, not adapted! This is achieved by allowing some randomization. We tend to fear randomization because it seems, well, random and pulled out of our own ass. But constrained randomization can be helpful in finding a better solution and making athletes adaptable. For example, we might choose to do explosive exercises after the strength exercises when the athletes are tired. Optimal? Fuck no. But will make athlete perturbed to maybe find a better movement pattern, different solutions and become adaptable to various scenarios. And this can be utilized beyond strength training - for example in skill learning (Davids, Button & Bennett, 2008; Renshaw, Davids & Savelsbergh, 2012; Chow et al., 2016) . In my opinion, it can be implemented on the right side of the barbell (see Figure 2.16), where we might experiment when protection from the downside is covered. For example, we might experiment with higher frequency workout over a specific phase to explore how individual responds (as long as the major qualities are covered using 1/N heuristic, or the left side of the barbell), or we might try a higher volume of the specialized exercise to see if it will bring adaptation to a stuck athlete. Another idea is to define the sequence of the training sessions using Markov Chains and Don’t Break The Chain strategy (see Jovanovic & Jukic, 2019 and Chapter 5).

Latent vs. Observed Imagine collecting the data for a large number of athletes using various performance metrics and tests (e.g. maximal bench press, squat, 10m time, 1500m time, you name it). We expect specific tests and metrics to correlate between each other (e.g., bench press 1RM to correlate with military press 1RM), while not correlating with other tests and metrics (e.g. we do not expect bench press 1RM to correlate with VO2max or 1500m time trial). The analysis that helps us find these groups or clusters of metrics is called factor analysis (Borsboom, Mellenbergh & van Heerden, 2003; Borsboom, 2008) i.e., the process that produces the concrete data patterns on which statistical analyses are executed. For a variable to count as observed through a set of data patterns, the relation between variable structure and data structure should be (a. Factor analysis helps us in figuring out if there are any latent (or hidden) variables or constructs that explain observed (or manifested) tests and metrics. Theoretically, these factors (i.e., latent variables or constructs) should be aligned with the concept of biomotor abilities (i.e. strength, speed, endurance, flexibility, etc). But to my knowledge, the current body 49

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

of literature on latent variable modelling is very limited, meaning our understanding is also constrained. There are three major positions (Borsboom, Mellenbergh & van Heerden, 2003; Borsboom, 2008; Borsboom & Cramer, 2013; Schmittmann et al., 2013; Maul, 2013; Guyon, Falissard & Kop, 2017) regarding the ontological status of latent variables (see Figure 2.19). Latent

Observable

Observable

x1

x1

x2

x2

x3

x3

x4

x4

x5

x5

Construct

Reflec�ve model

Latent

x1

Construct

x2 x3

Forma�ve model

x5 x4

Network model

Figure 2.19. Three major positions regarding ontological status of latent variables

Realist perspective assumes latent variables to represent (ontologically) real constructs that cause manifested observations. This realist perspective is represented with a reflective model and essentialism in classification. Essentialism is the view that latent variables have a well-defined hidden nature; and because these constructs exist independent of our classifications, categories formalize this underlying nature (Borsboom, Mellenbergh & van Heerden, 2003; Borsboom, 2008; Maul, 2013; Guyon, Falissard & Kop, 2017). For example, we might assume from the realist perspective that there is the strength as a latent construct that causes observable features or expressions of strength. On the other hand, instrumentalist or constructionist perspective assumes that latent variables represent just a numerical construct that helps in explaining manifested observations (Borsboom, Mellenbergh & van Heerden, 2003; Borsboom, 2008; Maul, 2013; Guyon, Falissard & Kop, 2017). This perspective is represented with the formative model and nominalism in classification. Nominalism is the view that latent variables are constructed categories without natural referent, merely practical categories for particular uses (Guyon, Falissard & Kop, 2017). With the constructionist perspective, latent variables are not causes of observable performance. I believe that the dichotomy between realism and instrumentalism/constructivism can be overcome by a complementarism and pragmatist-realist positions (see the previous chapter) (Kelso & Engstrøm, 2008; Guyon, Falissard & Kop, 2017). One such 50

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

approach that treats constructs as the emergent phenomena is network analysis. From a network perspective, a construct is seen as a network of manifested variables (Cramer et al., 2012; Borsboom & Cramer, 2013; Schmittmann et al., 2013; Bringmann et al., 2013; Epskamp, Borsboom & Fried, 2016; Guyon, Falissard & Kop, 2017) One needs to keep in mind that the results of factor analysis depend on the variables selected, how they are normalized (e.g. are we going to use absolute bench press 1RM in kgs, or we are going to scale it with mass or use allometric scaling? (Folland, Mccauley & Williams, 2008)) and who are the subjects. For example, if we test a bunch of under 8-year-olds with a battery of tests, there might be only one or two major factors that explain manifested performance. If we split them up to a more or less advanced, we might get a different latent variable structure. As they age and gain experience, this latent structure might differentiate into specific subdomains that can be specific to given strata (subgroup) or even individuals (see next section). Unfortunately, such studies are non-existent in sports performance domain.

Interven�on

Max Effort Method

Latent

Strength

Realist model

Observable

Interven�on

Observable

Bench Press

Max Effort

Bench Press

Back Squat

Max Effort

Back Squat

Pull-Ups

Max Effort

Pull-Ups

Military Press

Military Press

Lunges

Lunges

Latent

Strength

Construc�onist model

Figure 2.20 Realist perspective and constructionist perspective on intervention and ontology of constructs (biomotor abilities)

It is important to keep in mind that all three approaches are Small World models (see the previous chapter), aiming at simplifying a complex reality. The thing I personally have issues with is the theory of biomotor abilities, where we assume realist and essentialist position assuming there are ontologically real constructs, such as strength, speed, flexibility that cause manifested (observable) performance. This mental model further assumes that there are methods of interventions that hit those constructs, which eventually results in improved performance (see Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.20). For example, one trains strength (biomotor ability or quality) with maximum effort method, which results in improved strength as a latent variable and consequently improved manifested performance (see left side in Figure 2.20). In this case, improving strength, as a latent construct, will reveal as improved performance in

51

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

all performance tests and metrics (even in those that are not utilized in the intervention; in this case military press and lunges which are grey on Figure 2.20)16. Although I am a complementarian and pragmatist-realist, I am leaning more towards constructionist perspective here, where one intervenes not on latent constructs, but on manifested performance. This way, we do not train strength, we train exercises. On the right side in Figure 2.20, we intervene on exercises, and not on some latent constructs. The improvement is seen not because strength as a latent construct is improved, but because observed tests are improved. The unused exercises in this example might also see improvements, but not due to the improvement in the underlying construct, but more because of transfer and similarity between other exercises. It is important to remind you again that both of these perspectives are Small World models. They might seem as unnecessary philosophical mumbo-jumbo in what is supposed to be a practical strength training manual, but they are very much useful. For example, if you compare different schools of training (e.g., Westside Barbell (Simmons, 2007) versus Boris Sheiko (Sheiko, 2018)), you might find different philosophical perspectives of training qualities and interventions. Westside Barbell might approach training strength using different specialized exercises and methods that are supposed to tap underlying qualities on which manifestation of strength depends and is caused by. Boris Sheiko, on the other hand, might approach things differently, aiming and improving observable exercises (e.g., bench, squat, and deadlift). I am not here to tell you which one is correct or not; I am here to tell you that both are Small World models and I am encouraging you to be a multimodel thinker (Page, 2018) and take the Agile Periodization approach and embrace the fact that we are still pretty much clueless. Having said this, both Westside Barbell and Boris Sheiko school had produced numerous world-class powerlifters and feats of strength. Unfortunately, there is not much research behind latent variables (particularly regarding the longitudinal change, or dynamic factor modelling), and we seem to take for granted the realist perspective of biomotor abilities theory. But here is the catch I do not think that biomotor theory explains ontological qualities (a place for things), particularly because there is almost no research on this topic, but rather represents 16 Please bear in mind that a single snapshot of multiple performance variables can be explained

with a few latent variables, but the change after intervention in those performances might not be. The current states of multiple athletes over multiple tests can be explained by few latent constructs, but after interventions, the changes in those tests might not be explained with the same constructs. In plain English, the current bench press and military press might be explained by a construct called upper body pushing strength since they are correlated, but after training intervention, their individual changes might not be correlated, hence cannot be explained by the same constructs. This represents an additional manifestation of Is/Ought Gap

52

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

a heuristic approach to classify forum for action, which aims to classify interventions instead. Having said that, I think a better term for strength training (which assumes perspective where one trains latent construct strength) would be resistance training (which assumes method or intervention). I am not sure if we are hitting latent construct strength with strength training, but I am certain we are using heavy objects in resistance training. For example, resistance training might not only improve (and serve to improve) strength performance (as measured by 1RMs in say bench press and squat), but can also improve 10-20m times, vertical jump height, the robustness of the athletes and so forth. Since I do not have a clue about causal place of things that underlie complex human performance (and particularly of one individual), I will not pretend that I am training and hitting strength (or accelerative strength, explosive strength, reactive strength and what have you) and fawning around since I am using scientific terms, I would instead approach these complex issues from a forum for action and phenomenological perspective. You might ask why didn’t I name this manual Resistance Training Manual? Simple - because of sales and keywords, and the fact that strength training is used more than resistance training. The takeaway message, when it comes to classifying your plan components, is to classify them based on the phenomenological forum for action, rather than a place of things and potential goals and constructs being hit. For example, if your training plan has the following components: aerobic endurance, fast twitch hypertrophy, cardiac output, lactate endurance, repeat sprint ability and so forth, you are classifying using place of things approach where you use objectives and constructs as classifiers. Well, fuck that! As alluded multiple times, we never know if those are the qualities we are going to hit. Rather, use classification based on action and phenomenology (a forum for action): long intervals, clusters, long runs, short intervals, high rep work, repeat sprint training and so forth. Yes, qualities give you objectives to aim for, but use forum for action as an approach to categorizing your training. Stoically, control what you can, and what you can control are the actions you are going to take, not the constructs you plan hitting.

Inter-Individual vs. Intra-Individual Latent variable modelling is quite common in psychometrics. For example, IQ and Big Five personality tests are the results of years and years of testing and factor analysis (and are still the hot topic of arguments and discussions). For example, imagine asking thousands of people shitload of different questions (e.g., “I prefer to stay home and 53

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

read” or “I like going to the parties”) and then performing factor or latent variable analysis. This was actually done, and this results in the famous Big Five model of personality, where latent factors or constructs represent personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (see Figure 2.21).

Openness

Neuro�cism

Conscien�ousness

Personality

Agreeableness

Extraversion

Figure 2.21. The big five personality traits

In a big field such as psychometrics, Big Five latent variable model (as well as IQ) has been heavily debated and criticized, and the arguments are still very much alive. One such critique is that Big Five, as well as other latent variable models, is based on inter-individual analysis, where we take a single snapshot (occurrence) of bunch of individuals on a bunch of variables and perform factor analysis. The problem of course, is that we take this inter-individual analysis and make inferences on a particular individual (Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1998; Hamaker, Dolan & Molenaar, 2005; Molenaar & Campbell, 2009). The question is if this is a valid approach17

17 This is usually termed ergodic or non-ergodic. An ergodic process is the one that is the same

for inter-individuals, as well as intra-individual, where non-ergodic is not.

54

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

As it seems to be the case with Big Five, when applied repeatedly to individuals over time (Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1998; Hamaker, Dolan & Molenaar, 2005; Molenaar & Campbell, 2009) each individual has different latent structure! So, although Big Five is sound for inter-individual comparison, it is not valid for intra-individual understanding, predictions and intervention. Figure 2.22 depicts famous Cattell’s Data-Box model (Molenaar, Huizenga & Nesselroade, 2003; Molenaar, 2004; Hamaker, Dolan & Molenaar, 2005; Molenaar & Campbell, 2009; Nesselroade & Molenaar, 2016) that makes a distinction between inter-individual analysis (or R-technique, where multiple individuals are sampled once for multiple variables) and intra-individual analysis (or P-technique, where a single individual is sampled over multiple occurrences for multiple variables) Interindividual Analysis (R-Technique)

Intraindividual Analysis (P-Technique)

Figure 2.22. Cattell’s three–dimensional data–box (individuals × variables × occasions of measurement). Image used and modified under license from Shutterstock.com (Chernetskiy, 2019)

With the recent developments of longitudinal data analysis, such as dynamic factor analysis (Hamaker, Dolan & Molenaar, 2005), the intra-individual analysis is definitely possible, but it is very much lacking in sport performance domain. Therefore, the question is which scientific findings based on inter-individual variation can be applied to an individual subject? (Molenaar, Huizenga & Nesselroade, 2003; Molenaar, 2004; Hamaker, Dolan & Molenaar, 2005; Molenaar & Campbell, 2009; Nesselroade & Molenaar, 2016). In other words, those who peacock around waving the evidence55

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

based flag, are using inter-individual evidence, which might or might not be applied to a particular individual. Although it definitely is a starting point (see prior and Bayesian updating in the previous chapter), it indeed isn’t deterministic enough to explain and predict individual effects based on interventions. When it comes to a particular individual, even when we are using evidence-based meta-studies and bitch about it on Twitter, we are still facing the Dragon of Chaos and Is/Ought Gap. My solutions to these uncertainties are not blind faith in evidence-based metastudies, Russian biomotor abilities, assumptions of predictability of responses and performances, but rather embracing uncertainties through phenomenology, MVP, barbell strategy, iterations and other ideas from Agile Periodization framework.

Substance vs. Form Additional mental model (Small World) worth mentioning is the dichotomy to substance and form (Figure 2.23)

Substance Constructs

Form Constrains Figure 2.23. Substance vs. Form, or Potential vs. Realization.

Let me give you a simple example. Imagine you get a chance to ride Formula 1 car for the first time in your life. You jump into the car, take a time trial on the track - and you are shit! Why is that? Is it because the Formula 1 car is slow? Or because you are not skillful enough to use the car’s potential? I bet my life it is the latter. A more concrete example might be someone who is muscular, but lifts like a Disney princess (ahem - me). The potential is there, but what seems to be lacking is the ability to use that potential. In this case to recruit those muscles. I like to think about this mental model as substance~form complementary pair. According to this Small World model, manifested performance is the combination of substance and form (Figure 2.24)

56

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

+ Substance

= Form

Manifested Performance

Figure 2.24. Manifested performance as a combination of substance and form

As Figure 2.23 indicates, the substance can also be called constructs, which is, you guessed correctly, very much related to the latent variable modelling. For example, you might have a shot-putter who has 200 kg incline bench press but is unable to throw more than 18 meters. The question is why? And what should be done about it? Should he continue improving his potential (in this case identified as incline bench press, or strength as a construct), or develop his form (skill of throwing)? Using the example of Westside Barbell and Boris Sheiko again, Westside might approach the problem by increasing the potential (substance) using specialized exercises and method, and hoping that this will be manifested on the competitive moves, while Sheiko might approach improvement from the form perspective, where he might improve execution skills. Either way, neither is correct, but both are useful Small World models. This mental model is very much used all the time to make decisions, whether you are aware of it or not. Figure 2.25 depicts Yuri Verkhoshansky line of reasoning, whereas manifested performance (S or x-axis on the figure) improves, ability to use

Figure 2.25. The relationship between potential (p) and ability to utilize potential (T) as performance improves (S). R line represents increase in intensity of the training stimuli. Courtesy of Yuri Verkhoshansky. Modified based on “Main Features of a Modern Scientific Sports Training Theory” (Verkhoshansky, 1998).

57

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

potential (T line on the figure) increases. This results in the idea that potential (p on the figure) eventually creates a bottleneck, and to increase performance, one must increase potential. Other authors, such as Frans Bosch would not agree with this model, probably me neither. But it is still a useful model to think about and consider. It can be considered as an extension of the necessary vs. sufficient model (see the previous chapter). Using our shot putter example, incline bench pressing a lot might be necessary precondition to throw long distance shot put, but it is not sufficient. This is indeed a useful model to consider in our multi-model reasoning and decision making when deciding about what might be a bottleneck (i.e., rate limiter) and where should we intervene. Also, this model is scale-free, which means that it can be applied to different levels of analysis. For example, we might conclude that substance in the bench press is cross-sectional area (CSA) of the pecs. Once we examine the CSA of the pecs, we might identify a deeper substance, for example, CSA of the fast twitch fibers. Going down the rabbit hole even further, the CSA of fast twitch fibers depends on the myofibril surface versus connective tissues, and so forth. The same model can be applied to team sports. The substance would be individual skills of the players, while form would be the ability to play coordinated as a team. Extensions of this model could be the Fitness and Fatigue model. One might have potential (Fitness), but it is masked by form (Fatigue). This mental model is truly overencompassing and can be applied to different levels of analysis, from nations, groups to individual cells. Further discussion on this topic can be found in my other book “HIIT Manual” (Jovanovic, 2018).

Other complementary pairs I tried to cover many complementary pairs that guide my decision making and Agile Periodization in this chapter. However, there are many more that share some similarities and that will be introduced thorough this manual. I will shortly introduce them here for the sake of completeness.

Explore – Exploit The first time I heard about explore – exploit was from the book “Algorithms to Live By” (Christian & Griffiths, 2017) and it immediately clicked with me. Imagine you get to work with a soccer club or a new powerlifter. Unless you are blind ideologue 58

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

that want to impose particular training ideology, you will probably have to spend some time exploring and probing soccer players or powerlifter. To fulfil this objective one can utilize MVP, which allows exploration while minimizing the downside. As one acts, over time things and useful information will manifest itself. Once one gains more insight into what might be working (using cost–benefit analysis and watching for the Is/ Ought gap), then exploitation can begin. This might mean focusing more attention to a particular quality or a rate limiter that one deems will bring the biggest bang for the bucks. In a way, this is similar to oblique vs direct decision and problem-solving introduced earlier. These two aspects of program design should always be utilized in a higher or lower degree. Exploration can come in a form of randomization, which can also make athletes adaptable as opposed to adapted to a particular optimal program (exploitation). Exploration can be also seen as a play element and fun, while exploitation can be seen as flipping-the-burgers, work and routine. Similar complementary pair is stability – variability, which represents interplay between stable elements of the plan and variable elements (e.g., main exercises might be stable across the training phase, while assistance exercises might be variable and self-selected during the workout). “To live in a restless world requires a certain restlessness in oneself. So long as things continue to change, you must never fully cease exploring. “ (Christian & Griffiths, 2017)

Growing - Pruning Growing and pruning are quite to similar to via Positiva (gaining by adding) and via Negativa (gaining by subtracting), but also to explore and exploit. Pruning means removing waste and focusing on what matters the most (i.e., exploiting). The problem with this is that sometimes we do not know what matters the most, thus one needs to grow (i.e., explore). Experienced athletes, over time figure out what seems to be working for them and what does not, so they can remove the unnecessary load and stress and focus on the most important qualities in training. One model that will be introduced in Chapter 5 assumes that to move forward, the training load needs to be increased over time, particularly for the advanced athletes. This is generally true but cannot happen for the unlimited number of qualities. Experienced athletes can proceed to prune unnecessary waste, so does the overall load might actually decrease since they are focusing (i.e., exploiting) qualities of the biggest importance. On the flip side, some retired athletes might actually try exploring again (while focusing on the most 59

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

important qualities), or should I say playing, since there is no competition pressure and associated stress, which can result in some athletes actually hitting personal bests while retired. Since we are dealing with a complex system, it is hard to give concrete rules and steps. It is then more important to understand complementary components and the constant tug -of-war between them.

Develop – Express Develop – express are very much related to substance and form complementary aspects. Will take soccer player as an example again – just because one is sprinting in a game or practice (i.e., express or manifest), doesn’t mean one is developing speed. Or just because one is demonstrating strength (i.e., express) in the gym using sets of one, doesn’t mean one is developing strength. Just because one is doing the most specific exercises (i.e., form), doesn’t mean one is developing the underlying qualities (i.e., substance). This can also be seen from another complementary pair: simulate – stimulate. This complementary aspect will be utilized when discussing exercises specificity in Chapter 3.

Maintain – Disrupt According to Vladimir Issurin (Issurin, 2008a,b, 2013, 2015, 2019), most generalized biological mechanisms of human adaptation involve (1) Homeostatic regulation, and (2) stress adaptation. From (Issurin, 2019): “The theory of homeostatic regulation presupposes maintenance of the most rigid and relevant biological constants necessary for protecting general life conditions” and “The fundamental theory of stress adaptation explains human reactions to extraordinary demands such as highly intense and severe workloads. This type of training mobilizes energy resources that exceed the metabolic levels necessary for homeostatic regulation and trigger endocrine responses of stress-related hormones”. According to Vladimir Issurin (Issurin, 2008a,b, 2013, 2015, 2019) training methods and loads tapping these two different generalized biological mechanisms of human adaptation should be separated (see Saturated Separated, and Complex/Parallel - Unidirectional in Chapter 5) in different blocks. This is thus the basis of the Block Periodization. There is a recent critique of this line of reasoning (Kiely, Pickering & Halperin, 2019). 60

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Although I agree with the critics (Kiely, Pickering & Halperin, 2019), I do believe that there is this complementary aspect of homeostatic maintenance and homeostatic disruption involved in biological mechanisms of human adaptation and beyond (see Chapter 5 for Hero’s Journey model and known/unknown domains). But I do not believe they are clear cut and that they need to or can be separated. For example, highly stressful workout (i.e., HIIT training, like sprint-interval training, or SIT, which might involve 30sec all out running) might be an archetype of the homeostatic disruption workload, but it might force the body to adapt by improving its homeostatic maintenance processes. Or long slow run might be an example of the homeostatic maintenance process, but it might also improve the ability to disrupt the same. This is another example of Is/Ought gap. Kiely, Pickering and Halperin (Kiely, Pickering & Halperin, 2019) called it Nonsequiturs, or the construction of superficially rational chains of reasoning, which on closer inspection are missing critical links. But I think there is something to these two complementary components. Research into affective responses to training intensity (Ekkekakis, Parfitt & Petruzzello, 2011; Ladwig, Hartman & Ekkekakis, 2017; Hartman et al., 2019) particularly valence utilizing pleasure/displeasure scale, shown that when exercising above lactate threshold there seems to be increased in the displeasure ratings. It might be then theorized that ratings of pleasure/displeasure indicated the severity of homeostatic perturbation (Hartman et al., 2019). I guess this is also related to the ratings of exertion, although more about it in Chapter 5. Theoretically, lactate threshold or critical power represent thresholds after which body is unable to maintain its homeostasis and one is performing on the “borrowed time” (for more info about endurance and training see (Jovanovic, 2018). Research into training load distribution with endurance runners by Stephen Seiler et al. (Eriksson; Seiler & Kjerland, 2006; Seiler & Tønnessen, 2009; Seiler, 2010; Muñoz et al., 2014) shows that following the polarized distribution of the training load leads to better outcomes. This means that the gross of training load distribution (e.g., 80-90%) is under aerobic threshold (which is approximately below 75% HRmax), and some training load (e.g., 10-20%) is over anaerobic or lactate threshold (which is approximately above 90% HRmax). The middle zone, between two thresholds is minimized (75-90% HRmax). This is similar to the late Charlie Francis idea of avoiding the medium zone (i.e., 70-95% of maximal velocity) when training sprinters. It seems that this middle intensity, both in Seiler research with endurance runners and with Charlie Francis experience with elite sprinters, yields too much downside for the upside it produces. For these reasons, I think that maintain – disrupt complementary aspects have an application to training, although they do not need to be separated in distinctive blocks as Vladimir Issurin suggested. What this has to do with strength training? I think that maintain – disrupt can be related to develop – express, as well as extensive – intensive complementary pair 61

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

(discussed in Chapter 5). I do believe, that when applied beyond biology (see Hero’s Journey model in Chapter 5), the idea behind maintain – disrupt can be very applicable. When it comes to training load, it is hard to pinpoint which zones improve the ability to maintain homeostatic control, versus which zones improve the ability to disrupt it. I do think that some ideas from polarized training distribution can be applied to strength training, which is discussed in Chapter 5, but the main application, in my opinion, is beyond biology and it is embedded in the concepts of push the ceiling – pull the floor. These are all discussed in Chapter 5.

Structure - Function Structure - function, although similar to substance – form, is more related to physiology and biology. When it comes to strength training, structure involves the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the muscles, fast vs slow twitch percentage, tendons thickness and stiffness (although stiffness can be more related to function), joint characteristics, bone structure and so forth. Function is more related to CNS and actual performance, and how this structure is utilized (hence the similarity with the substance – form). This might mean motor unit recruitment, discharge frequency, coordination and so forth. Armor building methods might be more structure directed, where Arrow methods might be more function directed to give an example. One useful heuristic is that structural change takes longer to create, but also longer to lose, where functional change might be a bit faster to acquire and faster to lose (and maybe faster to re-acquire as well). Some of the phase potentiation sequencing discussed in Chapter 5 rely on this complementary aspect. For example, anatomic adaptation, followed by hypertrophy phase relies on the assumption that structure is built, and this will allow phases that follow (maximum strength, power conversion) better potentiation since they rely more on function effects of strength training. The debate in strength training circles weather structure limits function (in this case weather CSA limits strength; for example see (Buckner et al., 2016; Taber et al., 2019)) is still ongoing.

Weaknesses – Strengths Once one discovers athlete qualities, compared to something else (e.g., other athletes in the group, previous athlete level, research results) these qualities can be 62

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

considered as strengths (if better than something else), or weaknesses (if worse than something else). This categorization can be tricky and biased (e.g., physiological lab coat working with soccer athletes and deciding that the forwards have low VO2max values). What is even trickier is figuring out what to about it (see Is/Ought gap). One heuristic or an approach would be to utilize the Liebig’s law of the minimum (“Liebig’s law of the minimum,” 2018) which comes from agriculture and states: “This concept was originally applied to plant or crop growth, where it was found that increasing the amount of plentiful nutrients did not increase plant growth. Only by increasing the amount of the limiting nutrient (the one most scarce in relation to “need”) was the growth of a plant or crop improved. This principle can be summed up in the aphorism, ‘The availability of the most abundant nutrient in the soil is only as good as the availability of the least abundant nutrient in the soil.’ Or, to put it more plainly, ‘A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.’” The above quote is taken from Wikipedia article (“Liebig’s law of the minimum,” 2018) and the bold emphasis “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link” is mine. Liebig’s law of the minimum is usually visually explained very neatly with the Liebig’s barrel (“Liebig’s law of the minimum,” 2018) which is depicted on Figure 2.26. Just as the capacity of a barrel with staves of unequal length is limited by the shortest stave, so a plant’s growth is limited by the nutrient in shortest supply.

Figure 2.26. Liebig’s barrel and the law of the minimum. Just as the capacity of a barrel with staves of unequal length is limited by the shortest stave, so a plant’s growth is limited by the nutrient in shortest supply. Image modified from Wikipedia (“Liebig’s law of the minimum,” 2018)

63

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Using “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link” would imply that the Ought should be in investing in improving the weakest quality. This also assumes that the easiest quality to improve would be the weakest. Some criteria-based periodization strategies, such as Al Vermeil’s approach (Vermeil, Helland & Gattone, 1999), involves emphasizing certain lacking quality for a given period of time (while working on other important qualities as well), rather than following pre-planned block sequences (see Chapter 5). If an athlete lacks hypertrophy, then one might spend some time in hypertrophy emphasized training phase. Once certain criteria are met, another identified quality can be emphasized. A similar approach can be utilized in powerlifting. Theoretically, the easiest way to improve one's total would be to focus on the weakest lift for a period of time. The rationale is that this might be the easiest to fix. But this is tricky, or should I say complex (please note that we have jumped over Is/Ought gap). One needs to utilize the Barbell Strategy here as well. Maybe, that weakness is there for a reason. Maybe fixing this weakness will screw up strengths, directly or indirectly through second order effects. We never know. For that reason, Barbell Strategy comes handy: protect from the downside (in this case screwing up the strengths) and pursue the upside (in this case improving the weakness). Another approach might be to focus on one’s strengths. Assume you have a kickboxer as an athlete, and he is really bad at clinch game. Would you be willing to fix it? What if this lad is tall, short leverage and prefer to fight from the rim? Working on the clinch exclusively might cause a lot of frustration and might decrease his confidence, particularly if it is before a fight. Maybe focusing on one strengths and trying to play on that card should be the focus? This is not to say that either approach is better or worse. They are approaches to a complex problem, and both of them are jumping over the Is/Ought gap. There are opposite proverbs of course18 (Page, 2012), and to be wise one needs to know in what situation to apply a particular proverb. I also think that the opposite provers phenomenally depict the complementary nature of the complexity. The mentioned kickboxer in a given training session or sparring can focus on his strengths (e.g., circling around and working from a rim range), or focus on his weaknesses (e.g., actually entering clinch range more frequently to work on it). These are thus complementary aspects, and both should be present in a higher or lower degree across different phases of the training (week, sprint, phase, release, career) all the time. 18 For example, consider the following opposite proverbs: “You’re never too old to learn” Vs. “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks” “Don’t change horses in midstream” Vs. “Variety is the spice of life” “Birds of a feather flock together” Vs. “Opposites attract” “Too many cooks spoil the broth” Vs. “Two heads are better than one”

64

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ



The Function of Muscles in the Human Body19 According to Frans Bosch (Bosch & Klomp, 2005; Bosch, 2015) every muscle in

your body is structured20 (evolved) with a specific movement role and purpose. Although muscles can work in different ways (e.g., hamstrings is „designed“ to operate reactively / isometrically, athletes can use it concentrically when performing leg curl exercises), as the speed of the movement increases, and thus becomes less volitionally controlled, muscles start to work to their specialized structure. Taking this into account, the proposed generalized classification of muscles is the following: Concentric-explosive muscles •• Single-joint (cross over only one joint) •• They have spindle-shaped structure (the muscle fibers extending parallel to the line of the pull and tendon) •• They are suitable for positive (concentric) work and strength training •• Have a greater area of force production under the force-length curve, thus they can express force over different lengths. Wider operating range •• ‘Stupid’ muscles •• Example: m. gluteus maximus, m. iliopsoas, m. vastus lateralis et medialis Reactive-elastic muscles •• Multi-joint (cross over two or more joints, bi-articulate) •• Have  pennate structure  (muscle fibers extending at an angle in relation to the tendon) •• The pennate design allows greater physiological cross-section area (CSA) for the same muscle mass in relation to the spindle-shaped muscles, which enables them to achieve greater force production per kilogram of mass •• Pennate design means that the muscle fiber length changes significantly when changing the total length of the muscle, resulting in a smaller area of force 19 This part is modified article that I have published at the Complementary Training website (Jovanovic, 2010) which was a review of Frans Bosch book and theories (Bosch & Klomp, 2005) 20 See structure – function complementary pair. Structure defines function (from the ontogenesis perspective in the higher degree), but function over time defined structure (from phylogenesis perspective in a higher degree). This makes them complementary pair.

65

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

production under the force-length curve.  To put it simply, pennate muscles can achieve maximum force production only at certain lengths. Narrower  operating range. •• Have developed important passive structures (tendons, fascia, etc.). •• Able to absorb and process the external force •• Structured (evolved) for isometric work because of their narrower force-length relationship. •• Isometric function and the pre-activation of these muscles are the prerequisites for its reactive-elastic function, which makes the muscle contractile elements (CE) stiff, and allows the muscles to use its serial elements (SE): tendon and other passive elements within the muscle structure •• ‘Intelligent muscles’ – require more effort and coordination to be used effectively •• Example:

m.  erector

spinae,

m.  biceps

femoris,

m.  et

semitendinosus

semimembranosus, m. rectus femoris, abdominal muscles. Of course, this is a rough division. In reality, the muscles are flexible and can have characteristics of both groups. However, the division between the two groups is very practical, especially in organizing training, rehab, and injury prevention programs21. Since movement is interplay between stability and mobility22 certain muscles can contribute to these specific functions. In short, using stability - mobility continuum, a muscle can be classified to (Comerford & Mottram, 2001, 2015)23: 1. Local stabilizer 2. Global stabilizers 3. Global mobilizers 21 The implication of this, at least according to Frans Bosch (Bosch & Klomp, 2005; Bosch, 2015) training hamstrings more isometrically and reactively, rather than concentrically and eccentrically (e.g., Nordic curls) is more aligned with their structure and purpose hence more efficient in injury prevention in high speed running (Van Hooren & Bosch, 2017a,b) 22 Stability and mobility can be also considered complementary pair. One can look at stability as prerequisite for mobility (similar to homeostatic maintenance and homeostatic disruption complementary pair). “How fast would you drive Ferrari in the city with the malfunctioning breaks?”. For example, improving punching power might be limited by the breaks, or muscles that decelerate the punch (i.e., last, rhomboids and general pull muscles). This puts a concept of specificity and dynamic correspondence into perspective (see next chapter), since maybe the improvement in particular movement is limited not by prime movers and addressed with specific exercises, but by stabilizing muscles and addressed with general and actually opposite means (e.g., movements/muscles of opposite direction). There is always Is/Ought gap involved, just realize that the jump often done by the similarity and association bias (i.e., assumption that since the mean is specific, or looks similar, it must be effective). 23 This structural approach is often used in pain and dysfunction diagnostics and management. For example, low back pain is due dysfunction of the local stabilizers that should be targeted (with Vanilla training). There are critiques of this model, as well as other alternatives, such as biopsychosocial model (Stilwell & Harman, 2019)

66

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

The mentioned classification of (1) Concentric-explosive muscles and (2) Reactive-elastic muscles refers only to Global mobilizers. In my opinion, and I may be wrong, muscles are flexible in terms of their function and can express different functions under certain context. This may be a good thing and it may lead to dysfunctions and pain too (from a structural perspective to pain and dysfunctions; see footnotes). Anyway, there is a certain attractor in their functioning based on their structure and location. What is important is to understand that certain coordination dynamics that emerge under constraints can result in a good performance, but also in pain and dysfunction. Our understanding of muscles is dominated by the model that muscles have only one function of overcoming the external load. However, this is only part of the story.  Muscle function is more complex and more versatile (Bosch & Klomp, 2005; Bosch, 2015): •• Muscles overcome the external load (force and power production) •• Muscles pre-stretch elastic tissues •• Muscles have a role in the transfer of energy from one joint to another •• Muscles facilitate other muscles by eccentrically loading them Muscles  overcome  the external load (force and power production). The contractile element of the muscle (CE) has the ability to generate force, and thus allows the muscles to generate torque in the joints, which in turn allow movements of the human body and overcoming of the external load by the system of levers (bones and joints). Muscles pre-stretch elastic tissues.  For the muscle to function reactiveelastically, before the advent of external loads (e.g. for running this is the time interval before the foot contacts the ground) it needs to be isometrically contracted (precontraction), and to tighten the series elastic tissues (i.e., to remove the slack). Since in that situation the muscle is stiffer than the serial elastic tissues, which are lengthened by external load and accumulate energy, serial elastic tissue acts as a spring which returns that same (there is some  hysteresis) energy back afterward.  In this way, muscles function more economically (saving metabolic energy and relying more on elastic energy), but also improves its ability to generate force. Muscles have a role in the transfer of energy from one joint to another.  The phenomenon of  energy transfer from joint to joint  (Prilutsky & Zatsiorsky, 1994) is a very interesting mechanism that along with reactive-elastic function allows costeffective functioning of the human body. An illustrative example of energy transfer is 67

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

a function of hamstrings.    M. quadriceps extends the knee joint, and if the length of your hamstring is the same (isometric contraction) i.e., such as a non-elastic rope, extension of the knee will ‘transfer’ over the hamstring to hip extension too. In this way m. Quadriceps extends the hip with the help of coordinated actions of the hamstring muscles.  These ’energy transfer’ phenomena occur in all bi-articulated muscles (ones that cross two joints). The implications of this phenomenon are very interesting if we take into account the distribution of the muscles in the body.  During running approximately 80% of energy is used to accelerate/decelerate  the segments of the body.  In order to improve efficiency (reduce energy cost), the amount of mass in the distal segments should be as small as possible (this will reduce the moment of inertia).  This is why the calf is bi-articulated muscle (m. gastrocnemius) and pennate. Pennate structure of m. gastrocnemius enables the production of higher isometric force for the same muscle mass compared to a spindle-shaped (parallel) structure.  To enable the transfer of energy from the much larger and stronger knee extensor muscles of the proximal part of the leg (m. quadriceps) to extension (plantar flexion) of the foot, m. gastrocnemius crosses both joints (knee and ankle) and as an in the hamstring example, functions isometric-reactive-elastic. In this way, it reduces the moment of inertia and provides a stronger extension of the foot.  Truly intelligent solution of the Mother Nature (for Evolutionist readers) or God (for Intelligent Design readers)! Muscles facilitate other muscles by loading them eccentrically. This function of the muscles is also very interesting. Because the muscles are placed at an angle in each joint, they cause different moments (torques) in different axes. In practice, this means that every muscle causes flexion/extension, adduction/abduction, and external/internal rotation in different proportions. For this reason, our movements are mostly spiral and diagonal (as one school in physical therapy – PNF uses as one of its basic principles), and not ‘Robotic’ in one plane. Because the ability of the muscles to generate force decreases with increasing shortening velocity (force-velocity relationship), the action of adjacent muscles in a certain way can reduce the speed of the main muscle shortening and thus enable the generation of larger forces in the target plane of the movement.  Example of this mechanism is seen during the acceleration phase in running, where most of the propulsive force is generated by m. gluteus and m.  quadriceps.  Since m. gluteus produce extension and external rotation of the hip, torsion of the pelvis and use of the arm swings will lead to the internal rotation in the hip of the standing leg, which has the effect of the ‘elongation’ (i.e. reducing shortening velocity) of the m. gluteus, which as a result, according to the force-velocity relationship, contributes to the greater force production in the direction of the hip extension, and thus the greater propulsive forces and greater acceleration of the body. 68

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

The human body is an extremely complex and ‘intelligent’ machine, whose modes of operations we are just beginning to understand. Error in the past approaches was that we tried to explain the functioning of the whole by understanding the characteristics of the parts. However, things do not work that way. The whole is not a simple collection of the parts (see substance – form complementary pair). Thus, the function of the muscles should not be analyzed separately, but in the way they fit into the functioning of the whole body, the way they ‘cooperate’ with each other, in order to maximize the effectiveness, efficiency and produce movement.  The reductionist approach to the analysis of movement should be replaced by newer methods of nonlinear open and adaptable complex systems, which studies the self-organization of the motor system and views the variability in the movement as something useful not only as a “noise and error.

Grand Unified Theory It bears repeating that I am not trying to sell you certain model as the best or the only objective truth, but instead promote multi-model thinking, pragmatic realism, phenomenology, and integrative pluralism. These models are only Small World models of the complex reality. Some serve as a warm comfort, some serve certain ideologies of training, but all are wrong. For that reason, you need to keep in mind that these are just simplified representations of the complex reality and neither solves the Is/Ought Gap. One model that I developed over the years (Jovanovic, 2018), in an attempt to combine my current understanding is Grand Unified Theory (GUT) of Everything (sports performance related) (see Figure 2.27).

IS

OUGHT Protect from the Downside

Task

via Posi�va

Is/Ought Gap

Quality

Form

Rate-Limiter

Substance Environment

via Nega�va

Organism Invest in the Upside

Figure 2.27. Grand Unified Theory

69

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

In the GUT model we are still facing the Is/Ought Gap. Quality is manifested under constraints of Task, Environment, and Organism (individual athlete). This is quite similar, if not the same with the Constraints-led Approach (CLA) to motor learning and skill acquisition (Davids, Button & Bennett, 2008; Renshaw, Davids & Savelsbergh, 2012; Chow et al., 2016). This is pragmatic-realist position (Maul, 2013; Guyon, Falissard & Kop, 2017), where more analytical (e.g., objective) qualities are manifested under real-world conditions. In the above example of Formula 1 car, you might test curve performance of a driver in laboratory settings, but driver manifests bad quality when pressured by other opponents and heavy rain. That IS the current state (place of things). What needs to be done about it? Better traction? By adding better tires, removing weight? By teaching the driver how to enter the curve better? By adding more practices under pressure or by figuring out that he was under heavy stress lately because his wife was cheating him and his daughter is seriously sick. These are all under the domain of OUGHT. From what is written already, the OUGHT part is about identifying (or guessing through iterations, MVP, randomization and pure luck) bottleneck or the rate limiter and deciding what to do about it. Multiple complementary aspects are involved here: substance - form, via Positiva - via Negativa, and investment in the Upside -protection from the Downside. I believe that these aspects, implemented in the Agile Periodization framework, help in bridging the Is/Ought Gap. GUT model is also scale-free, which means it can be applied to different levels of analysis, from a single cell to a nation. It represents a more holistic approach as opposed to reductionistic physiological/biomechanical models and analysis, as well as ideological training systems. It is a great tool both for decision making, and when analyzing other training systems to figure out which aspect is being emphasized and why (e.g., Westside Barbell vs Boris Sheiko).

Shu-Ha-Ri and Bruce Lee’s punch Aikido master Endō Seishirō shihan stated (“Shuhari,” 2019): “It is known that, when we learn or train in something, we pass through the stages of shu, ha, and ri. These stages are explained as follows. In  shu, we repeat the forms and discipline ourselves so that our bodies absorb the forms that our forebears created. We remain faithful to these forms with no deviation. Next, in the stage of ha, once we have disciplined 70

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

ourselves to acquire the forms and movements, we make innovations. In this process the forms may be broken and discarded. Finally, in ri, we completely depart from the forms, open the door to creative technique, and arrive in a place where we act in accordance with what our heart/mind desires, unhindered while not overstepping laws.” Bruce Lee stated the following: “Before I learned the art, a punch was just a punch, and a kick, just a kick. After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick, no longer a kick. Now that I understand the art, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick.” I think that as physical preparation coaches we pass through these stages. I remember when I started, I was obsessed with the correct execution of exercises, classifications, and periodization models. Particularly in finding THE optimal and right ones. Later I realized there are numerous solutions, whose application depends on the context. Everything was “It depends”. But now I think I am in a more ri phase, where “a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick”. Yeah, everything depends, but there are stable and best practices, but also explorations and creativity around those. Tradition is there for a reason24 but one doesn’t need to be a slave to it. Unfortunately, one cannot jump phases, and simplicity of an expert can be seen as ignorance of the beginner. I am thus more than aware that this manual will not be attractive to readers in the shu phase, who might be looking for a simplified “do this” type of a book, but rather to those in ha phase by presenting various options and progressions, and most probably to those in ri phase questioning contemporary models and practices.

Summary I am glad we have reached this point so I can focus on more pragmatic topics in this manual. I am pretty sure that going through this chapter was painful, but it was needed since I am approaching planning from another perspective, rather than the physiological/biomechanical analytic perspective. My viewpoint is Agile Periodization, where I realize that we are experimenting and dealing with a bunch of uncertainties. The Outlined rationales are the building blocks of Agile Periodization and were essential to be introduced and understood before digging into more practical stuff in the chapters that follow. Let’s go! 24 See Lindy Effect (Taleb, 2012; “Lindy effect,” 2019).

71

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

3 Exercises What is the point of exercise classification? To impress girls with differentiating between exercises for the long and short head of the biceps muscle? To pass the biomechanics class exam? None of this, of course. The purpose of classification is not to create a place of things, but a forum for action. Creating categories from place of things perspective always comes with two issues. First one is that creating more than needed precision with categories represent exercise in futility and a rabbit hole (e.g., why having categories of exercises for long vs. short biceps head if you do not plan using them somehow?). There are always unlimited ways to classify exercises, depending on what criteria is being used. Besides, these criteria will be usually in some type of a conflict (later in the chapter you will see few of those on figures). Second issue is that because there is a category, you will have a proclivity to use it in planning, when there is no practical significance in doing so. For example, having vertical and horizontal press category will create more proclivity do designate training slots for them, but they might not need special treatment (for example with strength generalists, like team sport athletes). The goal of exercise classification is thus to help you in planning and to simplify complexity (i.e., Small World model) and to direct your decision making. It bears repeating that categories are artificial, and that border is fuzzy rather than either/or, which means that some exercises can belong to multiple groups (e.g., is split squat single leg or double leg movement?), and exercises from a particular group can differ (e.g., step-ups vs lateral lunges - one is vertical and the other is lateral, although both are single leg movement). It also bears repeating Jordan B. Peterson: “Categories are constructed in relationship to their functional significance”. This means that categorization will depend on the potential use, particularly if you work with strength specialists (e.g., powerlifters, strongman, weightlifters, and heavy athletics like a shot put) or strength generalists (e.g., everyone else that uses resistance training to help in 72

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

achieving performance in something else, like team sports athletes, combat athletes or what have you).

General vs. Specific Strength specialists might prefer to utilize classification based on specificity or how similar particular exercises are to competitive exercises. For example, powerlifter might classify exercises using their similarity to competitive bench press, squat, and deadlift. One common approach (Small World, or mental model) that implements this idea is a simple classification to general exercises and specific exercises (see Figure 3.1):

General category

Specific category

Specificity Figure 3.1. Exercise classification based on specificity into general and specific. Note the fuzzy border between groups, rather than either/or distinction

According to Grand Unified Theory (GUT; see the previous chapter) model, general exercises usually develop some innate (latent) quality (substance) by providing an overload, and specific exercises express that potential (form) through skill development and manifestation (see Figure 3.2). This dichotomous thinking (either/ or: either you overload with general mean or you transform with specific, or develop vs. express dichotomy) is quite common, although not many coaches are aware of using it. For example, improve VO2max (potential) and your running performance in the game will improve, or in a shot put improve your strength using bench press and transform it by doing a shot put. 73

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Skill/Manifesta�on Form

Substance

Specific

General

Quality/Overload Figure 3.2. Substance and Form of the Grand Unified Theory applied to general versus specific exercises

Keep in mind that this is also a Small World model and that different camps utilize this model (or other models) differently. For example, a shot putter (who we might consider strength specialist in this case) might use incline bench press to improve the potential and utilize shot putting to manifest (or transform) that potential. This apparent dichotomy of ability versus skills (or substance and form) is being used in some schools (to my knowledge in American T&F schools) while being critiqued in others (for example in Bondarchuk’s approach to hammer throwing (Bondarchuk & Yessis, 2007, 2010)). Another example might be the use of specialized exercises in Westside powerlifting (Simmons, 2007) to target specific quality or weak links (i.e., potential), which will be later converted to competitive performance using the most specific lifts (i.e., form). In contrary, Sheiko powerlifting school (Sheiko, 2018) might approach things differently (using a different Small World model) by being less dichotomous and treat specific lifts (bench press, squat and deadlift) as developmental and skill dependent, rather than just a sole manifestation of underlying potential that is being developed with specialized exercises. Again, these are all Small World representations, and as we all know, both schools of powerlifting are more than successful in developing world-class lifters. An example from soccer might involve arguing with the head coach who says: “Players never squat in a game” (referring to form), while you try to convey that they do need to strength train to improve underlying potential or substance (to improve performance on the pitch, but also to protect from the Downside, i.e., injuries). Extension of this model (by including additional categories in general vs. specific continuum) is the model by Dr. Anatoly Bondarchuk (Bondarchuk & Yessis, 2007, 2010) which is quite famous and utilized in track and field circles (see Figure 3.3) 74

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

{

Specific Development Exercises (SDE)

Specific Preparatory Exercises (SPE)

}

Substance

Barbell Strategy

Specificity

Form

Pursue Upside

Compe��ve Exercises (CE)

Avoid Downside

General Preparatory Exercises (GPE)

Figure 3.3. Exercise classification based on the work of Dr. Anatoly Bondarchuk (Bondarchuk & Yessis, 2007, 2010) and its relationship to the barbell strategy

In addition to GUT’s substance-form complementary pair, utilization of CE and SDE exercises can be considered investing in the Upside (improving performance), while utilization of the SPE and particularly GE exercises can be regarded as protection from the Downside (making sure you don’t fuck yourself up with too specific work). For a powerlifter, this might mean doing some stability work, stretching, or horizontal and vertical pulling (should we call it Vanilla training - see the previous chapter) or some aerobic conditioning or bodyweight strength circuits (to improve Mongoose Persistence?; also see the previous chapter) which can all help in protecting from the Downside. I have personally used Bondarchuk categories in my work and previous writings, and I believe they are a beneficial mental model. I have used them to help me categorize speed, power, and other strength and conditioning components, and I will continue to use them as a tool in the toolbox (i.e., multi-model thinker), particularly for strength specialists (or athletes that compete in cm/kg/sec sports). The dealbreaker issue I have with this model is that its categories depend on what we use to judging specificity. The categories of exercises might be very different for a powerlifter, as opposed to a rugby player. Take into account that specificity and hence exercises categorization for a rugby player which involves sprinting, acceleration, jump, ruck, maul, shoulder tackling and so forth. That being said, it is hard to pinpoint the exact category of an exercise in complex team sports (i.e., strength generalists). After all, most if not all strength exercises for team sport athlete will be in the GPE and SPE category. In that way, although very useful as a general viewpoint, Bondarchuk categorization is not very useful (lower functional significance) in team sports or for strength generalists. For this reason, I will utilize few different categorizations that I have found to have the biggest forum for action, which will guide my decision making and help me to decide what are the big buckets (or planning slots) that I have to take care of. The following categorization models are mostly aimed at strength generalists, although they can 75

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

be utilized for strength specialists, potentially as sub-categories of the SPE and GE categories in the Bondarchuk categorization model.

Grinding vs. Ballistic Grinding movements are slow, controlled, compound movements (e.g., squats, deadlift, bench press) with constant tension, while Ballistic movements are fast and explosive (e.g., jump squats, hang cleans) with a burst of tension followed by relaxation, and they usually involve a flight of the body or the implement (e.g., barbell or a medicine ball). Additional categories involve Control movements (mostly for Vanilla Training, e.g., local and global stabilizers, but also has a lot similarity with complex movements category later in the chapter which demands symmetry and stabilization) and Other (that annoying category for exercises you do not know where they belong to). As with any categorization, it is hard to draw a fine line between categories since there are some similarities between them. Here, Figure 3.4 illustrates one possible classification of the Slow tempos

Eccentric

Additional weight isoHolds

Action

isoPush

Isometric

isoSwitch

Grinding

isoCatch

Segments

* overcoming immovable object * quickly switching sides/extremities (e.g. hamstring bridge) * catch after an airborne phase (similar to catching exercises in the ballistic category)

* your normal lifting, but it can be solely concentric (e.g. sled pushing)

Concentric Other

* holding position (e.g., side bridge)

* Accommodating resistance, isokinetic, etc

Compound Isolation Ground

Olympic Lifting

Strength Training Movements

Hang Blocks

Fast Grinding

*See categories for Jumping

Explosive (Static Position) Reactive (Countermovement) Ballistic

Jumping

Continuous (Rhythmical) Catching (EccentricDeceleration)

Throwing Sprinting

Relaxed Maximal * Similar to isoCatch

*Same categories as Jumping *Mostly Sled variations

Other Control Other

* Exercises belonging mostly to the Vanilla training category (e.g., local/global stabilizers) * Those annoying exercises that you do not know where they belong

Figure 3.4. Categorization of movements based on their type

76

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

movements. Please keep in mind that there are numerous ways to classify and enter the rabbit hole - I have included only the categories that I think have the most forum for action when working with strength generalists. Figure 3.5 contains the hypothetical (and very simplified) relationship between Grinding, Ballistic, and Control towards developing Anaconda Strength, Armor Building, Arrow, Vanilla Training and Mongoose Persistence qualities.

Grinding Ballis�c Control

Armor Building 4 3 4

Anaconda Strength 5 4 2

Arrow 2 5 1

Mongoose Persistence 3 2 3

Vanilla Training 1 1 5

Figure 3.5. What qualities development are grinding, ballistic and control movements good for. The higher the number is, the better fit it is. Keep in mind that this is just a speculative highly simplified model.

Grinding movements Figure 3.4 contains the additional classification of the grinding movements based on muscle action and the number of segments involved. Using muscle action, we can classify grinding movements to predominantly (1) eccentric, (2) isometric, (3) concentric, and (4) other25. Eccentric category usually involves an emphasis on slow lowering phase (eccentric phase) or somehow adding extra weight on the lowering part (e.g., leg press with two legs, lower with one). Isometric category involves categories coined by colleague Alex Natera (see Figure 3.4 for details). IsoHold can also belong to Control movements, while isoCatch is very similar, if not the same to catch exercises in the ballistic category. The Concentric category are your regular lifting movements, although specific apparatus can be used to perform movements concentrically only (e.g., heavy sled pushes and pulls). Other category involves, well everything else, from accommodating resistance to using EMS (Electric Muscle Stimulation). When it comes to the number of segments involved, the simplest classification involves isolated movements (e.g., chest flies, biceps curls) and compound movements (e.g., bench press, pull-ups). 25 It is always useful to have the “Other” category, in which you put items you do not know where they belong. After the number of these items increases, it might be a time to revisit your overall classification model. Having said this, classification is also “iterative”, rather than set in stone. This also means that the classifications in this book are “work in progress”, rather than the final picture.

77

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Ballistic movements Figure 3.4 contains additional classification of the ballistic movements to (1) Olympic lifting, (2) Fast Grinding (think of dynamic effort squats or bench press with 50-60% 1RM (Simmons, 2007)), (3) Jumping, (4) Throwing, (5) Sprinting (mostly heavy sled towing/pushing exercises), and of course the (6) Other category. Olympic lifting is further classified based on the starting positions: (1) ground, (2) hang, or (3) blocks. Additional classification might involve catching position (e.g., full, power, muscle), but that would be an overkill for this simple big picture overview. Additional subcategories for fast grinding, jumping and throwing are categories based on the action, and they involve (1) explosive from a static position (e.g., think of squat jumps from pause), (2) reactive (e.g., counter-movement jump or depth jump), (3) continuous (e.g. rhythmical jump squats that can be all-out, or sub-maximal rhythmical), and (4) catching oriented (e.g., jump and land). We can probably add other categories here as well, pick up every other variation that one might use for jumping, throwing and fast grinding movements (e.g., combining grinding movement with ballistic in a contrast super-set or what have you).

Control movements Control movements category is a bloody mess, and involves everything from core stuff, to BOSU ball and breathing fuckarounditis. Vanilla Training mostly utilizes these movements with the aim of protecting from the Downside.

Simple vs. Complex What can be put on top of grinding and ballistic classification (one can include control category here, but I will leave it out to simplify26) are simple versus complex movements. This way we get a quadrant: on the x-axis, we have movement time (a long time for grinding movements, and short time for ballistic movements), and on the y-axis, we have complexity axis (from lower complexity to higher complexity). I like to refer to this model as Time-Complexity quadrants (TCQ) (See Figure 3.6). 26 Please beware the "curse" of classification, particularly quadrants and matrix which results when we combine two or more criteria. Sometimes we are "forced" to fill in the spots to fit the model. Remember that you can have a blank spot in your model and not everything should fit nicely. But sometimes we can ‘predict’ novel things (e.g., periodic table allowed us to predict yet unknown elements found later)

78

Complex Simple

Movement Complexity

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Ballis�c

Grinding

Movement Time Figure 3.6. Time-Complexity quadrants

To make the need for such a categorization model easier to understand, think of a few examples for each quadrant (see Figure 3.7). Complex refers to how many segments are utilized and whether the stability is compromised. It might be hard to pinpoint to exact biomechanics principles, but from a phenomenological perspective, it is quite easy to understand (e.g., “I know it when I see it”). Grinding-Simple: Bench Press Grinding-Complex: Standing (Split Squat) Landmine Press Ballistic-Simple: Hang Clean Ballistic-Complex: SLRDL to Clean with Box Step (an example of Frans Bosch (Bosch, 2015) drills), anything ballistic with a water ball, or some other fancy explosive step up

79

Complex Simple

Movement Complexity

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Ballis�c

Grinding

Movement Time Figure 3.7. Example of TCQ exercises

Exercises from all quadrants can be represented in the training program, in a higher or lower degree, depending on the objectives, needs, and context. TCQ allow a place for things, particularly when someone starts bombarding you with fancy Instagram exercises. Now you have a drawer to put them in, and use them if and when needed.

Fundamental movement patterns Not sure who figured out this categorization thing first, but I guess that Ian King (King, 2002) was one of the first to write about it. Different coaches utilized different classifications, of which I am the most thankful to Dan John (John & Tsatsouline, 2011; John, 2013) (who added loaded carries which I am more than grateful for), Michael Boyle (Boyle, Verstegen & Cosgrove, 2010; Boyle, 2016) (mainly for his view on single leg movements), and Joe Kenn (Kenn, 2003) (whose book I consider one of the most important books written for generalist strength training). Figure 3.8 contains my current classification of the fundamental movement patterns in the lowest resolution:

80

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Grinding

Ballis�c

Push

Push

Pull

Pull

Squat

Squat

Hinge

Hinge

Carry/Push

Rota�on

Core

Other

Other

Figure 3.8. Fundamental human movements (for strength training purpose)27

27 Different authors name these categories differently. For example, Squat category is usually named Knee-Dominant or Lower Body Push, while Hinge is oftentimes named Hip-Dominant or Lower Body Pull. Few things might be missing, e.g., calves, hip flexor. These can be in the “Other” category, but if they become important aspect of your program, you are more than free to create additional categories.

81

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

As mentioned multiple times through this manual, categories should be as simple as possible (lowest resolution), while still being functionally significant (provide a forum for action). Some of these categories could be further divided into horizontal/ vertical (e.g., horizontal push, vertical push; horizontal jump, vertical jump) or double leg/single leg (single leg squatting movements, double leg squatting movements), but that can quickly become an exercise in futility (which I will do anyway). If it suits your programming and hence provides functional significance, then please do include some extra categories. I need something as simple as possible, to which I can easily reflect on to see if I am hitting all the major movements that I have to address - hint: 1/N heuristic and MVP). It is always good to include the “Other” category. I have learned this from the “productivity movement”. It is like the bottom drawer in which you put things you are not sure how to categorize. Once this drawer fills up too much, well I guess it is time to use a different categorization model. It bears repeating that everything in this manual are simple heuristics and strategies that you can use as a starting point and modify to suit your needs. For example, one can put “Vanilla” training exercises (breathing drills, DNS rolling on the ground, PRI drills and so forth) into category “Other”. One can also include gymnastic movements such as falls, rolls, and various holds as special categories, which are quite useful but for now, we can leave them in the “Other” category. If these represent a major part of your training philosophy, then, by all means, I encourage you to make your own categories. Some exercises can be combined into multiple movements, and that is not worrisome, but something to keep in mind (remember the fuzzy borders? One exercise can belong to multiple categories). I am not trying to split the hair with 100% accurate categorization here. Remember that we are more into functional significance and simplicity, rather than 100% correct categorization.

Grinding movement patterns Figure 3.9 contains the more detailed classification of the grinding movements into fundamental movement patterns

82

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Push

Vertical Pull

Single Arm

Horizontal

Double Arm * Same categories as

* Same categories as

Horizontal

Push

Double Leg Supported

* Double leg?! E.g., split squats, Bulgarian split squats, lateral split squats

Static Squat (Lower Body Push)

Vertical Single Leg Unsupported

Accelerative

Horizontal Lateral Rotational

Decelerative

Grinding Movements Single Leg Hinge (Lower Body Pull)

* Same categories as

Accelera�ve

Straight Bent

Double Leg

Straight Bent

Forward Carry/Sled

Backward Lateral Anterior

Core

Posterior Lateral Rotational

Other

Figure 3.9. Fundamental movement patterns of the grinding movements

The classification, as well as pretty much everything else in this manual, is work in progress. The classification of the single leg movements is very much influenced by Michael Boyle classification (Boyle, Verstegen & Cosgrove, 2010; Boyle, 2016). As you can see in Figure 3.9, supported single leg movements (e.g., split squats) can be considered double leg movements with a staggered stance. These things can be argued until the cows come home, so the key message is again forum for action, rather than an ideally precise place of things (see Figure 1.1). Figure 3.10 contains some example exercises for the main categories of the grinding movements. Push Push Ups Bench Press DB Bench Press KB Press Standing Cable Press Ring Push Ups

Pull Cable Row Pull Ups Lat Pull Downs Inverted Row Bench DB Rows Prone Rows

Squat Front Squat Hex Bar Squat Split Squat Bulgarian Split Squat Lateral Squat Lunges

Hinge Romanian Deadli� Hyperextension Deadli� Hip Thrust SLDL SL Hyperextensions

Carry/Push Farmers Walk w/Hexbar Overhead KB Carry Single Side Overhead Waterball Sled Marches Lateral Sled Marches

Core Roll-Out Pallof Press L-Sit Side Bridge RKC Plank Hangling Leg Li�s

Other Breathing Drills Hip Ext Rota�ons DNS Rolls Falls TYWL Shoulder Calves?

Figure 3.10. Exercises examples for major categories of the grinding movements

One thing you could do, and I will come back to this later in this chapter, is to enlist all the exercises you can coach and perform (or your athletes can perform) under your constraints. You can include whatever sub-categories you prefer if they are actionable (provide a forum for action) to you.

83

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Ballistic movement patterns Figure 3.11 contains the more detailed classification of the ballistic movements. For the most part, categories are quite similar to grinding movements (after all, the anatomy is the same).

Push

Horizontal Vertical

Pull

Single Arm Double Arm * Same categories as Horizontal

* Same categories as Push, although Pull movements are generally "tricky" to be performed ballistically

Squat (Lower Body Push) Hinge (Lower Body Pull)

Single Leg Double Leg * Same as with Pull categories, generally "tricky" to be performed ballistically

Rotation Ground Ballistic Movements

Starting Position

Hang Blocks Full

Olympic lifting

Power Finishing Position

Muscle Split Pull

Forward Sled

Backward Lateral

Other Figure 3.11. Fundamental movement patterns of the ballistic movements

As can be seen from Figure 3.11 pulling and hinge movements are a bit tricky when it comes to ballistic movements (i.e., hang clean can be considered ballistic hip hinge), but either way, Figure 3.12 contains few exercise examples. Push Explosive Push Up Bench Throws Medball Throws

Pull Explosive Bench Pull Medball Slams Explosive Pull-Up

Squat Scissor Jumps Squat Jumps Hex Bar Jumps

Hinge Broad Jump KB Swings Hanging Clean

Rota�on Rota�onal Medball Explosive Landmine Rot Chops with band

Other Pogo Jumps Hip Flexor throws

Figure 3.12. Exercises examples for major categories of the ballistic movements

84

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

An additional category is Olympic Lifting, which I classified in this example using starting and catching positions. Figure 3.13 depicts something that I like to call the Olympic Lifting Matrix (although jerk is not very well represented here) and can be useful in understanding different Olympic lifting variations. Again, the purpose is not the ideal place of things, but a functional forum for action. With these examples, I want to motivate you to start thinking in terms of your forum for action when devising categories.

Star�ng Posi�on Ground

Low hang (below the knees)

Hang (squat)

Hang (hip hinge)

High Hang

Blocks (low, med, high)

Full Catch (Olympic)

Catching Posi�on

Squat Catch (thigh parallel) Power (high squat)

Power Hang Snatch Power Hang Clean

Muscle (straight legs) Split Catch

Shrug

Pull High Pull From Blocks (Clean Grip)

High Pull

Figure 3.13. Classification matrix for the Olympic weight lifting exercises



Combining movement patterns with the Time-Complexity quadrants To make our lives very miserable, we can connect Time-Complexity quadrants

(see Figure 3.6 and 3.7) with movement patterns. I do not think this is particularly useful to be done with extreme precision - but it is essential to understand the difference between simple and complex categories. Figure 3.14 contains an example model, although the ballistic side (left side) is applied to more things besides lifting ballistically (e.g., sprinting, jumping, throwing). Digging more into this will demand another manual (manual on Speed and Power; which I am working on), but for the sake of completeness, it is mentioned here.

85

Complex Simple

Movement Complexity

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Speed

Overhead sprints w/water bags and rota�ons

Push

Standing Landmine Press

Agility/COD

Partner drills (Tags)

Pull

Standing Keiser Row

Reac�ve

Skips w/rota�ons & water bags

Squat

Single Leg, Offset & Unstable varia�ons

Explosive

Step-up with hip lock

Hinge

Single Leg, Offset & Unstable varia�ons

Deccelera�on

Various catches & drops w/perturba�ons

Carry/Push

Water filled objects

Low intensity

Low box, ladder w/perturba�ons

Core

Chops & Li�s

Speed

Hill sprints, Flat sprints

Push

Bench Press

Agility/COD

Simple COD drills

Pull

Pull-Ups

Reac�ve

Skips, hudrles

Squat

Front Squat

Explosive

Trap Bar jumps

Hinge

RDL

Deccelera�on

Drop jumps

Carry/Push

Trap Bar Carry, Heavy Sled March

Low intensity

Low box, ladder

Core

Roll-out

Ballis�c

Grinding

Movement Time Figure 3.14. Combination of the time-complexity quadrant and fundamental movement patterns

Exercise Priority/Emphasis/Importance Having an exercise pool for grinding and ballistic movement patterns is a necessary starting point, but not sufficient in deciding how to create a training program. The problem is how to choose the exercises? Which one is more important, which one should have higher priority? To solve these problems, coaches usually utilize some type of exercises classification based on what they think is important. Importance can mean different things to different coaches and athletes of course, but the goal is to simplify decision making when selecting what exercises to perform. The most common classification based on importance is classification to main exercises and assistance exercises. Figure 3.15 contains example categories from Jim Wendler (Wendler & Koss, 2013; Wendler, 2017), Joe Kenn (Kenn, 2003) and Mike Tuchscherer (Tuchscherer, 2008).

86

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Jim Wendler

Joe Kenn

Mike Tuchscherer

Main Li�s Supplement Li�s Assistance Li�s

Founda�on Exercises Supplemental Major Assistance Secondary Assistance

Compe��on Assistance Supplemental General

Figure 3.15. Exercise classification based on importance

Importance is again a complex concept and can mean different things. Mike Tuchscherer utilizes specificity to competition lifts as a criterion, and his classification model is very similar to Bondarchuk model (see Figure 3.3). Thus, importance in this strength specialist example refers to specificity and similarity with the main movements (squat, bench press, and deadlift). Figure 3.16 contains example exercises for each category for squat, bench press and deadlift. Squat

Bench Press

Deadli�

Compe��on

Squat

Bench Press

Deadli�

Assistance

Pin squats Pause squat Squat with chains

Pause bench Board press Pin press Sling shot bench Incline bench press

Deadli� + bands Alternate stance deadli� Deficit deadli�

Supplemental

Leg press Single leg Good morning

Military press DB bench Dips Close grip incline

RDL Good morning Front squat

General

Figure 3.16. Mike Tuchscherer classification

Specific exercises can be selected based on the individual lifters qualities and needs, although a generic approach can exist (see Bayesian updating in Chapter 1). When it comes to strength generalist approach to exercise importance classification, usually we have some idea of the biggest bang for the bucks, amount of joints and muscle mass involved, or exercises that allow highest loads. But again, there is no right or wrong answer here. An example of major grinding categories can be seen in Figure 3.17

87

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Push

Pull

Squat

Hinge

Core

Carry

Main Li�s

Bench Press

Pull-Ups

Front Squat

RDL

Roll-Out

Hex Bar Carry

Supplement Li�s

KB Overhead Press

Inverted Rows

Split Squat

Hyperextension Side Bridge

Double KB Overhead

Assistance Li�s

Ring Push-Ups

Face Pulls

Lateral Lunges

Single Leg Bridge Palloff Press

Suitcase Carry

Figure 3.17. Importance categories for major grinding movement patterns

But sometimes, these importance categories represent variants of the lifts under a given category (to hit sub-categories, such as horizontal vs. vertical, and single vs. double leg) without any specific importance weight. Nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with that. It bears repeating that these classifications should help you provide a forum for action under your constraints, context, and philosophy. For example, these could be exercises you are confident coaching and performing, or you have equipment for (this represents a bottom-up approach to planning). Figure 3.18 contains an example exercises for major categories when one doesn’t have access to barbells: Push

Pull

Squat

Hinge

Core

Carry

Varia�on #1

Ring Push-Ups

Ring Pull-Ups

Goblet Squat

SL RDL

Roll-out

Overhead DB

Varia�on #2

DB Press

Inverted Rows

DB Step Up

Hip Thrust

Side Bridge

Suitcase DB

Varia�on #3

Dips

DB Ver�cal Row DB Lateral Lunge Hyperextension Landmine Rot

Lateral Sled

Figure 3.18. Example of exercise variations for major grinding categories when there is no access to barbells

The exact number of variants depends on the program you might be running with your team or yourself. If you prefer more or fewer categories (e.g., horizontal vs. vertical, single vs. double leg) you are more than free to do it. This is just a framework to help you make more informed decisions based on importance or emphasis.

Session Position Unfortunately, not every exercise can be given the same emphasis in a single workout. For example, we will see better (faster) progress in exercises that are performed first (since you are exercising fresh) rather than later in the workout. There are few heuristics, such as “Perform compound movements earlier in the workout, isolation later”, or “Do ballistic movements at the beginning”, but these rules are meant to 88

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

be broken if a situation demands it. For example, you might be doing full body session (which generally indicates that all movement categories are represented in a single session, give or take), and doing heavy deadlifts will leave you fucked up for everything else. So, you might opt for doing core stuff first (to warm-up), upper body stuff and then finish with a heavy deadlift, drink shake and banana, hit the shower and go home. To alleviate this emphasis problem, one can (please notice my choice of words; I’ve used can and not must) rotate the order of exercises (see Figure 3.19) across sessions: Emphasis 1 Emphasis 2 Emphasis 3 Emphasis 4 Emphasis 5 Emphasis 6

Session A Squat Movement Pull Movement Hinge Movement Push Movement Carry Core

Session B Hinge Movement Push Movement Squat Movement Pull Movement Carry Core

Session C Pull Movement Squat Movement Push Movement Hinge Movement Carry Core

Session D Push Movement Hinge Movement Pull Movement Squat Movement Carry Core

Figure 3.19. Rotation of exercises, so that each movement pattern receives an equal amount of attention (assuming earlier in the workout means more attention)

Use of the Slots and Combinatorics By combining exercise importance categorization with session position, one can easily create an evolved planning system. One such system is Joe Kenn’s Tier System (Kenn, 2003) which was highly influential on my development as a strength coach. If we consider that a given session position receives more emphasis, it is logical to insert more important exercises to more emphasized positions. This way, we combine the two approaches (see Figure 3.20). I call this the Slots approach. The slot is a functional cell (or unit) on which exercise selection and other categories are applied. I like the term slots since slots need to be filled. Main Main Supplement Assistance Any Any

Session A Squat Movement Pull Movement Hinge Movement Push Movement Carry Core

Session B Hinge Movement Push Movement Squat Movement Pull Movement Carry Core

Session C Pull Movement Squat Movement Push Movement Hinge Movement Carry Core

Session D Push Movement Hinge Movement Pull Movement Squat Movement Carry Core

Figure 3.20. Combining session emphasis/position with exercises importance

The Slots approach can be expanded to involve other things, besides exercise importance. For example, categories can be qualities, methods, volume, toughness and so forth (Figure 3.21). 89

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Exercise Category Main Main Supplement Assistance

Quality Arrow Anaconda Armor Vanilla

Method 5/4/3/2/1 5x5 @70 3x10 3x10

Volume High High Medium Easy Easy Easy

Session A Squat Movement Pull Movement Hinge Movement Push Movement Carry Core

Toughness Hard Easy Medium Medium Easy Easy

Session B Hinge Movement Push Movement Squat Movement Pull Movement Carry Core

Session C Pull Movement Squat Movement Push Movement Hinge Movement Carry Core

Session D Push Movement Hinge Movement Pull Movement Squat Movement Carry Core

Figure 3.21. Variations in categories can create evolved systems

One can also flip the table, where the order of exercises is the same (i.e., movement pattern), while the categories change across workouts (Figure 3.22): Quality Method Volume Toughness

Arrow 5/4/3/2/1 High Hard

Anaconda 5x5 @70% Low Easy

Armor 3x10 Medium Medium

Vanilla 3x10 Low Easy

Movement Squat Movement Pull Movement Hinge Movement Push Movement Carry Core

Session A

Session B

Session C

Session D

Figure 3.22 One can also transpose the table. This way the order of the exercises (movement patterns) will be the same while other categories will differ across days

Playing with the above, based on the level of the lifter, the number of sessions, categories and so forth, can create very evolved systems. Since I am not trying to sell you any in particular, consider this Slot system a combinatorics framework that you can use to analyze and create workout plans. If we assume that different qualities, methods, volumes, and toughness are achieved with different set and rep schemes, we can eventually create the following quadrant for every slot (or cell): Varied

Same Exercises Same Set and Rep Schemes

Varied Exercises Same Set and Rep Schemes

Same Exercises Varied Set and Rep Schemes

Varied Exercises Varied Set and Rep Schemes

Set and Rep Schemes

Same

Exercises

Varied

Same

Figure 3.23. Variation Quadrant

90

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

For example, one might use different exercises for upper body pushing (e.g., bench press, military press, DB press, Dips) and stick to one set and rep scheme (e.g., 3x10 @65% 1RM), but also use same exercise for lower body squat (e.g., front squat), but use different set and rep schemes (e.g., 3x30sec isometrics, 3/2/1 and 2x12). This can work very well if one needs more upper body mass while sticking to leg size and improving strength or if someone wants to emphasize the most specific exercise or quality and so forth. Keep in mind that categorizations of qualities, methods, and movement patterns are up to you and the athletes you coach. Thus, you are free to experiment with this framework. Slots can also be linked (e.g., apply same set and rep schemes for upper body pulling and hinge movements, or apply different set and rep schemes for the same objective or quality). Possible combinations are unlimited, and this represents a very fruitful tool or framework that I will expand upon in Chapter 5, where I am going to talk about horizontal and vertical planning, as well as divisive and un-divisive approaches. The slots approach, and hence the variation quadrant can be applied to strength specialist as well. For example, Mike Tuchscherer has days with different specificity and movement pattern slots. It bears repeating that this represents a tool, rather than a specific sequence you need to follow. I highly suggest checking the Tier system by Joe Kenn (Kenn, 2003), as an example of how this approach28 is applied to athletic strength training (strength generalist).



The use of Functional Units in Team Sessions In the ideal world, you will not be constrained with exercise choices, and you

would choose the best exercise to achieve a given goal. But in the real world, we are limited and restricted with the equipment, coaching awareness, time, preferences, and so forth. Most of the time, we will have a whole team in the gym, some athletes more experienced, most of them clueless. For this reason, exercise selection needs to take into account equipment, flow in the gym, the experience of the individuals (besides their needs), how much attention you need for a given exercise (i.e., you probably need to coach RDLs more than you need to coach push-ups) and so forth. Most gyms are organized (if you are lucky) using functional units (see Figure 28 It is actually the opposite - I have been highly influenced by Joe Kenn Tier System (Kenn, 2003), that understanding combinatorics involved led me to find common denominators and propose the slots approach.

91

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

3.24), most likely around the squat rack. Although this doesn’t necessarily need to be the case, the idea of having units is particularly useful if you are working with more than one athlete at the same time.

Group A

Group B

Squat Rack

Squat Rack

Barbell, plates, movable bench

Mobility

Barbell, plates, movable bench

Mobility

Core

Bands, slideboards, massage tables, foam rollers…

Core

Bands, slideboards, massage tables, foam rollers…

Mini bands, rollouts, paralle�es…

Mini bands, rollouts, paralle�es…

Dumbbells Sta�on

Dumbbells Sta�on

DBs, KBs, Rings, bands, boxes, slide-boards, benches

DBs, KBs, Rings, bands, boxes, slide-boards, benches

Figure 3.24. Functional units. Gyms are usually organized around the squat racks.

Figure 3.24 depicts two functional units that involve four stops, where for example 2x8 (2 athletes per station) athletes can work out at the same time. This way one can maintain some type of order during the workout, mainly if there is a time limit to finish (e.g. you have 20 min to finish these exercises). Sometimes specific equipment is limited, and thus shared, as outlined in Figure 3.25, and this needs to be taken into account when planning.

Group A

Group B

Squat Rack

Squat Rack

Barbell, plates, movable bench

Mobility

Barbell, plates, movable bench

Mobility

Core

Bands, slideboards, massage tables, foam rollers…

Bands, slideboards, massage tables, foam rollers…

Mini bands, roll- outs, paralle�es…

Dumbbells Sta�on DBs, KBs, Rings, bands, boxes, slide-boards, benches

Dumbbells Sta�on DBs, KBs, Rings, bands, boxes, slide-boards, benches

Figure 3.25. Functional units with shared area/equipment

92

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

The functional units represent archetypal bottom-up planning approach, where one starts with the constraints of the equipment, rather than top-down of what needs to be done for the next 6 months. One approach to exercise selection is depicted in Figure 3.26, where two circuits are performed on the same functional unit (e.g., 20min for the first circuit and 20 min for the second).

Squat Rack Sta�on Mobility Sta�on DB Sta�on Core Sta�on

Circuit A Split Squat Lat Stretch KB Press Roll-out

Circuit B Bench Press Stretch SL RDL Palloff Press

Figure 3.26. Exercises selection based on the equipment and functional unit constraints

Proper organization will maintain the flow between multiple athletes and avoid any potential bottlenecks. Sometimes you do need to see it in action in order to pinpoint potential issues with the equipment and the flow. If you are a single coach, or there is a insufficient number of coaches, you need to be very selective with coaching intensive exercises and limit it to one per circuit,and hopefully located very close between the groups. In examples here, you will probably stick to coaching Split Squat at the squat rack station. If you have multiple exercises that you need to be present at, you will be having a hard time coaching and you will eventually have to decide what is of a greater importance at the moment. You also need to pay close attention to minimize athletes asking you stuff while you are coaching. For example, athlete interrupts you while you are coaching Split Squat to ask you how much they need to lift and for how many reps on the KB Press. For this reason, particularly for coaching groups, I prefer to use a percent-based approach and give some flexibility to athletes (see Chapter 5), rather than give them full freedom. Workout card can be personalized and given to athletes (unless you have soccer athletes who keep losing their workout cards), or printed somewhere centrally on a bigger paper or using some type of a projector or touch screen with athletes and exercises enlisted. These strategies will be covered in more detail in Chapter 5.

1RM relationships Since I am a proponent of percent-based approach (as a general framework, or as a starting point of implementation of the other methodologies), how does one know 1RMs (or one-repetition-maximums) for exercises? Next chapter will deal with 1RMs in detail, mainly how they are estimated for the main movements (see Figure 3.15), which 93

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

is another reason why they are considered to be main. But how does one know 1RMs for all the other exercises? For example, if I know someone’s bench press 1RM, how can I prescribe DB Bench Press? Before expanding, it is important to state my opinion regarding 1RMs. 1RMs are not goals in itself - just because I am using 1RMs to prescribe training, doesn’t mean the objective of training is solely to increase 1RMs. Thus, 1RMs serve more of a prescriptive role, rather than descriptive. Next chapter will expand more on these concepts, but it was important to state them to prevent readers from jumping to conclusions so easily. As you will see, sometimes testing 1RMs is not necessary, and definitely, it is not needed for all assistance movements. Having said this, how does one estimate 1RMs of all assistance movements? Dan Baker (Baker, 2015) was one of the first to my knowledge to suggest the following table (Figure 3.27) Upper Body Press Bench Press 100% Decline Press 105% Incline Press 80% Narrow Grip BP 90% Close Grip BP 80% DB Bench Press each 33% Push Press 75% Military Press 55% Press Behind Neck 55% DB Overhead Press 17.5%

Upper Body Pull Supinated Pull-Up 100% Pronated Pull-Up 95% Supinated Pull-Down 95% Pronated Pull-Down 85% Wide Grip Front PLD 80% Wide Behind Neck PLD 75% Seated Row 75% Bench Pull 65% Upright Row 50% 1-arm DB Row each 33%

Lower Body Squat and Hinge Full Squat 100% Front Squat 80% Overhead Squat 70% Lunge 40% Step-Up 40% 1-leg Squats 40% Lateral Lunge 25% Romanian DL 75% Power Shrug 85% Clean Pull 85%

Figure 3.27. Dan Baker’s 1RMs relationship table (Baker, 2015)

For example, if you know your or your athlete’s back squat 1RM, let’s say 150kg, then you can expect that he or she is able to lift approximately 75% of 150kg in the Romanian Deadlift (or RDL), which is 110kg. If one lifts 120kg in the bench press, his 1RM in the dumbbell bench press is approximately 33% of 120kg, or 40kg (each hand). Of course, this varies for every individual. The point is not being precise, but having some prior that we can update (see Chapter 1). It is easy to jump to the conclusion, that there is something wrong with someone lifting 150kg in the back squat, but not being able to lift 110kg in the RDL. But that is not the purpose of this table - the aim is, when the new exercise is introduced, one can develop a MVP (minimum viable product) and start with that. It is not to identify weaknesses (e.g., comparing clean to front squat, although useful sometimes; see GUT and substance - form complementary pair, where front squat is a potential one should realize or manifest in the clean), but to have a rough gauge to help prescribe weights and reps. 94

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

From Chapter 1 you remember that we always make prediction mistakes, but I want to make sure that those are Type I errors (undershooting). For this reason, we usually don’t use 1RMs, but EDMs (Every Day Maximum), which is approximately 8090% of 1RM. This makes predictions conservative and most likely undershooting the real 1RMs (which is better than overshooting, since you can always increase the weight, plus one feels much better being able to do MORE rather than LESS of what is being prescribed). But again, the precise prediction is not the goal - the goal is a forum for action, or having something good enough for you to start implementing (without losing time testing and finding the perfect estimate) and iterating. Next chapter will go deeper into estimation through iteration approach to 1RM estimation. For this reason, Dan Baker table is extremely useful for the first iteration, when one knows 1RMs/EDMs of the main moves but doesn’t know 1RMs for all other assistance exercises. Searching the web (Boyle, 2011; Millette, 2014; Shute, 2015; Thibaudeau, 2015; “Olympic Weightlifting Calculator,” 2017; Waxman, 2017) and from my personal experience, I managed to create the following 1RM tables for upper body, lower body and combined. Missing values were input using the script I wrote in the R language (RStudio Team, 2016; R Core Team, 2018). First, I filled in the known relationships, and then I let the iterative algorithm to find the missing values. Perfect? Hell no, but a good starting point. Just don’t be a stupid and try to predict 1RM in the hang clean from barbell curls. That being said, try to stick to the same movement pattern for the most reliable prediction. Upper Body Figure 3.28 contains relationship matrix for the upper body push and pull movements. Ideally, you want to stick within movement pattern when it comes to prediction, although combining the two is possible, but be conservative. Let’s say that one wants to predict military press from known bench press. Finding military press on the rows and bench press on the columns indicate that the relationship is around 55%. Military Press = 0.55 x Bench Press So, if your bench press is 120kg, military press is around 66kg. Again, this is a starting rough estimate, which will differ from person to person. For exercises where you are lifting your bodyweight (BW), such as dips and pullup variations, one needs to take BW into account. For example, if you weight 85kg and lift 40kg in the pull-up for 1 rep (1RM), then your 1RM in the pull-up is 85kg + 40kg, 95

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

which is equal 125kg. As you will read in the next chapter, one should use 125kg (total system 1RM) when prescribing strength training using a percent-based system, rather

Preacher Curl

Single Arm DB Row

Upright Row

Bench Pull

Seated Row

Wide Grip Behind Neck PD

Wide Grip Front PD

Pronated Pull Down

Supinated Pull Down

Pull-Up

Chin-Up

DB Overhead Press

Millitary Press

Push Press

DB Bench Press

Floor Press

Close Grip BP

Dips

Incline Bench Press

Decline Bench Press

Bench Press

than 40kg (only external load).

Bench Press

100%

95%

125%

85%

125%

110%

285%

135%

180%

500%

95%

100%

100%

110%

120%

125%

125%

145%

190%

270%

250%

Decline Bench Press

105%

100%

130%

90%

130%

115%

300%

145%

185%

525%

100%

105%

105%

115%

125%

130%

130%

150%

200%

285%

260%

Incline Bench Press

80%

75%

100%

65%

100%

90%

230%

110%

140%

400%

75%

80%

80%

90%

95%

100%

100%

115%

150%

215%

200%

Dips

120%

115%

150%

100%

150%

130%

340%

160%

210%

595%

110%

120%

120%

130%

140%

150%

150%

170%

225%

320%

300%

Close Grip BP

80%

75%

100%

65%

100%

90%

230%

110%

140%

400%

75%

80%

80%

90%

95%

100%

100%

115%

150%

215%

200%

Floor Press

90%

85%

115%

75%

115%

100%

255%

120%

160%

450%

85%

90%

90%

100%

105%

115%

115%

130%

170%

240%

225%

DB Bench Press

35%

35%

45%

30%

45%

40%

100%

50%

60%

175%

35%

35%

35%

40%

40%

45%

45%

50%

65%

95%

85%

Push Press

75%

70%

90%

60%

90%

80%

210%

100%

125%

365%

70%

75%

75%

80%

85%

90%

90%

105%

140%

200%

185%

Millitary Press

55%

55%

70%

45%

70%

60%

160%

80%

100%

280%

55%

55%

55%

60%

65%

70%

70%

80%

105%

150%

140%

DB Overhead Press

20%

20%

25%

15%

25%

20%

55%

25%

35%

100%

20%

20%

20%

20%

25%

25%

25%

30%

40%

55%

50%

Chin-Up

105%

100%

135%

90%

135%

120%

305%

145%

190%

530%

100%

105%

105%

120%

125%

135%

135%

155%

200%

285%

265%

Pull-Up

100%

95%

125%

85%

125%

110%

290%

135%

180%

505%

95%

100%

100%

110%

120%

125%

125%

145%

190%

270%

250%

Supinated Pull Down

100%

95%

125%

85%

125%

110%

290%

135%

180%

505%

95%

100%

100%

110%

120%

125%

125%

145%

190%

270%

250%

Pronated Pull Down

90%

85%

115%

75%

115%

100%

260%

125%

160%

450%

85%

90%

90%

100%

105%

115%

115%

130%

170%

245%

225%

Wide Grip Front PD

85%

80%

105%

70%

105%

95%

245%

115%

150%

425%

80%

85%

85%

95%

100%

105%

105%

120%

160%

230%

210%

Wide Grip Behind Neck PD

80%

75%

100%

65%

100%

90%

225%

110%

140%

400%

75%

80%

80%

90%

95%

100%

100%

115%

150%

215%

200%

Seated Row

80%

75%

100%

65%

100%

90%

225%

110%

140%

400%

75%

80%

80%

90%

95%

100%

100%

115%

150%

215%

200%

Bench Pull

70%

65%

85%

60%

85%

75%

200%

95%

125%

350%

65%

70%

70%

75%

80%

85%

85%

100%

130%

185%

175%

Upright Row

55%

50%

65%

45%

65%

60%

150%

70%

95%

265%

50%

55%

55%

60%

60%

65%

65%

75%

100%

145%

135%

Single Arm DB Row

35%

35%

45%

30%

45%

40%

105%

50%

65%

185%

35%

35%

35%

40%

45%

45%

45%

55%

70%

100%

95%

Preacher Curl

40%

40%

50%

35%

50%

45%

115%

55%

70%

200%

40%

40%

40%

45%

45%

50%

50%

60%

75%

110%

100%

Figure 3.28. Upper body exercises 1RM relationships

Let’s say you want to predict dips 1RM from known pull-ups 1RM. From the upper body relationship matrix, dips are 120% of pull-ups, so: Dips = 1.2 x Pull-Up Dips = 1.2 x 125kg Dips = 150kg According to this formula, 1RM in dips is 150kg. Deducting BW, one gets 150kg 85kg, or 65kg, which represents external load attached on the dip belt. If some of these predictions seem too high, you should always lean on the side of conservatism. What if you have multiple known exercises and want to predict the unknown one? For example, you might know bench press, military press, and pull-ups, but you want to predict incline bench press. 96

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Bench Press = 120kg Military Press = 75kg Pull-Ups = 110kg Using relationship matrix and the above we get three predictions for the incline bench press: Incline BP = 0.8 x Bench Press = 0.8 x 120kg = 96kg Incline BP = 1.4 x Military Press = 1.4 x 75kg = 105kg Incline BP = 0.8 x Pull-Ups = 0.8 x 110kg = 88kg We got 96, 105, and 88kg. Which one to use? The simplest approach would be to take the average: Incline BP = (96kg + 105kg + 88kg) / 3 = 96kg Other approach, which quickly becomes exercise in futility, is to give higher weight (importance) to the estimate using the most similar exercises (e.g. more weight given to bench press than pull-up). This is called weighted average. Let’s say we give bench press 5 weight, 4 to military press and 2 to pull-up: Incline BP = (5 x 96kg + 4 x 105kg + 2 x 88kg) / (5 + 4+ 2) Incline BP = (480 + 420 + 176) / 11 Incline BP = 1076 / 11 = 98kg If you don’t mind this approach of giving more weight to the most similar exercise, be my guest and use it. At the end of the day, it is still an estimate just like everything else. Lower Body Figure 3.29 contains relationship matrix between lower body squat (push) and hinge (pull), and Olympic lifting exercises. The calculus is precisely the same as with the upper body movements From Figure 3.29 we can see that Clean is around 75% of Back Squat. So, someone back squatting 170kg, should probably clean around 125kg. The key word here is should. For example, for someone never tried the clean before, you can be confident that this value is much lower. If we look at the GUT model, the potential is there (i.e., back squat performance), but the athlete needs to learn how to express or manifest it in the clean (i.e., realization). More advanced lifters might have clean higher than 75% of the back 97

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

squat, and you might use that as a starting hypothesis for experimentation through iteration (agile periodization) and assume that maybe, just maybe, this athlete might need to improve strength (i.e., potential) rather than trying to chase more volume of specific realization work (i.e., Olympic lifting). I am definitely not against this application of the relationship matrix, but I would be very cautious when making bold

Back Squat

Front Squat

Deadli�

Overhead Squat

Split Squat

Lunge

Step-Up

Good Morning

Lateral Split Squat

Lateral Lunge

Romanian Deadli�

1-Leg Romanian Deadli�

Hip Thrust

1-Leg Hip Thrust

Clean and Jerk

Snatch

Clean

Jerk

Power Clean

Power Snatch

Hang Clean

Hang Snatch

Muscle Snatch

Power Shrug

Clean Pull

Snatch Pull

claims.

Back Squat

100%

120%

80%

145%

200%

250%

250%

200%

335%

400%

135%

220%

100%

180%

135%

155%

135%

125%

155%

180%

140%

160%

255%

110%

120%

135%

Front Squat

85%

100%

70%

125%

170%

215%

215%

170%

285%

345%

115%

190%

85%

155%

120%

135%

115%

110%

135%

155%

120%

140%

220%

95%

100%

115%

Deadli�

125%

145%

100%

180%

250%

315%

315%

250%

415%

500%

165%

280%

125%

225%

165%

195%

165%

155%

190%

230%

175%

205%

320%

140%

150%

170%

Overhead Squat

70%

80%

55%

100%

140%

175%

175%

140%

230%

275%

90%

155%

70%

125%

90%

105%

90%

85%

105%

125%

95%

110%

175%

75%

80%

95%

Split Squat

50%

60%

40%

70%

100%

125%

125%

100%

165%

200%

65%

110%

50%

90%

65%

80%

65%

65%

75%

90%

70%

80%

130%

55%

60%

70%

Lunge

40%

45%

30%

60%

80%

100%

100%

80%

135%

160%

55%

90%

40%

75%

55%

60%

50%

50%

60%

75%

55%

65%

105%

45%

45%

55%

Step-Up

40%

45%

30%

60%

80%

100%

100%

80%

135%

160%

55%

90%

40%

75%

55%

60%

50%

50%

60%

75%

55%

65%

105%

45%

45%

55%

Good Morning

50%

60%

40%

70%

100%

125%

125%

100%

165%

200%

65%

110%

50%

90%

65%

80%

65%

65%

75%

90%

70%

80%

130%

55%

60%

70%

Lateral Split Squat

30%

35%

25%

45%

60%

75%

75%

60%

100%

120%

40%

65%

30%

55%

40%

45%

40%

40%

45%

55%

40%

50%

75%

35%

35%

40%

Lateral Lunge

25%

30%

20%

35%

50%

65%

65%

50%

85%

100%

35%

55%

25%

45%

35%

40%

35%

30%

40%

45%

35%

40%

65%

30%

30%

35%

Romanian Deadli�

75%

85%

60%

110%

150%

190%

190%

150%

250%

300%

100%

165%

75%

135%

100%

115%

100%

95%

115%

135%

105%

120%

190%

85%

90%

100%

1-Leg Romanian Deadli�

45%

50%

35%

65%

90%

115%

115%

90%

150%

180%

60%

100%

45%

80%

60%

70%

60%

55%

70%

80%

60%

75%

115%

50%

55%

60%

Hip Thrust

100%

115%

80%

145%

200%

250%

250%

200%

335%

400%

135%

220%

100%

180%

130%

155%

130%

125%

155%

180%

140%

160%

255%

110%

120%

135%

1-Leg Hip Thrust

55%

65%

45%

80%

110%

140%

140%

110%

185%

220%

75%

120%

55%

100%

75%

85%

70%

70%

85%

100%

75%

90%

140%

60%

65%

75%

Clean and Jerk

75%

85%

60%

110%

150%

190%

190%

150%

250%

300%

100%

170%

75%

135%

100%

125%

95%

95%

115%

140%

105%

125%

195%

85%

90%

105%

Snatch

65%

75%

50%

95%

130%

160%

160%

130%

215%

260%

85%

145%

65%

115%

80%

100%

85%

80%

100%

120%

90%

105%

165%

70%

75%

90%

Clean

75%

90%

60%

110%

155%

190%

190%

155%

255%

305%

100%

170%

75%

140%

105%

120%

100%

95%

120%

140%

105%

125%

195%

85%

90%

105%

Jerk

80%

90%

65%

115%

160%

200%

200%

160%

265%

320%

105%

175%

80%

145%

105%

125%

105%

100%

120%

145%

110%

130%

205%

90%

95%

110%

Power Clean

65%

75%

50%

95%

130%

160%

160%

130%

215%

260%

85%

145%

65%

120%

85%

100%

85%

80%

100%

120%

90%

105%

165%

70%

75%

90%

Power Snatch

55%

65%

45%

80%

110%

135%

135%

110%

185%

220%

75%

120%

55%

100%

70%

85%

70%

70%

85%

100%

75%

90%

140%

60%

65%

75%

Hang Clean

70%

85%

60%

105%

145%

180%

180%

145%

240%

290%

95%

160%

70%

130%

95%

115%

95%

90%

110%

130%

100%

115%

185%

80%

85%

100%

Hang Snatch

60%

70%

50%

90%

125%

155%

155%

125%

205%

245%

80%

135%

60%

110%

80%

95%

80%

75%

95%

110%

85%

100%

160%

70%

75%

85%

Muscle Snatch

40%

45%

30%

55%

80%

100%

100%

80%

130%

155%

50%

85%

40%

70%

50%

60%

50%

50%

60%

70%

55%

65%

100%

45%

45%

55%

Power Shrug

90%

105%

70%

130%

180%

225%

225%

180%

300%

360%

120%

200%

90%

165%

120%

140%

120%

115%

140%

165%

125%

145%

230%

100%

105%

125%

Clean Pull

85%

100%

70%

120%

170%

210%

210%

170%

280%

340%

115%

190%

85%

155%

110%

130%

110%

105%

130%

155%

120%

135%

215%

95%

100%

115%

Snatch Pull

75%

85%

60%

105%

145%

185%

185%

145%

245%

295%

100%

165%

75%

135%

95%

110%

95%

90%

115%

135%

100%

120%

185%

80%

85%

100%

Figure 3.29. Lower body exercises 1RM relationships

Combined Figure 3.30 contains major exercises from upper body push and pull, lower body squat and hinge, and Olympic lifting categories. Since the numbers are estimated using the iterative algorithm, they might differ between tables (Figure 3.28 and Figure 3.29). 98

Bench Press

Military Press

Push Press

DB Bench Press

Chin-Up

Bench Pull

Single Arm DB Row

Back Squat

Front Squat

Deadli�

Romanian Deadli�

Overhead Squat

Split Squat

Hip Thrust

Clean and Jerk

Clean

Jerk

Snatch

Power Clean

Power Snatch

Muscle Snatch

Clean Pull

Snatch Pull

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Bench Press

100%

180%

135%

285%

95%

145%

270%

75%

100%

60%

100%

110%

155%

75%

100%

100%

95%

120%

110%

140%

195%

90%

105%

Military Press

55%

100%

80%

165%

55%

80%

155%

45%

50%

35%

60%

65%

90%

45%

55%

55%

55%

70%

65%

80%

115%

50%

60%

Push Press

75%

125%

100%

210%

70%

105%

200%

55%

70%

45%

75%

80%

115%

55%

75%

75%

70%

90%

85%

105%

145%

65%

80%

DB Bench Press

35%

60%

45%

100%

35%

50%

95%

25%

30%

20%

35%

40%

55%

25%

35%

35%

35%

40%

40%

50%

70%

30%

35%

Chin-Up

105%

185%

140%

300%

100%

155%

285%

80%

100%

65%

110%

115%

160%

80%

105%

105%

100%

125%

120%

145%

210%

95%

110%

Bench Pull

70%

120%

95%

200%

65%

100%

190%

55%

65%

40%

70%

75%

105%

55%

70%

70%

65%

80%

80%

95%

135%

65%

75%

Single Arm DB Row

35%

65%

50%

105%

35%

55%

100%

30%

35%

25%

40%

40%

55%

30%

35%

35%

35%

45%

45%

50%

75%

35%

40%

Back Squat

135%

220%

175%

375%

125%

190%

355%

100%

120%

80%

135%

145%

200%

100%

135%

135%

125%

155%

155%

180%

255%

120%

135%

Front Squat

100%

190%

145%

310%

100%

155%

295%

85%

100%

65%

110%

120%

165%

85%

120%

110%

105%

130%

125%

150%

215%

100%

115%

Deadli�

165%

285%

220%

470%

155%

235%

445%

125%

150%

100%

165%

180%

250%

125%

165%

165%

155%

195%

190%

230%

320%

150%

170%

Romanian Deadli�

100%

170%

130%

280%

95%

140%

265%

75%

90%

60%

100%

110%

150%

75%

100%

100%

95%

115%

115%

135%

190%

90%

100%

Overhead Squat

90%

160%

120%

260%

85%

130%

245%

70%

85%

55%

90%

100%

140%

70%

90%

90%

85%

105%

105%

125%

175%

80%

95%

Split Squat

65%

115%

90%

185%

60%

95%

175%

50%

60%

40%

65%

70%

100%

50%

65%

65%

60%

75%

75%

90%

130%

60%

70%

Hip Thrust

130%

230%

175%

375%

125%

190%

355%

100%

120%

80%

135%

145%

200%

100%

130%

130%

125%

155%

150%

180%

255%

120%

135%

Clean and Jerk

100%

180%

130%

280%

95%

140%

265%

75%

85%

60%

100%

110%

150%

75%

100%

95%

95%

125%

115%

140%

195%

90%

105%

Clean

100%

175%

135%

290%

95%

145%

275%

75%

90%

60%

105%

110%

155%

75%

105%

100%

95%

120%

120%

140%

200%

90%

105%

Jerk

105%

185%

140%

300%

100%

150%

285%

80%

95%

65%

105%

115%

160%

80%

105%

105%

100%

125%

120%

145%

205%

95%

110%

Snatch

85%

145%

115%

240%

80%

120%

230%

65%

75%

50%

85%

95%

130%

65%

80%

85%

80%

100%

100%

120%

165%

75%

90%

Power Clean

90%

150%

115%

250%

80%

125%

235%

65%

80%

55%

90%

95%

130%

65%

90%

85%

85%

100%

100%

120%

170%

80%

90%

Power Snatch

70%

125%

95%

205%

70%

105%

195%

55%

65%

45%

75%

80%

110%

55%

70%

70%

70%

85%

85%

100%

140%

65%

75%

Muscle Snatch

50%

90%

70%

145%

50%

75%

140%

40%

45%

30%

50%

55%

80%

40%

50%

50%

50%

60%

60%

70%

100%

45%

55%

Clean Pull

110%

195%

150%

315%

105%

160%

300%

85%

100%

70%

115%

120%

170%

85%

110%

110%

105%

130%

130%

155%

215%

100%

115%

Snatch Pull

95%

165%

130%

275%

90%

140%

260%

75%

90%

60%

100%

105%

145%

75%

95%

95%

90%

110%

110%

135%

185%

85%

100%

Figure 3.30. Combined exercises 1RM relationships

What should you do next? Here is what I suggest, and I found it very useful in my coaching practice, because it reduces cognitive load every time I need to write a program (so I don’t need to reinvent the wheel). It also revolves around the “bottom-up” approach (see Chapter 1). I suggest you create an exercise pool. Just go to the gym, keep in mind the number of athletes you are working with at the same time, their level, and equipment available and enlist as many exercises you can think of following the covered categories (or come with your own). I suggest using Microsoft Excel, Google Sheets or Apple Numbers to create such a list. One such exercise list can be found in Chapter 7.

99

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Figure 3.31. Exercise pool in Excel

Trust me - enlist all the exercises you can think of, and keep updating the list as soon something new crosses your mind. This is just a mental dump, and it will allow you to easily find exercises later on, rather than breaking your head against the wall every time you need to write a new program. This filing system has a few columns (see Figure 3.31): –– Name –– Category (e.g., grinding, ballistic) –– Pattern (e.g., push, pull, squat, hinge) –– Variant (e.g., horizontal, vertical, single leg) –– Relationship to the main exercise (e.g., 55% to Back Squat) –– Percent of BW used (usually 0%, but 100% for dips and pull-ups) –– Equipment used (useful to filter out exercises based on your equipment constraints) –– Extra Note You are more than welcome to come with your own list of exercises, and I think it is extremely handy. You are also free to go with your individual columns, and add additional ones, such as coaching dependent (for example if you need to be there to observe and coach), and so forth. Having this pool of exercises is VERY usable in a constrained environment (and pretty much all of them are). You have limited equipment, limited focus to observe and correct everyone on every exercise, and you have multiple athletes in the gym at the same time, so you are pretty much “bound” and you need to figure out what CAN be done quickly (i.e., bottom-up planning). Using this exercise pool (or list) allows you to quickly sort, filter and figure out the best options without a sweat. 100

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

The next chapter will expand on the topic of 1RM estimation, as well as how to prescribe using percent-based approach.

101

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

4 Prescription Before diving deep into the planning section, it is important to understand the basis of the percent-based approach to strength training, particularly what these percentages are based upon, how to test 1RM and prescribe a training while using it as a reference point, how to compare individuals and other topics. As explained in the previous chapter, we made a rough division of the exercises into grinding and ballistic movements. Most of this chapter will deal with the grinding movements, but applications to ballistic movements will be covered as well in the later section. The reason for this is to avoid confusion - prescribing for ballistic movements is a bit trickier and it is important to digest grinding ones first for easier comprehension. Let’s start by discussing the concept of intensity.

Three components of Intensity (Load, Intent, Exertion)



One of the most important concepts in strength training is intensity. Unfortunately, intensity is not a clear-cut concept, and different coaches and lab coats define it in different ways. For this reason, I am providing my own explanation of the concept. Intensity in strength training has the following three components:

102

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Load

Load-Exer�on Table

Load-Velocity Profile

weight, %1RM

Exer�on

Reps, RPE, RIR, V-drop, V-stop

Intent Initial velocity

?? RIR-Velocity Profile Figure 4.1. Intensity Trinity; or three components of intensity

Load – relates to the weight the athlete is lifting in a given exercise expressed either in absolute terms (i.e., kilograms or pound), or in relative terms using the percentage of one’s 1RM (% of 1RM). For example, if an athlete is performing bench press with 100kg (absolute load), and his known 1RM is 110kg, then the load is 90% (relative load). Additional way to describe and prescribe intensity would be using repetition-maximums or RM. For example 12RM load is the weight that can be lifted for 12 reps without technical failure. This type of load prescription combines load with the exertion component and utilized load-exertion relationship or table (see later in the chapter). Novel way to express load is using velocity (i.e., initial rep should have mean concentric velocity of 0.8 m/s), but this type of load description utilizes load-velocity profile (see later in this chapter) and demands special equipment for measurement. Sometimes athletes’ bodyweight needs to be taken into account (e.g., chins, pullups, dips and even squats). For this reason we differ between external load (external weight attached, using barbell or dip belt) and total system load (which is total load that athlete is lifting or overcoming, usually bodyweight plus external load). As you will read later in this chapter, we can use both when prescribing using a percent-based approach. Intent  – relates to an athlete’s will to perform a repetition of a given exercise with maximum possible acceleration and speed, usually in the concentric phase. Effort could be maximal (the synonym would be C.A.T. – compensatory acceleration training) or it could be sub-maximal (lifting with certain tempo). Tempo is usually prescribed using the following nomenclature: 103

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

top-stop / lowering-eccentric / bottom-stop / lifting-concentric For example, prescribing squat with 1/3/2/X tempo means the following: hold for 1 second at the top, lower down for 3 seconds, hold for 2 seconds at the bottom, and lift as fast as possible (“X”) on the way up. These tend to become a bit confusing in the pulling movements and deadlift, where one starts with the concentric movement first. In this case I suggest writing tempo with a note to avoid confusion. Different authors and coaches prescribe lifting tempo using different order of the phases than defined here (e.g., lowering-eccentric / bottom-stop / lifting-concentric / top-stop), or only using three numbers (e.g., lowering-eccentric / bottom-stop / lifting). Nothing wrong with either, just make sure to communicate it clearly. Exertion – relates to the proximity to failure in a given set. It seems reasonable that the degree or level of exertion is substantially different when performing, e.g., 8 of 12 possible repetitions (12RM or 12 repetition max) with a given load (the common nomenclature is 8(12) or 8 of 12) compared with performing maximum number of repetitions (12(12) or 12 of 12). Exertion is usually expressed as reps in reserve (RIR), or rate of perceived exertion (RPE) (Tuchscherer, 2008; Zourdos et al., 2016, 2019; Helms et al., 2016, 2018a,b; Carzoli et al., 2017). Table 4.1 contains hypothetical relationship between the two.

RIR 0 1 2 3 4

RPE 10 → Failure! 9 8 7 6

Table 4.1. Relationship between Reps In Reserve (RIR) and Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE). This is simplification, since relationship is not linear.

Please note that these are subjective ratings. This means that athletes give these ratings after a given set is finished. Another implementation of these is conceptual which is useful in planning and progression (as will be covered in Chapter 5). I personally prefer to use RIR, because it is conceptually simpler, and I will use it in the load-exertion tables and formulas (see later in this chapter). Using the previous example, performing 8 reps with 12RM load represents submaximal exertion with 4 RIR. RPE is in this case around 6. Performing 12 reps with 12RM represents maximal exertion with 0 RIR and 10 RPE. Lab coats would probably complain how these are non-linear and depend on the relative load (%1RM), body part, exercise, gender, and the alignment of Alpha Centauri A with Proxima Centauri in the closest galaxy to Milky Way. As stated numerous times already, I am not trying to provide 104

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

precision, but meaning (forum for action). As you will read in the later in this chapter and in Chapter 5, RIR represents an actionable concept for planning progressions in training programs. Besides RPE and RIR, there is a concept of relative intensity (RI) that express exertion as percent of maximal reps. Using the same example, performing 8 reps with 12RM represents, 8 / 12 or 66% RI. Although some coaches prefer this approach, I am not a big fan, since it is biased to reps being performed (e.g. compare 8 reps with 12RM which is equal to 4RIR and 66% RI to 4 reps with 8RM which is also equal to 4RIR but 50% RI). Novel ways to estimate exertion involve using velocity-stop and velocity-drop (Jovanovic & Flanagan, 2014). These refer to how much, usually the concentric mean velocity, drops compared to the fastest or initial rep. These are just a fancy way of saying that closer to failure, the slower your movement (assuming maximal intent on every repetition). These concepts will be explained later in this chapter when discussing velocity-based training (VBT). These three components of intensity are important to be differentiated and I will stick to this terminology from now on.

Load-Max Reps Table The more weight is on the barbell, the less reps one can perform. This relationship is expressed with Load-Max Reps relationship. Of course Mr. Lab Coat, this relationship depends on the age, gender, experience, type of exercise, body part and Einstein’s Relativity Theory. But, as opposed to you, dear Mr. Lab Coat, we coaches need to take less than perfect tool in helping us to get oriented and start from somewhere (and we have athletes to coach; we cannot just claim “more research is needed”). If you remember, Mr. Lab Coat, for the most part of our history we used geocentric model of the Solar system (assuming Earth is in the centre and Sun revolves around Earth) which, although factually wrong, allowed sailors and explorers to orient themselves. One such simplistic and wrong, but very useful table, is Epley’s table (Epley, 1985; Wood, Maddalozzo & Harter, 2002) or formula (Table 4.2) popularized by Jim Wendler 5/3/1 books (Wendler & Koss, 2013; Wendler, 2017)

105

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Max Reps % 1RM

1 100%

2 94%

3 91%

4 88%

5 86%

6 83%

7 81%

8 79%

9 77%

10 75%

Max Reps % 1RM

11 73%

12 71%

13 70%

14 68%

15 67%

16 65%

17 64%

18 63%

19 61%

20 60%

Table 4.2. Epley’s Load-Max Reps table

This table can be represented with a simple equation: %1RM = 1 / (0.0333 x MaxReps + 1) or MaxReps = 30.03 / %1RM - 30.03 Does this prediction formula works for everyone and for every exercise? No! But it is simple enough to be useful. Besides, when we make prediction errors, and we do make them, we want to make Type I errors (undershooting; see Chapter 1). More about this later in this chapter. You can use this table and formula as rough estimates. For example, you can probably do 5 reps with approximately 85% 1RM.However, it must be noted again that some individuals differ drastically. For this reason, use this prediction (and everything else in this manual) as a simple prior that you update (see Bayesian updating in Chapter 1) as you collect more data. If needed, you can also make individualized Load-Max Reps table by performing at least 3 sets to failure with different loads (e.g., 40, 60 and 80% 1RM) and then use linear or polynomial regression (or trying to find individualized parameter, which according to Epley’s formula is equal to 0.0333 for the average athlete). This can be done (or can be estimated from training logs using embedded testing method from the Agile Periodization, which will be explained in Chapter 5) for strength specialists, but most of the time, it is not needed for the strength generalists (nor there is time to do so). Epley’s table and formula can also be used to predict 1RM. For example, if you lifted 100kg for 6 reps, according to Table 4.2 this represents 83% 1RM. To estimate 1RM, you need to divide 100kg with 0.83, which is equal to 120kg. Faster way, than referring to Table 4.2 is using the following equation: 1RM = (Weight x Reps x 0.0333) + Weight So if we plug in the 100kg and 6 reps we get: 1RM = (100kg x 6 reps x 0.0333) + 100kg

106

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

1RM = 20 + 100 1RM = 120kg The beauty of Epley’s equation is in its simplicity. And it is very easy to remember. There are numerous uses of this simple equation, as you will soon see.

Load-Exertion Table Combining load-max reps table with RIR as a metric of proximity to failure (exertion), we get the next very usable table that is helpful in prescribing and analyzing training programs (Table 4.3). This table represent one of the cornerstones of the percent-based approach described in this manual. Exer�on / Reps in Reserve (RIR) % 1RM 100% 94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60%

Max reps

1 rep short

2 reps short

3 reps short

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Max reps

1 rep short

2 reps short

3 reps short

100% 94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60%

94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59%

91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58%

88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57%

4 reps short 5 reps short

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

6 reps short

7 reps short

8 reps short

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

9 reps short 10 reps short 11 reps short 12 reps short

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Exer�on / Reps in Reserve (RIR) # Reps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

4 reps short 5 reps short 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56%

83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55%

6 reps short

7 reps short

8 reps short

81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54%

79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53%

77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52%

9 reps short 10 reps short 11 reps short 12 reps short 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51%

73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% 50%

71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% 50% 49%

70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% 50% 49% 48%

Table 4.3. Load-Exertion Table

The above two tables (Table 4.3) are identical, they are just organized in a different way to help find either a number of reps that needs to be performed, or percentage that needs to be used. Here are two examples: 107

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

1. Training program calls for using 80% 1RM at 3 RIR. How many reps should be performed in a set? Using the top table, seek for 80% row in “%1RM” column (or close to it) and then find the intersect with 3 RIR column. The answer is 4-5 reps. 2. Training program calls for doing 5 reps at 2 RIR. What percentage should you use? Using the bottom table, look for 5 reps row in the “# Reps” column, and then find the intersect with 2 RIR column. The answer is around 81% 1RM. The general rule of thumb (heuristic) would be that the more volume you perform (be it number of sets in a single workout, or frequency of workouts) then the further right you should go on the table (selected higher RIR). Later in Chapter 5 you will see the application of this concept and the extension of the Load-Exertion table used to planning progressions. Similar to Load-Max reps table, Load-Exertion table can be represented by the following equation: %1RM = 1 / (0.0333 x (Reps + RIR) + 1) or Reps = (30.03 / %1RM) - (30.03 + RIR) Let's apply these equations to a few examples. Training program calls for doing 5 reps at 2 RIR, what %1RM should one be using (given Epley’s equation as a prediction model)? Let’s plug these into equation: %1RM = 1 / (0.0333 x (Reps + RIR) + 1) %1RM = 1 / (0.0333 x (5 + 2) + 1) %1RM = 1 / (0.0333 x 7 + 1) %1RM = 1 / (0.2331 + 1) %1RM = 1 / 1.2331 %1RM = 81% Let’s do another example. Training program calls for using 80% 1RM at 3 RIR. How many reps should be performed in a set? Reps = (30.03 / %1RM) - (30.03 + RIR) Reps = (30.03 / 0.8) - (30.03 + 3) Reps = 37.5375 - 33.03 Reps = 4.5

108

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Similarly to Load-Max Reps equation, we can use known weight, reps and RIR to predict 1RM. The equation is the following: 1RM = (Weight x (Reps + RIR) x 0.0333) + Weight This is very useful for ongoing monitoring and prediction of 1RM when athletes provide RIR after each set. Let’s assume that athlete perform squats with 150kg for 3 reps, and give subjective rating of exertion level of 2RIR. Predicted 1RM is the following: 1RM = (Weight x (Reps + RIR) x 0.0333) + Weight 1RM = (150kg x (3 + 2) x 0.0333) + 150 1RM = (150kg x 5 x 0.0333) + 150 1RM = 24.975 + 150 1RM = 175kg According to Epley’s model, predicted 1RM is 175kg. Let’s assume that after few weeks of training similar workout is performed, with 160kg for 2 reps at 1RIR. Did the athlete improve? 1RM = (Weight x (Reps + RIR) x 0.0333) + Weight 1RM = (160kg x (2 + 1) x 0.0333) + 160 1RM = (160kg x 3 x 0.0333) + 160 1RM = 15.984 + 160 1RM = 176kg The new estimated 1RM is 176kg. Assuming reliable RIR feedback, it seems that this individual is maintaining his or her level of strength (as estimated with predicted 1RM). This represent latent (or estimated) strength, since the true changes need to be demonstrated with a proper test. Anyway, these predictions can be quite useful as a submaximal estimate, and hence can be done all the time (where true demonstrations of strength can be only done occasionally). This concept represents embedded testing. When combining training monitoring with embedded testing, through iterations, one can quickly gain insights if certain type of planning works for a particular individual (again, assuming there is no planned overreaching, and hence the expected drop in both latent/estimated and manifested performance). Please note that these represent Small World models that could be useful, assuming honest and reliable subjective rating (which is questionable) and reliable equation for particular individual (which is questionable). But, assuming the errors are stable across time, and hence assuming error is constant, changes in predicted 1RM using the 109

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

above equation can be insightful and indicative of potential changes in the real 1RM (or could be indicative of potential change, rather than the exact prediction). Together with occasional max reps testing, true 1RM testing, and load-velocity profiling, this variation of embedded testing can be useful in providing insights whether the training program is working across sprint iterations. These can also go together with the training load in a more elaborate predictive model, when we want to figure out which training variables influence changes in predicted 1RM, which will give us more insight for future experimentations (see Figure 2.13 in Chapter 2). I will expand on these concepts in Chapters 5 and 6. There are similar tables to the Load-Exertion table, and one of the most common is the one that utilize Relative Intensity, but I found that approach to be biased toward high % 1RM and generally confusing for practitioners. For that reason, Load-Exertion table is my preferred option, and as you could have witnessed, it is a very handy tool.

Not all training maximums are created equal



1RM stands for “1 repetition maximum”, or the highest weight that can be lifted under technical constraints of an exercise. For example, your 1RM in the parallel back squat is 150kg. If you try to lift more, you either fail, or you modify the technical execution (i.e. not going as deep, bouncing, etc). This is why the maximums need to be defined under technical constraints of a given exercise (tempo, depth, and so forth). In other words 1RM is maximal weight one can lift without technical failure. Having established exercise 1RMs is of utmost importance for programming and performing percent-based programs. Pretty much everything revolves around this performance metric. Although, as you will read later, this doesn’t necessary imply that you must test 1RM or that your whole strength training program is aimed at improving 1RM. The overall process of the “traditional” strength training (percent based) revolves around the following iterative phases: 1. Establish 1RM 2. Plan the training phase 3. Rinse and repeat

110

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Before getting into methods for establish 1RM, it must be stated that 1RM is not a single, objective, ontological construct. I like to differentiate between the three different types of 1RM (see Figure 4.2)

1RM Compe��on Maximum (CM)

Training Maximum (TM)

Every-Day Maximum (EDM)

Figure 4.2. Three Training Maximums

Competition Maximum (CM) is the level of performance achieved under major arousal of the competition. For some athletes this arousal might be too much, so the CM can be lower than the Training Maximum. But generally, CM is the highest level of performance, in this case 1RM. Training Maximum (TM) is the level of performance that can be achieved in training conditions. It still needs some arousal, but not as much as in competition. This is the level of performance when you put your favorite death metal track, ask for assistance and cheering of your lifting partners, ask for hot chicks to watch and slap yourself few times. It is “balls to the wall” as it can be achieved in training conditions. Every Day Maximum (EDM) is the level of performance that you can achieve without any major arousal, music or hot girls in the gym. Something you can lift just by walking to the gym, and listening to Mozart. Hence the name “every day maximum”. 111

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

It can be argued that there might be more “maximums”, but three components of this model are more than enough to get the message across, and that message is that there are multiple 1RMs. The question is, which one are we measuring and which one should we use to program the training?

Purpose of 1RM or EDM Utilization of 1RM, when prescribing training program in the percent-based approach to strength training, somehow immediately leads to conclusions that 1RM must be tested, and that 1RM is the sole objective of the strength training program. This cannot be further from the truth. My implementation of the 1RM in the percentbased program is not solely as a descriptor and objective, but rather as a prescription aid tool. Again, the distinction between place of things versus forum for action. Using 1RM for prescription (which can be quite flexible and implemented in other methods and schools of thought) helps me figuring out (i.e., prior) the weight one should use in training. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it represents an educated guess, which is way better than complete guess or pulling the numbers out of my own arse, or even worse, allowing for certain types of athlete to self-select the weights (yes, soccer athletes, I am referring to you). It can also help in estimating changes in strength, together with other methods (e.g., load-velocity profiling and so forth) and ensure long term progressive overload happens. Thus, just because I use 1RMs to prescribe, doesn’t mean that it is the sole purpose of the strength training. Above-mentioned three levels of 1RM can be seen on the substance - form continuum (see GUT model in Chapter 2). Having high EDM is necessary, but not sufficient for high TM and CM. Thus, EDM is more latent (potential, or substance), while TM and CM are more manifest (realization, or form). With higher arousal, technique tweaks, and gear, one can learn to express strength potential better, without actually developing that potential (i.e., substance). This can be represented with the complementary pair develop vs. express, where developing is about raising the potential, while expression is about manifesting it. I also refer to this as pulling vs. pushing concept. According to the Push-Pull Model (see next chapter for more details about this Small World model), most of the training time should be spent pulling the EDM (i.e. raise the floor, develop the underlying potential) versus pushing the Competition/Training maximum (i.e. push

112

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

the ceiling, forcing the adaptation, expressing what one already has)29. Having said this, I believe that EDM should be used to program and prescribe the strength training30. The question that naturally follows, is that if EDM is used to program the training, how should we approach testing or estimating EDM? Some authors (such as Jim Wendler) suggest using 80-90% of your Training Maximum (or “reported” maximum) to base your training cycle or phase. This is very useful heuristic, since most of the reported training maximums are over-bloated. Hence, it is better to be safe than sorry (see Chapter 1 on overshooting versus undershooting errors), and base your training cycles using conservative 1RM (in this case 80-90% of TM, which is pretty much similar if not equal to EDM). In this manual, I use EDM and 1RM interchangeably, particularly when I refer to %1RM. Ideally, these should be percentages of your EDM (particularly during the pulling-type of programs; see next chapter). If you use your CM or TM, please use 8090% of those when starting a training release. This will make sure that we are wrong in the undershooting direction, rather than overshooting which can be more costly. If you plan performing 1RM testing you want to use to prescribe training, I suggest your testing to be performed in a “calm” environment without pounding your chest like a gorilla. Otherwise, you better deduct 10-20% just to be safe. As will be explained soon, there might not be the need to re-test 1RM, but rather use fixed increments in weights (see Chapter 6). But more on that later. One of the main characteristics of Agile Periodization is the avoidance of segregation between testing and training, and the effort to embed testing into training as much as possible. I have already explained how to estimate 1RM from training, without actually testing it, using RIR ratings (or reps to failure), but will come back to this topic later in this chapter and thorough this manual. To summarize the things said so far: there are three 1RMs: Competition Maximum, Training Maximum and Every Day Maximum. The objective of training is to “pull” EDM up, rather than to “push” CM/TM up and to try to “force” the progression and adaptation (at least most of the time - see next chapter). Use your EDM to prescribe 29 This can be considered one aspect of periodization, or should I call it ‘cycling’ principle or sport form development. One needs to develop the underlying potential, but to learn to express it when it is needed. Sometimes, in order to really develop the underlying potential, one needs to ‘disrupt’ the expression, and vice versa; when one works too much on expression, development stagnates or goes into recession. Thus, these two represent complementary aspects. Some sports have them more separated (longer prep season compared to competition season) and some have them more intertwined (shorter prep season and long competition season). More about this and the concept of the sport form in the next chapter. 30 As you will read in the next chapter, this is the case for the pulling-type of programs (“raise the floor” or how Dan John calls them - “Park Bench Workouts” (John & Tsatsouline, 2011; John, 2013)). When one is peaking and really “pushing the ceiling” (pushing-type of workouts, or as Dan John calls them - “Bus Bench Workouts’) then TM or even CM should be used for prescription.

113

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

training and try to estimate EDM rather than TM. In the case you are not sure what is your EDM, deduct 10-20% from your TM.

How to estimate 1RM or EDM? Having covered the important distinctions in 1RMs, there are multiple ways to establish it: 1. True 1RM test 2. Reps to (technical) failure 3. Velocity based estimates 4. Estimation through iteration

True 1RM test True 1RM test is about “finding” the weight you can successfully lift for 1 repetition, and it represents “gold standard” in estimating “strength levels” in nonlaboratory environment (and we are not interested in those environments anyway). 1RM testing is a reliable and safe method, although not very time efficient, especially if done for multiple exercises and with a bunch of athletes. There are numerous protocols for 1RM testing, and the goal is to find your 1RM without causing too much fatigue with too many “warm-up” sets and maximum attempts. The simple protocol might be the following: 1. Use 50% of estimated 1RM and perform 5 reps. Rest 1-3min 2. Use 75% of estimated 1RM and perform 3 reps. Rest 1-3min 3. Use 90% of estimated 1RM and perform 1 rep (if you believe your athletes that estimated or reported 1RM are honest and not overblown). Rest 2-4min 4. Athletes now increase the weight and begin finding their 1RM. A series of single attempts should be completed until a 1RM is achieved. 5. Rest periods should remain at 3-5 minutes between each single attempt and load increments typically range between 2.5-5%.In general, 1RMs should be achieved within 3-5 attempts. If failing to lift certain weight, athletes can decrease the load for 2.5-5% and try few more times. 114

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

As explained before, the key is to find 1RM by increasing and decreasing weights of the single attempts, but not exceeding 5 total tries. If multiple 1RMs are performed (i.e. for back squat and bench press) then longer rest period is advised (e.g., 5-10min) between exercises. Here is the hypothetical example of a 1RM test for the bench press: 1. While talking to the athlete, he mentions he could lift approximately 140kg on the bench press. Since we understand that athletes are irrational lying scumbags, we are going to test it, but we are going to use athletes reported values for initial weights and increments. 2. We decided to test the strict bench press with 2-sec hold at the chest. The athletes complains (well, duh). 3. After a warmup and a few sets with 20 & 40kg, we begin the test 4. Initial weight set to 50% of reported 1RM (140kg), which is 70kg. Athlete performs 5 reps with a 2 sec pause at the chest 5. Take 3min off, complaining he never lifted with pause 6. Second set is done with 75% of reported 1RM (140kg), which is 105kg. Athlete performs 3 reps with a 2 sec pause at the chest. Last rep was shaky. You decide to skip the 90% set because he might have been lying about his 1RM. 7. Take 3min off. Athlete asks to play 8 Miles by Eminem, you say “Fuck that shit!” and go and play Spring by Vivaldi. 8. Athlete decides to increase for 10kg, which is 115kg. Performs one perfect rep 9. Take 3min off. Complains about Vivaldi. 10. Decide to increase for extra 10kg, which is 125kg. Performs one grindy rep. 11. Take 3min off. Asks again to play Eminem. You agree to play “Ride Of The Valkyries” by Richard Wagner. That gives him little “oomph” while staying within limits of EDM. 12. Wants to increase for extra 10kg. You roll your eyes (him not seeing it). 135kg. Failed 13. Take 3min off. Athlete blames you and your music choice (and the fucking 2-sec pause at the chest). 14. Decided to reduce to 130kg. Slow lift but within technical requirements 15. Take 3min off. 16. Decided to go for 132.5kg. Failed. 17. No need to micro-load this stuff with 130.63kg. We accept 130kg to be his 1RM (EDM, assuming Wagner didn’t cause too much arousal). 115

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

The above example shows the typical 1RM testing. We managed to find 1RM using 5 sets (excluding two warm-ups). Another constraint might be giving time limit (after warm-up sets) rather than limiting to 3-5 sets. For example, “Lads, you have 20minutes to find your 1RM. Timer starts.... NOW!”. And accept the highest technically sound rep as 1RM. It is up to the athletes to select weight and rest periods. This approach might work better with athletes already familiar with 1RMs, but not so with beginners (or soccer players) who need more constraints and guidance in 1RM testing. The key is not finding the perfect protocol, but rather sticking to the same protocol over time.

Reps to (technical) failure Another method to assess 1RM is using reps to failure technique. Rather than trying to find 1RM, we want to find 2-5RM (maximum weight that can be lifted for 2-5 reps ideally) and then use either conversion table or formulas to establish 1RM (see Table 4.2). The protocol is much simpler and quicker than 1RM. 1. Use 50% of estimated 1RM and perform 5 reps. Rest 1-3min 2. Use 75% of estimated 1RM and perform 3 reps. Rest 1-3min 3. Use 80-90% of estimated 1RM and perform maximal number of reps (while staying within technical requirements of the exercise). 4. If an athlete is ‘calm’ then we are estimating EDM, if he wants to hear Eminem, screams, slaps himself, then TM is estimated. Know the difference. For example, athlete performed maximum 5 reps with 150kg in the back squat. 1RM = (150kg x 5reps x 0.0333) + 150kg 1RM = 25 + 150 1RM = 175kg So according to Epley formula, 1RM of our athlete will be around 175kg. Another option would be to use Load-Max Reps table (see Table 4.2). The beauty of using reps to technical failure method is that it can be “embedded” into a workout (which is one of the ideas of the Agile Periodization). Rather than doing true 1RM test, one can just perform reps to technical failure at the end of the prescribed 116

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

sets. Here is an example: Set 1: 150kg x 3 Set 2: 150kg x 3 Set 3: 150kg x 3+ During the last prescribed set (denoted as a PLUS set), athlete is trying to perform as much reps as possible. Usually, these should be capped at around 10 reps. Using this as “embedded” testing, one can estimate 1RMs (or changes in the same) during the workout. More on this in Chapter 6. One can also create individualized rep max tables, but that is feasible only when working with individual strength athletes (i.e., strength-specialists), rather than team sport players (i.e., strength-generalists). It comes back to the satisficing concept something that is not perfect, but very usable, or good enough. Besides, individualized rep max table will hold true only for a single lift, so planning other lifts cannot utilize that knowledge. This is fine if your sport is powerlifting, so you really want to nail down three exercises (bench press, squat and deadlift), but if you are team sport athlete pursuing strength training as a means to an end, then having individualized rep max tables for a few exercises would not be very practical - one would still need to use heuristics when prescribing training for other exercises.

Velocity based estimates Using velocity to estimate 1RM has been a novel technique that still needs validation (Jovanovic & Flanagan, 2014). To perform this method, one needs LPT (linear position transducer) such as GymAware or PUSH2. The LPT device connects to a barbell via retractable cable and measures velocity of movements. If we plot velocity of the reps versus load we get straight line that we can use to estimate 1RM. Figure 4.3 depicts concentric mean velocity (MV) across loads during 1RM deadlift testing for three athletes. Each rep is done with the maximal intent to lift as fast as possible (which is crucial assumption and requirement).

117

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Athlete 02

Athlete 03

Mean Velocity (m/s)

Athlete 01

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 100

150

200

100

150

200

100

150

200

Weight (kg)

Figure 4.3. Concentric mean velocity across loads during 1RM deadlift testing for three athletes. Dashed horizontal line represents (group average) velocity at 1RM (v1RM), in this case 0.25 m/s

As can be seen from Figure 4.3, the higher the load, the slower the lift. This relationship can be represented with the simple linear regression line. The point where this line crosses the x-axis is termed L0, which can be conceptually understood as some type of the isometric strength since the velocity is zero. But 1RM attempt doesn’t happen at zero velocity, but rather at velocity of 1RM (v1RM). On Figure 4.3. this velocity is represented with the horizontal dashed line. Every exercises has a specific v1RM (e.g. bench press is around 0.15 m/s, back squat around 0.3 m/s and deadlift around 0.25 m/s, although this varies across individuals). Athletes also demonstrate variation of the v1RM, so it is important to know one’s individual v1RM, although group mean is a decent heuristic that could be used before individual v1RM is known (see Bayesian updating in Chapter 1). The interesting thing is, is that individual v1RM seems to be stable across training intervention. In plain English, this means that if your 1RM improves or declines, velocity at 1RM attempt will tend to stay quite similar (this might be more speculative statement, since research on this topic is ongoing). This allows one to “predict” 1RM from sub-maximal attempts. The reliability and predictive validity of this method is still being researched and it is also topic of my PhD. Estimating 1RM using Load-Velocity profile is only one potential use of the Velocity Based Training (VBT) (you can read more about it in (Jovanovic & Flanagan, 2014)). The main application of VBT is using velocity to prescribe training, rather than using %1RM and number of reps (I will expand on this topic later in this chapter). For example, one might prescribe finding and lifting a weight with 118

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

initial velocity of 0.5m/s and stopping the set once velocity reaches 0.4m/s. This could be very useful when performing main exercises (e.g. squat, bench press, deadlift) with individual strength athletes (i.e. strength specialists), but not very useful for team sport athletes (i.e., strength generalists). Another interesting use, as mentioned above, it to use warm-up sets as “embedded” testing to estimate daily 1RM. All of this of course assumes maximal concentric velocity possible while performing reps (i.e., intent). Due to changes in exercise technique (i.e. depth, bounce, pause, intent) during sets, the estimates might be completely off - so this method of 1RM estimation should be reserved only for experienced lifters with “stable” technique and for exercises that have well constrained start and stop position. Those include, but are not limited to deadlift, hex bar squat, bench press, bench pull, and box squat. Figure 4.4. demonstrate will happen to 1RM estimation (point where regression line crosses dashed v1RM line) when intent is not

Mean Velocity (m/s)

maximal.

1.2

0.8

Intent Max intent Sub−max intent

0.4

0.0 50

100

150

200

Weight (kg)

Figure 4.4. Not performing sub-maximal weights with maximal intent will over-estimate 1RM. It is of utmost importance that all reps as done with maximal intent to lift as fast as possible

I find velocity based estimates and Load-Velocity profiling useful supplementary source of information during normal 1RM testing with the strength-specialists, particularly with powerlifters using grinding movements. These can be used later as “embedded testing” during the training cycle to check what might be happening to 1RM using warm-up sets. This way, one still uses percent-based approach to prescribe, but collects velocity data to have more informed decisions. Even if someone decided to use VBT and prescribe set using velocity, percent-based approach can still be helpful in providing approximate weight that needs to be used. 119

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Although VBT is the topic of my PhD, I would not personally bother with it, particularly with strength-generalists performing grinding movements. Where I see the use of VBT and velocity measures is during ballistic movements (e.g., by creating competition and hence increase motivation and intent) and ballistic Load-Velocity profiling, as well as additional source of information and embedded testing for strength specialist during selected grinding movements.

Strength Specialist

Strength Generalist

Grinding Movements Instant Feedback Load-Velocity Profiling Embedded Tes�ng Predic�ng 1RM Prescribing Load Ballis�c Movements* Instant Feedback Load-Velocity Profiling Embedded Tes�ng Predic�ng 1RM Prescribing Load

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗

✓ ✓ ✓ ??? ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ??? ✓

* Not Olympic lifts Table 4.4. Uses of velocity based estimates

Even if you decided to use velocity based 1RM prediction, use it as only one source of information and combine with other sources during review and retrospective.

Estimation through iteration The forth method advises against direct testing 1RM and represents embedded way of estimating it using iterations (which is aligned with the Agile Periodization framework). Why do we need 1RM in the first place? As explained already, we need 1RM to prescribe workloads using “traditional” percent based program. But as you will read later in this chapter there are other alternative methods, although knowing 1RMs is always beneficial in providing ballpark weights. 120

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

One particular problem with having 1RM for exercises, is that there are a lot of exercises, particularly for strength generalist. Testing all these exercises can be overkill and exercise in futility. One shortcut is to use conversion tables described in the previous chapter. This brings me to an important realization - all 1RMs are estimates, even if we test them (since they will vary from day to day, based on individual readiness, motivation and rate of adaptation). Since they are estimates, why do we need to know exact 1RM by testing it? Why can’t we estimate it and update it as we go through training iterations? For example, we could assume (or guess) 1RM using athlete’s bodyweight, training experience, training log or individual reported values. Let’s assume that athlete’s BW is 85kg. With his training experience we can assume he can lift 1,25xBW in the back squat (it is better to be “conservative” than overly optimistic; see overshooting vs. undershooting errors in Chapter 1). Therefore, his estimated 1RM is 1,25 x 85, which is around 105kg. Yeah, we are most likely wrong, but wait... This is just a very simple estimate that allows us some prescription in terms of numbers (see the MVP concept). We can use this to write the first few workouts when dealing with the unknown athlete: Workout 1: 3x5 @75% 1RM Workout 2: 3x5 @80% 1RM Workout 3: 2x5+ @85%, 1x5+ @85% 1RM On the last workout, we have a “plus” set (done after 2 sets of 5), where athlete tries to lift as many technically sound reps as possible. This is our 1RM test, which is embedded. The number of reps should be capped to 10 - no need to perform more than that. If athlete is able to perform more reps, then estimate will probably be off. More about this in the Chapter 6. Now the coach has a few options (which we will cover in more details in Chapter 6). The first option is to calculate the 1RM from reps to failure, and take say 10% off of that to get EDM 1RM that is used in prescribing training (if there was high arousal, although it is never too bad to start too low rather than a bit too high). Second option would be to increase estimated 1RM for a few kilos (e.g. 2.5kg for upper body and 5kg for lower body) and slowly reach true EDM/TM through iterations of this process. This depends weather you are doing pulling the floor workouts or pushing the ceiling workouts. If you are in no particular rush, there is nothing wrong with slowly cooking the athlete with slow progression and jumps in 1RM estimates used for cycle planning and load prescription. 121

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

This second option is similar to the simple rule (heuristic) of not increasing more than 10-20% from week to week in training dosage to avoid unnecessary downsides (e.g., extreme soreness, fatigue, injury). But similar to that rules, this rule can be broken if someone is trying to get back to his normal levels of volume, versus someone who is trying to push the adaptation by increasing volume. Suppose athlete who was running 100km/week as a normal thing, dropped to 50km/week due illness. During his return, he can break this rule and use bigger increments in running volume. On the flip side, if someone is running 80km/week regularly and want to increase that number, then he should not do training load jump bigger than 10-20%. This is precautionary principle and it could be applied in 1RM updates as well as in estimation through iteration concept. Having said that, if we are in the phase of estimating one’s 1RM (i.e., having a new team or new athletes), then first method could be used once or twice, after which we switch to second method (using small increments in 1RM). Once we have estimated 1RM for major lifts we can use conversion tables from previous chapter to get 1RMs for all exercises. Other method might involve estimating 1RMs for assistance exercise using either reps to failure method as well, or using Epley formula using RIR estimate. This is useful in the situation where, say Romanian Deadlift is estimated using 75% of 1RM of the back squat. But for some athletes this might be too much or too little. This is a good starting point, but later in the phase, athletes can perform either reps to failure or estimate 1RM using modified Epley formula using RIR. Let’s assume we have a new athlete who might not have much under his belt when it comes to strength training. His body weight is 75kg. I assume he can probably lift 1xBW in the back squat. For this cycle we have planned back squats and Romanian deadlifts (RDLs). For RDLs we use 75% of back squat 1RM, which is 75% of 75kg, or 55kg. So we start from there.

122

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Romanian Deadli� est1RM 55

5 5 5

75% 75% 75%

56.25 56.25 56.25

5 5 5

80% 80% 80+%

60 60 60

Reps Done new 1RM

Session #1

Weight 52.5 52.5 52.5

Reps 5 5 5

%1RM 70% 70% 70%

Weight 38.5 38.5 38.5

Session #2

%1RM 70% 70% 70%

5 5 5

75% 75% 75%

41.25 41.25 41.25

Session #3

Session #1

Reps 5 5 5

Session #2

75

Session #3

Back squat est1RM

5 5 5

80% 80% 80+%

44 44 44

10 80.0

Reps Done new 1RM

8 55.7

Table 4.5. 1RM estimation using iterations for back squat and Romanian deadlift

As can be seen in Table 4.5, 1RM of the squat was a bit underestimated, but for RDL was about right. For both exercises I would use increment in 1RM: 5kg for the back squat and probably 2.5 for the RDL or leave it as it is. Using this simple method, we didn’t waste time of 1RM testing, we had numbers to start with and using iterations and plus sets we “converged” to a real 1RM (EDM) over few short iteration of the training program. Estimate through iteration is hence very helpful in devising MVP when you start working with new athletes and you do not have any info about them. I think the common contemporary planning strategy of testing first before planning is not needed, and maybe even harmful. Imagine having a new soccer team, and you want to test their 1RM in the back squat, so you know how to prescribe their training. How do you know if they ever lifted in their life? Therefore, I think this testing period is pretty much stupid - the better approach is to conservatively guess, and collect data through action and implementation and then use it to update the information you have (see Bayesian updating in Chapter 1). Table 4.6. contains some suggestions as where you can start using athletes’ bodyweight when estimating 1RM. These are VERY conservative and allow you to devise MVP and collect and update data through iterations. Using exercise conversion tables from the previous chapter you can quickly estimate 1RMs for a lot of exercises.

123

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Squat Bench Press Pull-Ups

Male 1.2 x BW 0.75 x BW 1 x BW

Female 1 x BW 0.5 x BW 0.8 x BW

Table 4.6. Rough conservative estimates for a starting 1RM using athlete bodyweight.

The whole point is that YOU DO NOT NEED TO TEST 1RM to use it for helping you with the prescription, particularly with the new athlete. You can use you best guess (i.e., prior) which should be conservative (undershooting) and should be updated through short training cycles.

Total System Load vs. External Load? Imagine we have two athletes with bodyweight of 75kg and 100kg and they both perform 5 pull-ups with extra 20kg attached using dip belt. What is their 1RM?

Athlete 1 Athlete 2

Bodyweight 75 100

Weight 20 20

Reps 5 5

1RM 23 23

Table 4.7. Using external load to estimate 1RM. This is wrong for movements when one also lifts bodyweight

If we use only external load (in this case 20kg) and we use Epley’s formula, both athletes will have 23kg 1RM in the pull-ups (see Table 4.7). You might ask: “Yeah, but they are lifting their own bodyweight”. And you would be correct. For this reason we need to utilize ‘total system load’, which is in this case bodyweight plus external load (see Table 4.8)

Athlete 1 Athlete 2

Bodyweight 75 100

Weight 20 20

Total Load 95 120

Reps 5 5

1RM 111 140

Table 4.8. Using total system load to estimate 1RM.

As can be seen from the Table 4.8, Athlete 2 have much higher 1RM since he is heavier. Now that we have 1RMs, how do we calculate the weights that needs to be lifted using percent-based approach? For example, if program calls for doing 3x5 with 75% 1RM?

124

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Athlete 1 Athlete 2

Bodyweight 75 100

1RM 111 140

Load (%) 75% 75%

Load (kg) 83 105

Table 4.9. Percent-based approach to load calculation using total system load

But multiplying 75% with 1RM, we got 83kg for Athlete 1 and 105kg for Athlete 2 (see Table 4.9). That is also total system load that needs to be lifted for 8 reps. To get external load, we need to deduct bodyweight (see Table 4.10).

Bodyweight

1RM

Load (%)

Load (kg)

75 100

111 140

75% 75%

83 105

Athlete 1 Athlete 2

External Load (kg) 8 5

Table 4.10. To calculate external load using percent-based approach, bodyweight needs to be deducted from estimate total system load

To perform 3x5 pull-ups with 75% 1RM, Athlete 1 needs to add extra 8kg and Athlete 2 needs to add extra 5 kg. If you use even lower percentages, there would be a point where you would need to deduct the load, either using elastic bands, or using special equipment (or moving to pull-down machine). To estimate 1RMs for the assistance movements, for example DB Rows, one would use body weight corrected (total system load) 1RM in the pull-ups and check the conversion tables in the previous chapter. Since 1RM for single arm DB Row is 35% of 1RM of the pull-ups, for Athlete 1 that would be 35% x 111kg, or around 38kg. The above example using pull-ups is quite intuitive, but now let’s compare bench press and back squat. Using basic wooden dowel (assuming 0kg external load), would you be able to do more reps on the bench press or on the back squat? You will be able to do many more reps on the bench press with wooden dowel than you would be able to do in the back squat. Why is that? Because, when you do squats, you are also lifting your bodyweight. The same relationship should hold true if we compare, say maximum number of reps with 50% of 1RM between back squat and bench press. You are more likely to do more reps on the bench press. According to biomechanics research, the load you are lifting in the squat, besides external load, is approximately 90% of your bodyweight. This is pretty much your body without the lower legs (which are around 10% of your bodyweight). Should we then take into account 90% of bodyweight when we calculate 1RMs and estimate loads for lower body lifts? Let’s use the same two athletes and compare 125

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

1RMs with and without BW correction (in this case 90% of BW). Both athletes lifted 120kg for 5 reps in the back squat:

Athlete 1 Athlete 2

Bodyweight

90% BW

Load

75 100

68 90

120 120

Total Load 188 210

140 140

Squat 1RM Total System 219 245

Squat 1RM External 151 155

=(Load * Reps * 0.0333) + Load

=(Total Load * Reps * 0.0333) + Total Load

=Total System 1RM - 90% BW

Reps

Squat 1RM

5 5

Table 4.11. Estimating 1RM from reps to failure using only external load (Squat 1RM), total system load (Squat 1RM Total System) and external 1RM (Squat 1RM External)

The usual approach is to estimate 1RM using barbell load, which is 120kg. If we plug this into Epley’s equation, we get 140kg as 1RM. If we utilize total system load into account, taking Athlete 1 as an example, total system load would be 120kg + 90% of 75kg, which is 120 + 67.5, or 187.5kg. Using Epley’s equation to estimate 1RM, we get (187.5 x 5 x 0.0333) + 187.5, which equals 219kg (see Table 4.11). Using total system 1RM, we need to deduct 90% of BW to estimate external load, which is 219 - 90% BW, or 219 - 68, or 151kg. On this simple example, it is easy to see how these models represent Small Worlds (see Chapter 1). Also, Epley’s formula is estimated using only external barbell load, not total system load. Thus, it is tricky to use the same formula across different scenarios. But let’s continue with the current example and see where it will take us (and keep in mind that one cannot use same equation across different conditions). Let’s assume that we prescribe 3 sets of 5 reps with 75%. Let’s compare two methods of estimating the load: Es�ma�on using external 1RM

Es�ma�on using total system 1RM

Bodyweight

Load (%)

Reps

1RM

Load (kg)

75 100

75% 75%

5 5

140 140

105 105

Athlete 1 Athlete 2

Total System 1RM 219 245

Load (kg) 97 94

Table 4.12. Calculating barbell weight using external 1RM and total system 1RM.

As can be seen in Table 4.12, load estimated using 1RM without BW correction is the same for both athletes (105kg), but different when we use BW corrected 1RM (97kg for Athlete 1 and 94kg for Athlete 2). Hopefully, this example showcase the pluralism of models and lack of single “objective” truth. Let’s estimate how these estimates differ across continuum of loads (from 100% to 50% of 1RM).

126

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

%1RM 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50

Athlete 1 1RM (kg) 1RM w/90% BW (kg) 140 219 140 219 140 219 140 219 140 219 140 219 140 219 140 219 140 219 140 219 140 219

Bodyweight 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

Load (kg) 151 140 129 118 107 97 86 75 64 53 42

Bodyweight 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Athlete 2 1RM (kg) 1RM w/90% BW (kg) 140 245 140 245 140 245 140 245 140 245 140 245 140 245 140 245 140 245 140 245 140 245

Load (kg) 155 143 130 118 106 94 81 69 57 45 32

Without BW correc�on 1RM (kg) Load (kg) 140 140 140 133 140 126 140 119 140 112 140 105 140 98 140 91 140 84 140 77 140 70

Table 4.13. Different barbell load estimates across 50-100 %1RM using external load 1RM and total system load 1RM

Things look much clearer when plotted (see Figure 4.5): 180

160

140

Load (kg)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

%1RM Athlete 1

Athlete 2

Without BW Correc�on

Figure 4.5. Plot of estimated barbell loads across 50-100 %1RM using external load 1RM and total system load 1RM. This plot represent graphical representation of the Table 4.13

As can be seen on Table 4.13 and Figure 4.5, there are discrepancies between load estimation using bodyweight correction (total system load) and load estimation without bodyweight correction (using only external load), given Epley’s equation as a model in both scenarios. It can be seen that as percentages decrease, total system load approach estimates lowered barbell loads, especially for the heavier athlete. From the Figure 4.5, it can also be seen that 1RM estimated with reps-to-failure using total system load is higher than 1RM estimated using external load. That is most likely due the fact that original Epley formula doesn’t take into account bodyweight, but only external load. Let’s assume that the true 1RM test is being done, thus we know with certainty what is the external 1RM (since athletes lifted it as 1RM). In that case, we can just add 90% of bodyweight to external load 1RM (140kg for both athletes) to get the total system 127

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

1RM (see Table 4.14): %1RM 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50

Athlete 1 1RM (kg) 1RM w/90% BW (kg) 140 207 140 207 140 207 140 207 140 207 140 207 140 207 140 207 140 207 140 207 140 207

Bodyweight 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

Load (kg) 140 129 119 109 98 88 78 67 57 47 36

Bodyweight 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Athlete 2 1RM (kg) 1RM w/90% BW (kg) 140 230 140 230 140 230 140 230 140 230 140 230 140 230 140 230 140 230 140 230 140 230

Load (kg) 140 128 117 105 94 82 71 59 48 36 25

Without BW correc�on 1RM (kg) Load (kg) 140 140 140 133 140 126 140 119 140 112 140 105 140 98 140 91 140 84 140 77 140 70

Table 4.14. Different barbell load estimates across 50-100 %1RM using external load 1RM and total system load 1RM. This time, as opposed to reps-to-failure done in Table 4.13, true 1RM is being done. This way we know for sure what is external 1RM, since we tested it.

And now when the numbers get plotted, we get the following graph (see Figure 4.6): 160

140

120

Load (kg)

100

80

60

40

20

0

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

%1RM Athlete 1

Athlete 2

Without BW Correc�on

Figure 4.6. Plot of estimated barbell loads across 50-100 %1RM using external load 1RM and total system load 1RM when known external 1RM is known due true 1RM test. This plot represent graphical representation of the Table 4.14.

It is logical to conclude that two athletes with the same 1RM (in this case 140kg), but with different body weights should be using different loads in training. This should hold true both with pull-ups and with squats. But things are not that straight forward and it is very easy to slip into the rabbit hole (if this doesn’t remind you of the Figure 1.1, I am not sure what does). When it comes to back squat example, I am not sure there is any research on reliability of Epley’s formula (or any other estimate of 1RM using reps-to-failure) when one uses total system load as opposed to using external load 128

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

only. So in this case our 1RM estimation can be unreliable to begin with (especially if we haven’t performed true 1RM test as seen in the two examples above), as well as number of reps performed at certain percentage of it. Second, the load estimation for assistance exercises becomes cumbersome using total system load method. For example, according to conversion tables from previous chapter, 1RM of Romanian Deadlift (RDL) is approximately 75% of the back squat 1RM. This is straightforward when we use external load method, but when using total system load the calculus become much more complex, since we are not lifting 90% of body weight in the RDL. So we are back to “precision vs importance” dichotomy (Figure 1.1). My approach is to utilize the simplest approach possible that gives me enough of actionable insights that I can start using right away and be able to update as I go. And I will be wrong - I just want to make sure that I am conservative and having Type I errors (undershooting). Besides, we are always dealing with ‘estimates’ and hence there is a lot of uncertainty involved already. And making things more complex on top of uncertain metrics is not my cup of tea (although it is a good exercise in futility). But before I wrap up total system vs external load approaches, let’s take one more example. If we know athlete’s 1RM in the bench press, we might want to estimate how much external load that athlete needs to use in the push-up movement (for example putting weight vest, plate on the back or using dip belt when elevated). If you put your arms on the scale in the push-up position you can estimate that around 70% of your weight is supported on your arms (this of course depends on the body type, but 70% will be ‘good enough’ estimate). Taking our two athletes as an example, both with 120kg 1RM in the bench press, we want to estimate external load for the push-up when we prescribe sets of 5 with 75% 1RM (Table 4.15). Bodyweight Athlete 1 Athlete 2

75 100

Bench Pres 1RM (kg) 120 120

= 0.7 * BW

= BP - PU Load

Push-Up BW Load (kg) 53 70

Push-Up External 1RM (kg) 68 50

Load (%) 75% 75%

Bench Press Load (kg) 90 90

Push Up External Load (kg) 15 -2.5

Table 4.15. Estimation of push-up load, assuming 70% of BW is supported and total system load is equal to bench press 1RM

As can be seen from the Table 4.15, knowing athletes’ bench press 1RM and assuming 70% of bodyweight is supported in the push-up, calculated external load for sets of 5 reps with 75% 1RM are 15kg for Athlete 1 and -2.5kg for Athlete 2 (which means he need to ‘deduct’ some weight, or do less reps). The reverse process can also be utilized - we can estimate bench press 1RM from push-up reps-to-failure performance (Table 4.16):

129

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Athlete 1 Athlete 2

Bodyweight 75 100

Push Up External (kg) 20 10

Total Load (kg) 72.5 80

Bench Press 1RM (kg) 97 107

Reps 10 10

=(Total * Reps * 0.0333) + Total Table 4.16. Estimating bench press 1RM using externally loaded push-ups for reps

Let’s wrap up the issue of total system load vs. external load approaches. First of all, we are dealing with estimates that are inherently uncertain (except when performing true 1RM test, but even with that we are uncertain about assistance exercise 1RMs) - type of movement, experience, gender, motivation, body built and others all affect reps-to-failure method reliability of estimating 1RM, and especially estimating assistance movements 1RMs and later training prescription loads (e.g. what %1RM we should use for 3 sets of 10 for upper vs. lower body movement). The question is why? Why do we need 1RMs for? In my opinion, besides being an evaluation of performance, we need it to prescribe loads. And for that we need to lean more toward ‘significance’ in the ‘precision-significance’ continuum (Figure 1.1), and to utilize ‘satisficing’ philosophy. In other words, we need ‘something’ to work from without killing the athletes. So, it is a form of heuristic that we use to prescribe training. It seems logical that total system load approach can be used with say pull-up movements and push-up movements (essentially bodyweight), in which external load is not close to bodyweight. With lower body movements, such as squats and deadlifts, using external load approach will suffice. It might not be the most precise, but it is good enough to prescribe training. There will always be individual differences, exercise differences, estimation formula differences, but it is up to us to deal with all these uncertainties using simple rules, but also realizing and understanding all the assumptions involved. Plan, Do, Check, Adjust (see Figure 2.13). Some coaches, such as great Dan Baker, utilize very simple heuristic when doing higher reps training for upper vs. lower body movements:

Week Bench

1 3x10 60%

2 3x10 64%

3 3x10 68%

4 3x10 70%

Back Squat

3x10 45%

3x10 50%

3x10 55%

3x10 60%

Table 4.17. Example of Dan Baker’s bench press and squat training cycle for rugby athletes (Season 2006). Notice that %s for Bench Press vs Back Squat differ

130

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Dan Baker takes into account differences in performing higher rep squats versus higher rep bench press and adjust prescription percentages rather than splitting hair with 1RM estimation and bodyweight utilized in main movements and assistant lifts. Table 4.18 contains mathematical exercise, assuming athlete weights 100kg, squats 150kg and bench press 150 kg. Load-Rep max table calculates external load that needs to be lifted, comparing bench press to back squat (when total system load is used for squat). Bodyweight

100

Bench Press Back Squat

External 1RM 150 150

Total 1RM 150 240

%1RM 100% 94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60%

Total Load 150 141 136 132 129 125 122 118 115 113 110 107 105 102 100 98 96 94 92 90

Max Reps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Bench Press External Load 150 141 136 132 129 125 122 118 115 113 110 107 105 102 100 98 96 94 92 90

% External 1RM 100% 94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60%

Total Load 240 225 218 212 206 200 195 190 185 180 176 171 167 164 160 157 153 150 147 144

Back Squat External Load 150 135 128 122 116 110 105 100 95 90 86 81 77 74 70 67 63 60 57 54

% External 1RM 100% 90% 85% 81% 77% 73% 70% 66% 63% 60% 57% 54% 52% 49% 47% 44% 42% 40% 38% 36%

% Eternal 1RM Difference Diff 0% 4% 5% 7% 9% 10% 11% 13% 14% 15% 16% 17% 18% 19% 20% 21% 22% 22% 23% 24%

Ra�o 1.00 1.04 1.06 1.09 1.11 1.14 1.16 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.32 1.35 1.39 1.43 1.47 1.51 1.56 1.61 1.67

Table 4.18. Load-Rep max table of an 100kg athlete for 150kg bench press and 150kg back squat. Table showcases how percentages of the external load 1RM differ when loads are calculated using total system load for bench press (where there is no BW lifted) and for squat (where there is 90% of BW lifted).

As already demonstrated, the higher the number of reps, the lower the external load when calculated using total system load as opposed to external load method. But what Table 4.18 does is to recalculate (let’s call it adjust) %1RM by comparing estimated external load (using total system load approach) to external 1RM. It can be seen that the difference between bench press and back squat increases with number of reps. Figure 4.7 contains graphical representation of ordinary Load-Max reps table and adjusted one (for this particular athlete):

131

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

% 1RM 100% 90% 80% 70%

Generic Rep Max Table

60% 50% 40% 30%

Adjusted Rep Max Table 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Max Reps

Figure 4.7. Adjusted Load-Rep Max table using a hypothetical athlete with 100kg bodyweight and 150kg bench press and squat

As alluded multiple times, we assume Epley’s formula is the same for using external and total system load, and to my knowledge this probably is not the case. Thus, all the above represents exercise in futility - or how we can make something uncertain to begin with (for example, parameter 0.0333 might, and probably does, differ between bench press and squat for example, or when one uses total system load versus external load) more complex and more scientific. Ideally, one would want to create personalized (athlete x exercise x total vs. external load) tables, but again, that would be an overkill. Acting like a wise ass with the uncertain equation to begin with is not a sign of scientific method, but pseudo-science. It looks like science (since there is some math involved), but it is actually a merda. But this doesn’t negate phenomenological insight that lifting, say 3x10 at 65% 1RM for bench press and back squat creates different effects, both acute (in terms of exertion during the set) and chronic (how long it takes to recover from a session). A simple heuristic one could use here, is 1.5% drop per rep. For example, if bench press calls for 5 reps at 75%, then squats can be 75% - 5 x 1.5%, or around 67.5%. Simple heuristic you can use, particularly for high rep phases. With these simple examples, you can see the uncertainty involved in estimation and the pluralism of models, as well as our automatic jumping over Is/Ought gap (just because the testing indicate certain Load-Rep Max table, it doesn’t mean we should do multiple sets at the same intensity for different exercises). Just remember that these are all Small World models, and don’t try to be a precision obsessed lab coat. Think “satisficing” (good enough), MVP, forum for action and take a stance “I will start with conservative estimation, and will correct it over iterations of the training cycles”. The exercise list in the Chapter 7 (also see Figure 3.31) contains %BW column, which indicates percent of BW used in a particular exercise. As stated already, this is useful for dips and pull-ups, and if you want to be a wise ass when estimating external load for push ups based on bench press 1RM. When it comes to planning high reps phases, utilization of the simple heuristic of “1.5% per rep drop” for lower body movements can be implemented if deem appropriate. 132

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Comparing individuals “Hey bro, how much you bench?” How do we decide who is stronger? Person who lifts the most for 1 rep (1RM), who lifts more reps (e.g. pull-ups), or who lifts the fastest (e.g. clean)? As you will see, the answer is not clear cut (again pluralism). Let’s compare four athletes in the back squat (Table 4.19):

Athlete 1 Athlete 2 Athlete 3 Athlete 4

Bodyweight (kg) 75 100 80 90

1RM (kg) 140 170 120 135

Table 4.19. Four athletes with different bodyweight and 1RMs in the back squat. Who is the strongest?

Which one of the four athletes is the strongest? Athlete 2 lifts biggest weight in the back squat - 170kg, but he is also the heaviest. So we need to take into account bodyweight31. Comparing individuals is very complex topic and there is no clear cut solution to it. For the sake of example, I will compare a few techniques that you might use when comparing individuals.

Simple ratio (relative strength) The simplest approach we can do is to divide 1RM with the bodyweight. Similar to pull-up vs. squat example, we can use only external 1RM or total system 1RM (Table 4.20)

Athlete 1 Athlete 2 Athlete 3 Athlete 4

Bodyweight (kg) 75 100 80 90

1RM (kg) 140 170 120 135

Total System 1RM (kg) 208 260 192 216

Rela�ve External 1.87 1.70 1.50 1.50

Total 2.77 2.60 2.40 2.40

Table 4.20. Using external and total body simple ratio (dividing with bodyweight) 31 We could also take into account height, limb lengths, experience, drug use and so forth with the aim of creating “equal playing” field. Essentially the number of variables we need to control for is pretty much unlimited, so I leave this pipe dream for the “progressives” and SJWs

133

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Using relative strength approach, we can clearly see that the Athlete 1 has the highest level of relative strength. As with the conclusion of using total vs. external in estimating 1RM, I suggest here as well to use total system when comparing bodyweight movements (e.g. pull-ups, push-ups, etc) and external load when comparing barbell movements (e.g. bench press, back squat). This is a very common approach when comparing individuals, unfortunately it is biased towards lighter weight individuals, because strength doesn’t increase linearly with bodyweight (all things being equal). For that reason we need to use allometric scaling (Folland, Mccauley & Williams, 2008).

Allometric scaling Let’s represent a muscle (or the force generator) with a cube with the side length L

Length

1

2

3

4

Surface

1

4

9

16

Volume

1

8

27

64

Surface / Volume

1

0.50

0.33

0.25

Figure 4.8. Small World model of the muscle using cube with side lengths L.

The surface of the cube (one side surface) is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the muscle, and hence directly proportional to the maximal strength. The volume of the cube is proportional to the weight of the muscle. As can be seen, the ratio of surface to volume, or strength to weight, is not linear, because weight increase much quicker than surface area. That’s why simple strength ratio is biased against heavier individuals.

134

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

The way to deal with this is simple (although the nuances are complex and researchers split hair discussing them). Since we know the weight of the individual, we can write the equation for the strength to be proportional to weight:

So, to compare who is the strongest, we need to compare one’s 1RM to what is ‘expected’ based on his bodyweight. Let’s call this the allometric strength score:

Let’s use this formula and compare our four athletes, using both total system load and external load

Athlete 1 Athlete 2 Athlete 3 Athlete 4

Bodyweight (kg) 75 100 80 90

1RM (kg) 140 170 120 135

Total System 1RM (kg) 208 260 192 216

Rela�ve External 1.87 1.70 1.50 1.50

Allometric Scaling Total 2.77 2.60 2.40 2.40

External 7.87 7.89 6.46 6.72

Total 3.99 4.17 3.61 3.75

Table 4.21. Using external and total body allometric scaling

It can be seen from the table above, using allometric scaling to estimate strength score, that Athlete 1 is not the best anymore, but rather Athlete 2. It is also important to compare Athlete 3 and Athlete 4 who had same relative strength (1.5 x BW), but with allometric scaling Athlete 4 has slightly higher strength score. There is much more to the allometric scaling and comparing individuals (such as Wilks score used in weightlifting, or using lean body mass rather than full bodyweight) 135

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

(Folland, Mccauley & Williams, 2008), but understanding simple relative strength and allometric strength score is more than enough to get you up and running. As can be seen here, a simple question “Who is the strongest” cannot be answered with the single “objective” answer, but rather with pluralistic answers. This is because we always represent Large World with Small World models.

Percent-based approach to prescribing training loads It should be clear by now that for planning a strength training cycle we are using 1RMs as something that helps us with prescription, and not something to argue about until cows come home. It is a concept of “satisficing” that applies here - “something that is good enough to get the job done”. This is indeed philosophy of pragmatism. Besides, we are using multiple 1RMs for assistance exercises that are estimated from 1RMs of the main lifts. Hence, they are not very precise, but are meaningful in prescribing the training. What is important to remember is that it is better to under-estimate 1RM a lot, than to over-estimate 1RM a little bit. It is better to be conservative and start light, since through iterations and short planning cycles and quick feedback we are going to converge to the true ‘1RM quickly. And by true I refer to EDM (every day maximum). It is my opinion that we need to use EDM in planning strength training cycle. So, when we do training max (TM) estimate, some authors suggest stripping off 10-15% of it and using that as EDM, which is a good heuristic. If we used estimation through iteration, then we are starting with conservative estimate anyway. For example, if an athlete did 5 reps with 100kg on the bench press in the testing session, which equals to (5 x 100 x 0.0333) + 100 = 115kg 1RM, we can use 90% of that number to start the next big/new cycle of training. This would represent EDM and it is equal to 0.9 x 115 = 103kg (100-105kg could be used). I know we get emotional when we strip off kilograms from our 1RMs, so we need to keep in mind that we are going to quickly converge to real/true EDM in training. So no need to cry here. Do not make a leap over Is/Ought gap thinking that TM or EDM estimated in a specific testing session is the same TM or EDM in normal training, in which multiple exercises are done over multiple sets, you might come to session a bit tired and so forth. Once we have estimated EDMs for lifts (and sometimes we do not even need it), we can utilize numerous methods of prescription. Let’s cover the most common ones 136

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Prescribing using open sets Rather than prescribing exact weight than needs to be on the barbell using percentages of individual 1RM, some coaches prefer to only prescribe open sets. Open sets represent prescribing only number of sets and reps, i.e. perform 3 sets of 5 at the same load. It is up to the individual to select the weight, usually based on the idea of progressive overload by increasing weight over time by keeping the training log. One example would be the following: Workout 1: 3x8 Workout 2: 3x6 Workout 3: 3x4 Next Phase Workout 1: 3x8 +2.5 to 5kg Workout 2: 3x6 +2.5 to 5kg Workout 3: 3x4 +2.5 to 5kg I am not a big fan of this approach, unless athletes are just starting to lift and are progressing every workout (i.e. using 2.5-5kg more) and are responsible enough to apply progressive overload themselves. Programs such as Mark Rippetoe’s Starting Strength (see Table 4.22) are example of using open sets (particularly his novice program (Rippetoe & Kilgore, 2011; Rippetoe, Baker & Bradford, 2013)). In this very simple program, athletes start with the bar only (pretty much) and performing squats three times per week, using 3 sets of 5 reps (3x5). Athletes should increase the weight every training session for 2.5-5kg until they are unable to perform 3x5 with same weight. In that case athletes can recycle the weight (e.g. drop from 10-20%) and start over.

Monday Squat 3x5 Bench Press/Press 3x5 Chin-Ups 3x5

Wednesday Squat 3x5 Bench Press/Press 3x5 Deadli� 1x5

Friday Squat 3x5 Bench Press/Press 3x5 Chin-Ups 3x5

Table 4.22. Starting Strength program for novice lifters (Rippetoe & Kilgore, 2011; Rippetoe, Baker & Bradford, 2013)

This is a wonderful program for beginners, and something that I have tried to apply in team settings and failed miserably. This approach demanded for each athlete to have a training log where they enter last weights used and the try to increase the load every session for a few kilograms. The athletes I was working with were not responsible 137

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

enough to perform such a workout - they kept forgetting logs, not following progression, going too easy and so forth. On the opposite extreme, there might be athletes that after first initial workouts start to “push” it too much, which is not the goal of strength training in team sports. For example, athlete did 2x5 with 140kg, and on 3rd set he did 1x3 reps. Next time, this athlete would need to try and “push” to 3x5. Great for the off-season in college sports, but not for 10-months in-season model of professional sports, such as soccer. In a way, every program/methodology has a target audience. This approach was not working for team sport athletes performing a team workout in the gym.

Prescribing using %1RM approach (percent-based bread and butter method)



More strict prescription involve using exact number of reps and %1RM that needs to be lifted, usually with the help of Load-Exertion Table 4.3 (see next chapter for more details). For example: Workout 1: 3x8 @ 70% 1RM Workout 2: 3x6 @75% 1RM Workout 3: 3x4 @80% 1RM This approach demands very strict prescription. This means that exact number of reps, number of sets and load (in terms of %1RM) is prescribed. Sometimes even rest periods and tempo of exercise is prescribed. But what if we are wrong? What if we are not very good at judging those numbers, what if we were too optimistic with the 1RM, or the numbers are off for certain individuals based on their day to day readiness and improvement rate? What if some individuals emotionally don’t like (or respond to) very strict programming (there might be those who prefer exactly what and how much should be done; so we need to take that individual difference as well; more about this in the next chapter). One simple solution to those issues is starting light, or as we mentioned before, using EDM and a bit of buffer (being conservative and undershooting 1RM), so in the case we are off with numbers, we still have MVP (minimum viable program) that we can tweak through iterations and feedback. Prescribing training loads using %1RM is the bread and butter of the percent-based approach, and the one that is the topic of this manual since it can be implemented in other methods easily. Although very versatile, 138

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

this approach needs some modification. These modifications will be explained after other major prescription approaches are described.



Prescribing using subjective indicators of exertion levels (RPE, RIR) Another approach involves using subjective indicators of proximity to failure

(exhaustion) expressed as Reps-In-Reserve (RIR) or Rate-of-Perceived-Exertion (RPE) (Tuchscherer, 2008; Zourdos et al., 2016, 2019; Helms et al., 2016, 2018a,b; Carzoli et al., 2017). To my knowledge, Mike Tuchscherer (Tuchscherer, 2008) is the first to outline sound training system using RPE approach for resistance training. I personally favor RIR approach over RPE, because I believe it is easier to explain to the athletes, but that is a personal choice (I have expanded on this topic in the Chapter 5). For example, I might prescribe 3 sets of 5 with 2RIR (3x5 w/2RIR). Which reads: 3 sets of 5 with 2 reps left in reserve. Another nomenclature might be 3 sets of 5 with 7RM, which is equivalent of the above. This means: perform 3 sets of 5 with a weight you can lift for 7 reps (5 + 2RIR = 7). Example program might be the following: Workout 1: 3x8 w/3RIR Workout 2: 3x6 w/2RIR Workout 3: 3x4 w/1RIR This method demands a lot of experience and honesty from lifters, which we all know, lacks in team sport athletes. It is a great method to be used, since it allows built in auto-regulation, which in other words, allows for taking into account changes in readiness of the athletes (in plain English taking into account good and bad days) and differences in adaptation speeds (one’s strength might improve faster than someone else’s). Using RIR is a major improvement of the methodology of the open sets, since it takes into account exhaustion level (expressed as RIR) and avoids making athlete “chase” (or “push”) the numbers (“Damn, I need to break last workout weights”). Using Load-Exertion table, one can get the exact %1RM that needs to be lifted for a certain number of reps and RIR, but again, this relies on the assumption of predictability and stability. But even if you prescribe using subjective approach by rating RIR or RPE, you can still provide approximate weight that needs to be lifted, which can speed up the search of the weight that gives you number of reps at certain RIR. As already stated, 139

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Mike Tuchscherer made very elaborate planning system off RPE approach, and I highly recommend checking his material. In my opinion, this prescription approach might work for the responsible athletes, such as strength-specialists, while it might be tricky to implement in with certain groups of strength-generalist. Some modifications that could be implemented in the %1RM approach will be explained later in the chapter.

Prescribing using Velocity Based Training (VBT)



Using velocity to prescribe training is indeed a novel idea. There seems to be relationship between velocity and proximity to failure (or Load-RIR relationship), but it is still not very well researched (it is one of the topics of my PhD). If found to be reliable and predictively valid, then rather than prescribing load using %1RM and reps to be performed, one can prescribe Start Velocity and Stop Velocity of a set, e.g. find a weight that initial rep yields 0.55-0.6m/s (Start Velocity) and do reps until you hit 0.45m/s (Stop Velocity). Some coaches and researchers prefer to use velocity drop (e.g. perform reps in a set until velocity drops below 10-20%). While utilizing VBT, an athlete’s day-to-day readiness will be intrinsically taken into account (e.g. someone having a really good or bad day) , as well as different speeds of adaptation (Jovanovic & Flanagan, 2014). However, as with any other method there are some assumptions that have to be met. The major assumption of all VBT (Velocity Based Training) methodologies is that concentric phase of a lift is done with the highest speed or intent to lift as fast as possible. There also shouldn’t be any changes in exercise technique during the set, or between sets. Otherwise, the velocity estimates will be completely off. As it is, this method is reserved for individual strength athletes only (strength specialists), particularly for grinding movements (see Table 4.4) and only few main exercises. Team sport athletes (strength generalists) can still utilize external feedback in term of speed, which can be great and useful addition to training (also yielding better results in the ballistic movements), but utilizing some fancy VBT techniques with team sport athletes can be unnecessary, or maybe even harmful, thing to do. Some coaches believe that VBT is a panacea, but it still doesn’t answer major questions that all coaches ask: “how should one train and how much” (in other words, there is still Is/Ought gap)? VBT doesn’t answer these questions. In addition,there 140

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

are a few basic “heuristics” (covered in this manual) that are more than enough in helping with training decisions, without the need to buy the expensive equipment. Still, objective immediate feedback is still a very useful feature in the ballistic movements for both strength generalist and strength specialists.

Other prescription methods It is important to mention that certain methods, such as isoPush (overcoming isometrics) and isoinertial training (e.g. k-box, Versapulley) don’t utilize 1RM in prescription, since the athletes are generating maximal amount of force against the immovable or inertial load and get back as much as they put in. For this reason their prescription will be a bit different compared to exercises with 1RM. It is worth mentioning that these methods suffer from the same problems as VBT approach and that is over-relying on the assumption that athletes are providing maximal intent all the time (which is not always true and therefore might skew the data we collect). Another example might be the use of body weight to prescribe (e.g. squat jumps with 10% BW, or sled pushes with 40% of BW), but they still implement percent-based approach. This also includes using max reps, as in “perform 3 sets of pull-up using 70% of you max pull-ups”. There are probably more approaches that involve some fancy technology, but they are beyond simplicity, which is the goal of this manual. Discussed so far are the major methods in prescribing strength training load. The topic of this manual is the use of percent-based approach, not only as 'satisficing' approach to prescription, but also as source of useful info for other approaches. For example, using percent-based approach can give you a range of weight you can use with the RIR prescription and VBT prescription. Sometimes we can combine the three, which is the topic of the modifications of the percent-based approach.

Modifications of the percent-based approach Rep Zones The first modification of the percent-based prescription that takes into account uncertainties (of day-to-day readiness to perform or rate-of change/adaptation) are Rep Zones. Let’s assume our main prescription is 3 x 5 @70% (3 sets of 5 reps with 70% of 1RM). The rep zone approach would use the following modification: 141

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

3 x 4-6 @70% Rather than prescribing exact number of reps, we prescribe a rep zone that fits our objectives and takes uncertainty into account. We also give some sense of control to the athletes (which is very motivating, at least for most athletes) by letting them choose number of reps to perform32. This way we have locked in load and allowed for the reps to vary. Rep zones can then be used in training cycles, or exercises where the objective is to keep predictable load - for example when maximum strength (i.e., anaconda strength) is the objective and we aim to work at certain percentage of 1RM. But to allow for some wiggle room, we let athletes decide on the number of reps. We can also lock-in the RIR (see modifications using RIR) if we prefer the subjective approach (for example 3 x 4-6 @70% w/4RIR; so the athlete decides to use 4-6 reps as long as the RIR is around 4). On the flip side, rep zones are not the best option if the aim is to accumulate certain number of lifts (e.g., in hypertrophy or armor building exercises or cycles). The width of the Rep Zone can depend on various factors. For example, if we know that athletes are tired (e.g. working out on first or second day after a match) we can allow for a bigger buffer (especially in the direction of decreasing load): 3 x 3-5 @70% . On the flip side, if we assume, with some certainty, that they might be feeling much better, then we can increase the buffer (in the positive direction) and allow more reps to be performed: 3 x 5-7 x 70%. The buffer can grow in both direction, e.g. 3 x 4-6 @70% vs. 3 x 3-7 @70% and the use might depend on how much wiggle room you want to give to the athletes or how much are you confident in the precision of your prescription (to avoid ‘pushing’ too much). The extreme example of rep zone approach would be prescribing %1RM and letting the athlete to chose number of reps (e.g. 3 x N @70%). The selection of reps could be done based on the training diary (“What have I done last time?”) and this is useful when we want to ‘accumulate’ reps (or to progress from workout to workout using rep accumulation; see Vertical Planning in the next chapter). Load Zones Next modification are Load Zones. Similar to rep zones, load zones utilize a buffer in %1RM used. Taking the same basic scheme of 3 x 5 @70%, the load zone approach would use, for example: 3 x 5 @65-75% 32 As you will read in Chapter 5, this might be related to the feeling of pleasure/displeasure. Self-selection of load or repetition creates a sense of autonomy and control, allowing athletes cognitively ‘reframe’ the exercise experience (i.e., it is not something I must do, it is something I choose to do) (Ekkekakis, Parfitt & Petruzzello, 2011). This can mean that this type of looser prescription might reduce displeasure and maybe stress associated with strength training. In sports where there is higher frequency of competition, this might mean a lot and can reduce unnecessary stress. This can be expanded to exercise selection within slot (depending on the logistical constraints such as equipment) and can differ from athlete to athlete in terms of preferences. Some athletes prefer more strict prescription, and some prefer more control. More about these topics will be covered in Chapter 5.

142

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

This approach allows the athlete to select appropriate load, based on his current day-to-day readiness and rate of improvement. Load Zones approach is useful when we want a stricter number of lifts (e.g., in hypertrophy or armor building phases or exercises) and we are not much concerned with average %1RM (actually we are, but if that is the objective we would be more inclined to ‘clamp’ %1RM using rep zones modification). Similar to Rep Zones modification, the width and direction of the buffer in %1RM used can depend on multiple factors. For example, in ‘pull the floor’ programs we might give more wiggle room, and in ‘push the ceiling’ programs we want stricter zones. The extreme example of Load zones would be to prescribe the number of sets and reps and let the athlete choose the load (e.g. 3 x 5). And, you guessed correctly - this is the open sets method of load prescription. The selection of the loads with the open set approach will most likely be made based on training diary history (“What have I done last time?”). Same to Rep Zones example of 3 x N @70%, the usage of this method depends on how much we trust the athletes. When I started working as S&C coach in soccer, I believed in “give them a fish and feed them for a day, teach them how to fish and feed them for a lifetime” maxim, so I gave my athletes training diaries, explained to them the concept of progressive overload and gave them open sets. Disaster was an understatement. They have forgotten their logs, lost them under treadmill, or just didn’t give a shit. There was nothing close to a progressive overload. So, I decided to keep a log for them. I went around the gym like a turkey trying to collect the numbers. That way I couldn’t coach and observe the lifts. Disaster was an understatement here as well. However, I got smarter - I wrote the exact set, reps and loads on a common sheet (actually multiple copies that were posted in the gym so they can see it easily) and told them to do exactly as written. Of course they could still cheat (I could easily check), but at least I could coach and progressive overload was being implemented. But then again, on some exercises I was completely off (because I had to estimate 1RMs for assistant moves), so the strict approach failed in that regard. The solution was to allow for a stricter planning, while still allowing for some wiggle room due to errors and individual differences. For that reason I started using the above modifications. The long term progression is being followed (i.e., military’s commander intent), while I allowed for local implementations (gave them freedom to wiggle if needed). One thing to keep in mind is that you can use different modifications for different exercises, objectives and even individuals (since some individuals prefer more freedom, and some don’t want to think much and just want to do what they have been told, or depending how much you trust them). For example, main lifts can be programmed more strictly, and you can give much more wiggle room for assistance exercises:

143

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Back Squat 3 x 4-6 @70% Lunges 3 x 5 per side (open set) We can also combine both rep zone and load zone approach to get something that is really flexible: 3 x 4-6 @65-75% This is also a viable option, especially when we are not much concerned with hitting certain number of lifts or average load. We are interested in long term progression (which will happen as long as we increase 1RM in our programs - see Rinse and Repeat in Chapter 6, but allow great flexibility for athletes on the local or implementation level). For some athletes this could be too much flexibility, so it is up to us to decide regarding the appropriate modification. Subjective Indicators The third modification option would be to use subjective indicators, and in our case that is RIR. So our main set and rep scheme of 3 x 5 @70% can become: 3 x 5 w/3RIR (reps prescribed, athlete finds load) 3 sets @70% w/3RIR (load prescribed, athlete selects reps) This is very usable with more experienced lifters that are able to estimate RIR with better precision. We can combine the subjective approach with both rep and load zones as well: 3 x 5 @65-75% w/3RIR (reps prescribed, athlete selects load) 3 x 4-6 @70% w/3RIR (load prescribed, athlete selects reps) 3 x 4-6 @65-75% w/3RIR (athlete selects both reps and load,

as long as there are 3 RIR) In the above cases, load or reps provide only guidelines (“Well what should I

lift?”), but ultimately, it is RIR that athlete should pay attention to. When it comes to team sport athletes, using subjective indicators in prescribing training can be a double edge sword. They provide huge flexibility and take into account individual differences, but that flexibility can also be problematic. As mentioned before, athletes can start screwing around, or they might not understand what is being asked of them. Some might even think that you have no clue what are you doing, so you are giving them loose prescriptions. Some don’t give a damn and don’t want to think too much about lifting weights and they prefer to get it over with and play/practice their 144

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

sport. Therefore,as a coach, you have to be smart and decide what is the best approach with regards to your current situation that you have to work with. Velocity Based Training Fourth modification is using Velocity Based Training (VBT). As already outlined, one implementation of VBT to training load prescription involves using some combination of Start Velocity and Stop Velocity. Using velocity, instead of %1RM and number of reps, takes into account day-to-day variability and different rate-of-change (adaptation) of the individual and it deals with them intrinsically. But it has a lot of assumptions and measuring to be done. To be done precisely, VBT profiling needs to be done for both individual and exercise of interest (although some generalized numbers could be use as a starting point, or MVP). One example of VBT prescription might involve prescribing load and stop velocity: 3 sets @75% until you hit 0.3 m/s It is very important to emphasize that VBT assumes maximal effort (intent to lift fast) during the concentric phase of the lift, as well as the same depth of the exercise, otherwise it is not very usable. Even more complex prescription might involve prescribing start velocity: 3 sets from 0.5 to 0.3 m/s In this case athlete selects the weight that gives her initial velocity of around 0.5m/s and performs reps until that velocity reaches 0.3 m/s. To make this search quicker, we might provide some initial values for the weight: 3 sets from 0.5 to 0.3 m/s (@70-75% 1RM) But similar to the subjective approach, this load prescription is only a guideline and the athlete should focus on speed. VBT is mostly applicable with ballistic movements, since velocity represent instant (after each rep) feedback that could be motivating. Sometimes, this feedback can be also tricky (for example trying to increase peak velocity during power clean, athlete might alter technique and lose the objective of the exercise). Another use of VBT is in quality control - or using Velocity Stop or % drop (how much % loss in velocity we allow before stopping the set). Yet another use of VBT involves estimating daily 1RM from warm-up sets, and using that number to prescribe training rather than using pre-phase 1RM. To make this estimate reliable and usable for prescription, strict technique (especially using same 145

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

depth and pause at the bottom of the lift or avoid using SSC) and intent to lift as fast as possible must be followed. Jury is still out on how useful this approach is and the research on this topic is underway (at the time of this writing, your author is preparing his PhD on this very topic). In my opinion, when it comes to team sports, VBT should be used sparingly for a few major lifts (mostly ballistic) because it is major pain in the arse to explain and torture athletes with measurement. Just keep it as a viable option Time and Reps Constraints Fifth and the last modification is Time and Reps Constraints. This is the most flexible of the approaches and it gives athletes certain time frame (e.g. 10-20min) to finish certain total number of reps (with certain limitations/constraints). For example, our 3 x 5 @70% might be prescribed as: In 10min perform 15 reps @70%. It is up to athlete to decide how many sets to perform, how many reps to perform and with how long pause. We can make few variants of this using the above modifications: In 10min perform 15-20 reps @70% In 10min perform 15 reps @65-75% In 10min perform 15-20 reps @65-70% In 10min perform 15-20 reps @65-70% w/not less than 3RIR per set In 10min perform AMRAP @65-70% w/not less than 3RIR per set,

(AMRAP - as many reps as possible) In 10min perform AMRAP @65-70% using 3-5 reps per set In 10min perform AMRAP with 4-6 reps per set @65-70% In 10min perform 15-20 reps @65-70% with no less than 3 reps per set In 10min perform AMRAP reps @65-70% with no less than 3 reps per set In 10min perform AMRAP reps @65-70% with no less than 2min break In 10min perform AMRAP reps @65-70% with no longer than 3min break Variations are endless and it is up to your coaching creativity to create a constraints

that let the aimed objectives emerge (be it certain number of total reps at certain %1RM being performed, and so forth). This is viable option with some exercises and objectives. For example, you might say “You have 10min to do 100 push-ups”, or “10min to do sets of 1 of hang clean with 85%, AMRAP”, or even use Crossfit prescription of EMOM (every minute on the minute): “In 10min, EMOM 2 reps with 75% hang clean” to be certain they don’t kill themselves with short breaks or forcing reps. 146

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Even if you do not plan using this approach, providing time constraints (and making it transparent by using a big timer on the wall) can get team athletes more productive. For example, you might have a super set (A1. Back Squat, A2. Pull-Ups, A3. Abs Roll-out, A4. Hip stretch) and to keep a group of athletes punctual (especially if the next group is coming in), you might also state that they have 15-20minutes to finish the prescribed sets. This works like a charm. Just put the timer on the wall and let them see it. In the following Table there are all modifications listed for the easier summary (simplified).

Original prescrip�on Open Sets Rep Zone Load Zone Combined Subjec�ve VBT Time & Rep constraints

3 x 5 @70% 3x5 3 x 4-6 @70% 3 x 5 @65-75% 3 x 4-6 @65-75% 3 x 4-6 @70% w/3RIR 3 sets @75% u/0.3m/s In 10min perform 15-20reps @70%

Table 4.23. Set and rep scheme modifications. See text for further examples

Prediction and monitoring Before jumping to the strength training planning in Chapter 5, it is important to introduce few load (dose)33 monitoring metrics that are commonly used, as well as to introduce few novel ones. As you will soon see, all these represent Small Worlds - or a models with assumptions that attempt to represent Large World with a simple number. Nothing wrong with this of course. What is problematic is forgetting the distinction and trying to optimize the whole training based on few numerical aggregates. If you check the Figure 2.13 in Chapter 2, you can see that these data represent only one source of insight when making decision. Thus, they are needed and important, but just don’t forget that they represent aggregated summary of simplified Large World. It is very easy to fall for the Small World narrative of trying to optimize one metric to maximize training effects. The true story is that we do not know what variable drives (is associated or is causal) the training effects. Similarly, in a Kuhnian sense (Dienes, 2008), we do need to 33 Here, the term ‘load’ differs from the term load as part of intensity trinity (weight on the bar, %1RM). Here the load is the “the dose” or “stress” and it is also multicomponent, consisting of volume, intensity and density components.

147

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

collect these studies and various models to push the scientific revolution forward, but the goal is not to become Intellectual Yet Idiot (IYI, to paraphrase Nassim Taleb) that sells this as objective ‘evidence-based’ approach. There is much more we do not know and that we do not capture with simple metrics. Chapter 5 will expand more on the topic and the concept of load from a conceptual perspective, but in this chapter I will cover the most common metrics used to track the strength training load. Table 4.24 contains 3 sets (8 reps at 73%, 6 reps at 79%, and 4 reps at 86%) with athlete subjective rating of exertion (RIR). I have provided few summary metrics that I will explain below.

Set 1 2 3

Reps 8 6 4

1RM 150 150 150

%1RM 73% 79% 86%

Load 110 119 129

RIR 4 2 0

NL 8 6 4 18

aRI Tonnage 73% 876 79% 711 86% 516 79% 2103 78%

Impulse 5.84 4.74 3.44 14.02

INOL pred1RM prox1RM 0.30 153 92% 0.29 150 95% 0.29 146 97% 0.87 153 95%

Table 4.24. Common training load summary metrics

Each set is summarized, and then at the bottom the workout summary is provided. Here are the columns Set - Indicate the order of the set. Reps - Indicate how many reps has been planned/performed (here the assumption is that number of reps planned is equal to number of reps performed). 1RM - Represents athletes 1RM of the exercise (or EDM) used to estimate load. %1RM - Percentage of the 1RM used. Load - Calculated weight that needs to be lifted using athlete 1RM and %1RM of the program (Load = 1RM x %1RM). RIR - Reps-In-Reserve. This is a subjective rating that athlete gives after the completion of the set. The above variables represent the usual planning parameters (with the exception of RIR, that can be planned in advance and that can help in selecting the %1RM and reps, but it can also be subjective rating given by the athlete at the end of each set). The variable below are the aggregates or the summaries of each set. NL- represent number of lifts (or reps). The summary at the bottom of the table represents simple sum 148

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

aRI- represents average relative intensity (%1RM) of the set. The summary at the bottom of the table can be calculated in two ways. First option (first number; 79%) is the simple average of three sets ((73% + 79% + 86%) / 3 = 79%). But we can also calculate it using reps, since each set contributed different number of reps to a grand summary. This is done using the weighted average where set percentage is multiplied by number of reps, and finally divided by NL. This is indicated by the second number (78%) and it is calculated the following way: (8 x 73% + 6 x 79% + 4 x 86%) / (8 + 6 + 4). As you will soon see, and I suggest you create an Excel workbook and play with the numbers, this is equal to Impulse / NL. With this very simple example, one can see the “Small World” model at hand - we immediately have the assumptions in the simple aggregate. You can also use average load metric, where instead of %1RM you use average weight. Tonnage- Tonnage is a very common metric and it represents Reps x Load. The summary at the bottom of the table is a simple sum of tonnage of each set. Tonnage corresponds to mechanical work, but without the distance component. Impulse- Impulse is relative tonnage. Imagine doing 3x5 @75% for bench press (1RM = 100kg) and deadlift (1RM = 200kg). Tonnage will be double for the deadlift since the higher absolute load used. Impulse is there to fix this issue and allow comparison between different exercises and individuals possible. Impulse is calculated by multiplying Reps x %1RM for each set, and the summary at the bottom of the table is the simple sum. A simpler way to calculate impulse is to use Tonnage / 1RM. Thus, impulse also tells you how many times you lifted your 1RM. INOL- Intensity of Lift, is the metric created by Hristo Hristov (Hristov, 2005) to improve training prescription using the Prilepin Table. INOL is calculated by the following equation for every set: NL / (100 - 100 x %1RM). For example, set one (8 reps @73%) has INOL equal to 8 / (100 - 73), or 8 / 27, which is equal to 0.3. The summary at the bottom of the table is the simple sum of each set INOL. Hristov suggested the following training guidelines using INOL metric:

149

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Workout INOL Guidelines (per exercise) INOL Sugges�on < 0.4 Too few reps, not enough s�mulus? 0.4 - 1 Fresh, quite doable and op�mal if you are not accumula�ng fa�gue 1-2 Tough, but good for loading phases >2 Brutal Weekly INOL Guidelines (per exercise) INOL Sugges�on <2 Easy, doable, good to do a�er more �ring weeks and prepeaking 2-3 Tough but doable, good for loading phases between 3-4 Brutal, lots of fa�gue, good for a limited �me and shock microcycles >4 Are you out of your mind? Table 4.25. Hristo Hristov guidelines for using INOL metric (Hristov, 2005)

All the above load metrics can be reported per intensity (%1RM) bracket rather than solely with the grand total. For example, one might be interested how many reps are done in the 80-90% range, what is the impulse in that range and so forth. It is always easy to get fancier with load metrics (for example you might calculate the work done using distances that barbell travel, or density using time to complete, which can be useful metric for some type of training, such as Mongoose Persistence or EDT - Escalatory Density Training (Staley, 2005)), but the objective is to be as simple as possible and get few actionable metrics. Having said this, I will contradict myself and introduce some novel metrics in a few paragraphs. To further understand why is this needed, consider the following examples. The two metrics that are left are my invention and are more related to 1RM prediction and the estimate of proximity to 1RM than load: pred1RM-Predicted 1RM is the equation already introduced. It is used to predict 1RM from load used, number of reps done and athlete RIR subjective rating: 1RM = (Weight x (Reps + RIR) x 0.0333) + Weight This is a tool to track (embedded testing) effects - what is potentially happening to 1RM, without directly testing it (either with a true test, or with reps-to-failure). Please note that this prediction is based on Epley’s formula and subjective rating given by the athlete. For this reason it should be supplemented with something more demonstrable, such as plus set. Other options might involve predicted 1RM from loadvelocity relationship (using 2-3 warm-up sets, e.g., 40-60-80%) and the known v1RM (velocity at 1RM) which can be personalized or group averaged. The goal here is not perfect prediction, but a gauge into trends over time that can supplement decision making after a training sprint or a phase. 150

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

prox1RM- Proximity to 1RM represent metric that estimates how close to 1RM a given set is. For example, if you do 5 reps with 100kg (regardless of RIR, since we are interested only in what is manifested), that would correspond to 1RM of (5 x 100 x 0.033) + 100, or 116.5kg. If your 1RM is equal to 130kg, then the ratio, or prox1RM is equal to 116.15 / 130, or 89%. This metric is useful to estimate how aggressive your are with your progressions (assuming no change in the pre-phase 1RM that we use to estimate loads). The higher the prox1RM, the more you are pushing it (will come back to this metric in Chapter 5 when discussing push the ceiling versus pull the floor approaches to planning strength training). Prox1RM is thus calculated: prox1RM = ((Weight x Reps x 0.0333) + Weight) / 1RM or using known %1RM prox1RM = (%1RM x Reps x 0.0333) + %1RM When you use known %1RM, rather than load, you can check the aggressiveness of your planning (given Epley’s formula). Thus, prox1RM is more of a planning tool, than monitoring tool. Table 4.26 contains calculated prox1RM using Load-Exertion table. The take home message is that lower the RIR, higher the prox1RM. Exer�on / Reps in Reserve (RIR) % EDM 100% 94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60%

0 RIR

1 RIR

2 RIR

3 RIR

4 RIR

5 RIR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

0 RIR

1 RIR

2 RIR

3 RIR

4 RIR

5 RIR

6 RIR

100% 94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60%

94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59%

91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58%

88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57%

86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56%

83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55%

81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

6 RIR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

7 RIR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Exer�on / Reps in Reserve (RIR) 8 RIR

9 RIR

10 RIR

11 RIR

12 RIR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

7 RIR

8 RIR

9 RIR

10 RIR

11 RIR

12 RIR

79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53%

77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52%

75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51%

73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% 50%

71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% 50% 49%

70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% 50% 49% 48%

% EDM 100% 94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60%

0 RIR

1 RIR

2 RIR

3 RIR

4 RIR

5 RIR

6 RIR

7 RIR

8 RIR

9 RIR

10 RIR

11 RIR

12 RIR

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%

94% 94% 94% 94% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96%

91% 91% 92% 92% 92% 92% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 94% 94% 94% 94%

89% 89% 89% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 92% 92% 92%

86% 86% 87% 87% 88% 88% 88% 88% 89% 89% 89% 89% 90% 90% 90%

84% 84% 85% 85% 85% 86% 86% 86% 87% 87% 87% 88% 88% 88%

82% 82% 83% 83% 83% 84% 84% 84% 85% 85% 85% 86% 86%

80% 80% 81% 81% 81% 82% 82% 83% 83% 83% 84% 84%

78% 78% 79% 79% 80% 80% 80% 81% 81% 82% 82%

76% 76% 77% 77% 78% 78% 79% 79% 80% 80%

74% 74% 75% 76% 76% 77% 77% 78% 78%

72% 73% 73% 74% 74% 75% 76% 76%

0 RIR

1 RIR

2 RIR

3 RIR

4 RIR

5 RIR

6 RIR

7 RIR

8 RIR

9 RIR

10 RIR

11 RIR

12 RIR

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%

94% 94% 94% 94% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96%

91% 91% 92% 92% 92% 92% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94%

89% 89% 89% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 93%

86% 86% 87% 87% 88% 88% 88% 88% 89% 89% 89% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 91% 91% 91%

84% 84% 85% 85% 85% 86% 86% 86% 87% 87% 87% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 89% 89% 89% 89%

82% 82% 83% 83% 83% 84% 84% 84% 85% 85% 85% 86% 86% 86% 87% 87% 87% 87% 88% 88%

80% 80% 81% 81% 81% 82% 82% 83% 83% 83% 84% 84% 84% 85% 85% 85% 85% 86% 86% 86%

78% 78% 79% 79% 80% 80% 80% 81% 81% 82% 82% 82% 83% 83% 83% 84% 84% 84% 84% 85%

76% 76% 77% 77% 78% 78% 79% 79% 80% 80% 80% 81% 81% 81% 82% 82% 82% 83% 83% 83%

74% 74% 75% 76% 76% 77% 77% 78% 78% 78% 79% 79% 80% 80% 80% 81% 81% 81% 82% 82%

72% 73% 73% 74% 74% 75% 76% 76% 76% 77% 77% 78% 78% 79% 79% 79% 80% 80% 80% 81%

Exer�on / Reps in Reserve (RIR) # Reps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Exer�on / Reps in Reserve (RIR) # Reps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Table 4.26. Proximity to 1RM (prox1RM) calculated using Load-Exertion table

It is important to understand that all the metrics mentioned can be considered both as planning tools, as well as monitoring tools. This is pretty much related to before vs. after, and for this reason it might be interested to collect both, as planned vs. realized. This type of analysis can be done during the research and review phase and it can be quite insightful to figure out what works and what needs adjustment. When it comes to 1RM 151

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

and all the metrics based on it, one can use pre-cycle 1RM (used to estimate the weight to be lifted), as well as to use pred1RM (either using the RIR or using velocity-based predictions) to adjust the metrics. For example, if you plan doing 3x5 with 80% and you use your 1RM which is 150kg, then the load you plan lifting is 120kg. Training load metrics, such as aRI, INOL, Impulse and all other, if bracketing technique is used (i.e. per intensity zone), use this 80% estimate. This is great for planning ahead and assuming pre-cycle 1RM (the one we used to establish weights) doesn’t change. But what if you feel really well on a particular day (which is normal variability in performance and thus 1RM) and your pred1RM shows 160kg? Then all the realized relative metrics will be off. Thus, it could be useful to use adjusted as well as as-planned load metrics (see Table 4.27). This can of course become major pain in the ass, so I recommend collecting the basic metrics, but reviewing and adjusting more frequently. Set 1 2 3

Reps 8 6 4

1RM 150 150 150

%1RM 73% 79% 86%

Load 110 119 129

RIR 4 2 0

NL 8 6 4 18

aRI Tonnage 73% 876 79% 711 86% 516 79% 2103 78%

Impulse 5.84 4.74 3.44 14.02

INOL pred1RM prox1RM 0.30 153 92% 0.29 150 95% 0.29 146 97% 0.87 153 95%

aRI_adj 71% 79% 88% 80% 78%

Impulse_adj 5.72 4.74 3.53 13.98

INOL_adj prox1RM_adj 0.28 90% 0.29 95% 0.34 100% 0.91 95%

Table 4.27. Adding adjusted metrics based on realized performance (using pred1RM)

The long story short is that we need to differentiate between planned vs. realized load metrics. They can be adjusted based on performed training and using pred1RM, or it could be simpler than that using actually reps done by the athlete, and so forth. To make it simpler, I will assume they are equal from now on. Now let’s look at the following two examples in Table 4.28 Try to spot the issues with contemporary load metrics: Sets 3 3 1 10

Reps 5 5 10 1

1RM 150 150 150 150

%1RM 80% 80% 75% 75%

Load 120 120 113 113

RIR 3 1 0 9

NL 15 15 10 10

aRI Tonnage 80% 1800 80% 1800 75% 1125 75% 1125

Impulse 12.00 12.00 7.50 7.50

INOL pred1RM prox1RM 0.75 152 93% 0.75 144 93% 0.40 150 100% 0.40 150 77%

Table 4.28. Two examples of set and rep schemes and contemporary load metrics. Can you spot the issues?

Table 4.28 gives two examples (1) 3 sets of 5 with 120kg but done at RIR 3 vs 1, and (2) 10x1 vs 1x10 with 150kg. With the exception of pred1RM and prox1RM, other load metrics give equal results for two different workouts in the two examples. Doing 3x5 with 150kg with 3RIR or 1RIR gives the same load metrics, which implies that proximity to failure is not taken into consideration with the current metrics. But we all bloody know that these two sets will create different stress on the lifter. Same thing with the second example: doing 1 set of 10, versus 10 sets of 1 gives equal load metrics results. Which brings me back to the “Small World” problem - these metrics are simplified and imperfect representations of the “Large World” complexities. Hence my pluralistic stance towards philosophy of science (see Chapter 1). Again, the problem is not using 152

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Small Worlds, but assuming they are objective truth and publishing using “EvidenceBased Approach”. Imagine (well you do not need to imagine) a bunch of lab coats trying to figure out the ‘optimal’ distribution of Small World metrics to minimize/maximize training effect and calling it ‘objective’ or ‘evidence-based approach’. Well, enough of my rant on lab coats. The potential addition to the above metrics is to somehow rate reps differently based on how close to failure they are. Reps closer to failure (lower RIR) get more weight than reps done away(higher RIR) from failure. One such metric is called exertion load (XL), and it is being developed by Robert Frederick (Frederick, 2017, 2018). Figure 4.9 contains table and chart outlining non-linear weighting of the reps depending of how close they are to failure. The formula for weight is the following:

Weight 1.000 0.807 0.651 0.525 0.423 0.341 0.275 0.222 0.179 0.144 0.116 0.094 0.076 0.061 0.049 0.040

1.200 1.000 0.800

Weight

Rep In Reserve 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

0.600 0.400 0.200 0.000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Rep In Reserve

Figure 4.9. Exertion load weights. Reps closer to failure get more weight

Similarly to how we calculate tonnage, this weight is multiplied with the (absolute) load. Table 4.29 contains two examples for one set of 5 repetition with 120kg, but one with 1RIR and the other with 3RIR. Set of 5reps with 120kg reaching 1RIR on the last rep Load 120 120 120 120 120

Rep 1 2 3 4 5

XL (peripheral) XL (central)

329.54 65.91

RIR 5 4 3 2 1

rep Weight 0.34 0.42 0.52 0.65 0.81

Set of 5reps with 120kg reaching 3RIR on the last rep XL 40.96 50.78 62.96 78.06 96.78 329.54

Load 120 120 120 120 120

Rep 1 2 3 4 5

XL (peripheral) XL (central)

214.37 42.87

RIR 7 6 5 4 3

rep Weight 0.22 0.28 0.34 0.42 0.52

XL 26.64 33.03 40.96 50.78 62.96 214.37

Table 4.29. Example calculus for the exertion load (XL). Robert Frederick differentiates between peripheral XL (pXL) and central XL (cXL) (Frederick, 2017, 2018).

Robert Frederick differentiates between peripheral XL (PXL) and central XL (CXL) (Frederick, 2017, 2018). Peripheral XL is a sum of XL of every rep, while CXL is PXL divided by number of reps. According to Frederic, PXL correlates to peripheral load 153

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

causing peripheral fatigue and represents hypertrophy stimulus, while CXL correlates to central load causing central fatigue and represents strength stimulus. XL metrics can also be expressed relatively (similar to tonnage vs impulse), where rPXL is the sum of rep weights multiplied by %1RM (rather than load), or easier, it represents PXL divided by 1RM. Let's see a few examples combining all the metrics including novel XL metrics. 3x5 with different RIR ra�ng 3x3 vs 3x5 with equal RIR 5x5 with different 1RMs 1x10 vs 10x1 More reps at same load

3x10 Normal 3x10 @70% vs Myoreps (restpause)

Myoreps

Sets 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 1 10 3 3 1 1 1 Total 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total

Reps 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 10 1 8 6 10 10 10

1RM 150 150 150 150 150 150 100 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

%1RM 80% 80% 80% 81% 86% 75% 75% 75% 75% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%

Load 120 120 120 122 129 113 75 113 113 105 105 105 105 105

RIR 1 3 5 2 2 2 2 0 9 3 5 3 2 1

12 4 4 3 3 2 2

150 150 150 150 150 150 150

70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%

105 105 105 105 105 105 105

1 1 0 1 0 1 0

NL 15 15 15 15 9 25 25 10 10 24 18 10 10 10 30 12 4 4 3 3 2 2 30

aRI Tonnage 80% 1800 80% 1800 80% 1800 81% 1823 86% 1161 75% 2813 75% 1875 75% 1125 75% 1125 2520 70% 70% 1890 70% 1050 70% 1050 70% 1050 70% 3150 70% 1260 70% 420 70% 420 70% 315 70% 315 70% 210 70% 210 70% 3150

Impulse 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.15 7.74 18.75 18.75 7.50 7.50 16.80 12.60 7.00 7.00 7.00 21.00 8.40 2.80 2.80 2.10 2.10 1.40 1.40 21.00

INOL 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.79 0.64 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.40 0.80 0.60 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.40 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.07 1.00

PXL 988.62 643.11 418.35 807.33 618.56 1245.88 830.59 513.78 162.48 701.31 402.75 251.59 311.94 386.76 950.29 404.58 252.51 313.08 208.08 257.99 152.99 189.69 1778.92

CXL 197.72 128.62 83.67 161.47 206.19 249.18 166.12 51.38 162.48 87.66 67.12 25.16 31.19 38.68 95.03 33.72 63.13 78.27 69.36 86.00 76.50 94.84 501.81

rPXL 6.59 4.29 2.79 5.38 4.12 8.31 8.31 3.43 1.08 4.68 2.68 1.68 2.08 2.58 6.34 2.70 1.68 2.09 1.39 1.72 1.02 1.26 11.86

rCXL 1.32 0.86 0.56 1.08 1.37 1.66 1.66 0.34 1.08 0.58 0.45 0.17 0.21 0.26 0.63 0.22 0.42 0.52 0.46 0.57 0.51 0.63 3.35

pred1RM 144 152 160 150 150 139 92 150 150 143 143 150 147 143 147 150

prox1RM 93% 93% 93% 94% 95% 87% 87% 100% 77% 89% 84% 93% 93% 93% 93% 98%

150

98%

Table 4.30. Few set and rep examples and accompanying load metrics

The most interesting example from Table 4.30, is the 3x10 versus Myoreps (Fagerli, 2012). Myoreps, or Rest-Pause, involves using one set to failure or very close to it (the first set, usually referred to as activation set), and then, after a short break (usually few breath cycles) performing multiple sets also very close to failure. Table 4.30 utilized 12-4-4-3-3-2-2 Myoreps. What is interesting to note, is that contemporary metrics are equal in 3x10 and Myoreps, while XL metrics show clear benefit of Myoreps in terms of PXL (1779 vs. 950) and CXL (502 vs. 95) while keeping in mind that the number of lifts is the same for both conditions. Table 4.31 contains example for 3x3 @90% and cluster sets (3x5 @90%). Cluster sets involve taking a short break (racking the weight) after every rep. Table is represented ‘per-rep’ with summaries for every set and a summary for the workout. This was needed because RIR is different for every rep during the cluster method. Please keep in mind that this is a fictive example and not the real data collected. What can be seen from the Table 4.31 is that cluster sets accumulate more reps (15 vs. 9) at 90%, with lower RIR (estimated with avgRIR, which takes into accord RIR rating of every rep, rather than only taking last rep’s RIR as the set representative). Cluster set showed higher PXL (1444 vs. 995) but lower CXL (289 vs 332). However, when divided by number of lift, both PXL (96 vs. 110 per rep) and CXL (19 vs. 37 per rep) were lower. I might speculate that clusters allow more reps accumulated at higher %1RM with lower load penalty (as expressed by CXL and PXL per rep). 154

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

If having been a keen reader, you might have realized that I used opposite inferences - with Myoreps I glorified higher XL metrics, while with cluster reps I glorified lower XL metrics. And that is because I am a biased piece of crap and I explained the causes AFTER the fact (and with my priori belief that myoreps and cluster sets are better than straight sets). As a side note, this is the reason why studies need to be preregistered in the first place, otherwise we all fit our narrative to the analysis. The point is, that we do not know, with great confidence, what metrics, as constructs, correlate (or predict) with improvements in hypertrophy and strength during strength training. With Myoreps, I assumed it is the XL metric, while with cluster sets I assumed it is the number of reps over 90% 1RM. The take home message is that these are needed “Small World” models, but at the end of the day, we still don’t know much about causal networks (hence my appreciation of uncertainty with Agile Periodization framework). Unless you asked ‘evidence-based’ overconfident lab coats, of course.

Straight sets 3x3 @90% (135kg)

Set Summary

Set Summary

Set 1 1 1

Rep 1 2 3

1RM 150 150 150

%1RM 90% 90% 90%

Load 135 135 135

RIR 2 1 0

NL 1 1 1

aRI 90% 90% 90%

Tonnage 135 135 135

Impulse 0.90 0.90 0.90

INOL 0.10 0.10 0.10

PXL 87.82 108.88 135.00

CXL 29.27 36.29 45.00

rPXL 0.59 0.73 0.90

rCXL 0.20 0.24 0.30

1 1 1

3 1 2 3

150 150 150 150

70% 90% 90% 90%

105 135 135 135

1.00 2 1 0

3 1 1 1

90% 90% 90% 90%

405 135 135 135

2.70 0.90 0.90 0.90

0.30 0.10 0.10 0.10

331.70 87.82 108.88 135.00

110.57 29.27 36.29 45.00

2.21 0.59 0.73 0.90

0.74 0.20 0.24 0.30

1 1 1

3 1 2 3

150 150 150 150

70% 90% 90% 90%

105 135 135 135

1.00 2 1 0

3 1 1 1

90% 90% 90% 90%

405 135 135 135

2.70 0.90 0.90 0.90

0.30 0.10 0.10 0.10

331.70 87.82 108.88 135.00

110.57 29.27 36.29 45.00

2.21 0.59 0.73 0.90

0.74 0.20 0.24 0.30

3

150

70%

105

1.00

3

90%

405

2.70

0.30

331.70

110.57

2.21

0.74

avg1RM avg%1RM 150 90%

avgLoad 135

avgRIR 1.00

NL 9

aRI 90%

Tonnage 1215

Impulse 8.10

INOL 0.90

PXL 995.11

CXL 331.70

rPXL 6.63

rCXL 2.21

%1RM 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 70% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 70% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 70%

Load 135 135 135 135 135 105 135 135 135 135 135 105 135 135 135 135 135 105

RIR 2 2 2 1 1 1.60 2 2 2 1 1 1.60 2 2 2 1 1 1.60

NL 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5

aRI 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

Tonnage 135 135 135 135 135 675 135 135 135 135 135 675 135 135 135 135 135 675

Impulse 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 4.50 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 4.50 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 4.50

INOL 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.50

PXL 87.82 87.82 87.82 108.88 108.88 481.22 87.82 87.82 87.82 108.88 108.88 481.22 87.82 87.82 87.82 108.88 108.88 481.22

CXL 17.56 17.56 17.56 21.78 21.78 96.24 17.56 17.56 17.56 21.78 21.78 96.24 17.56 17.56 17.56 21.78 21.78 96.24

rPXL 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.73 0.73 3.21 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.73 0.73 3.21 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.73 0.73 3.21

rCXL 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.64 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.64 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.64

avg1RM avg%1RM 150 90%

avgLoad 135

avgRIR 1.60

NL 15

aRI 90%

Tonnage 2025

Impulse 13.50

INOL 1.50

PXL 1443.67

CXL 288.73

rPXL 9.62

rCXL 1.92

Set Summary Workout

Sets 3

avgReps 3

Cluster sets 3x5 @90% (135kg)

Set Summary

Set Summary

Set Summary Workout

Set 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Sets 3

Rep 1 2 3 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 5

avgReps 5

1RM 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

Table 4.31. Straight sets 3x3 @90% versus Cluster Sets 3x5 @90%

155

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

To wrap this segment on XL metrics, the following two tables (Table 4.32 and Table 4.33) contains calculated rPXL and rCXL for Load-Exertion table. Exer�on / Reps in Reserve (RIR) % 1RM 100% 94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60%

0 RIR

1 RIR

2 RIR

3 RIR

4 RIR

5 RIR

6 RIR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

0 RIR

1 RIR

2 RIR

3 RIR

4 RIR

5 RIR

6 RIR

100% 94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60%

94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59%

91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58%

88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57%

86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56%

83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55%

81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

7 RIR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Exer�on / Reps in Reserve (RIR) 8 RIR

9 RIR

10 RIR

11 RIR

12 RIR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

7 RIR

8 RIR

9 RIR

10 RIR

11 RIR

12 RIR

79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53%

77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52%

75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51%

73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% 50%

71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% 50% 49%

70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% 50% 49% 48%

% 1RM 100% 94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60%

0 RIR

1 RIR

2 RIR

3 RIR

4 RIR

5 RIR

6 RIR

7 RIR

8 RIR

9 RIR

10 RIR

11 RIR

12 RIR

1.00 1.69 2.23 2.63 2.92 3.12 3.26 3.35 3.40 3.43 3.43 3.41 3.39 3.35 3.31 3.26 3.22 3.16 3.11 3.06

0.76 1.32 1.75 2.06 2.29 2.45 2.56 2.63 2.68 2.70 2.70 2.69 2.67 2.64 2.61 2.58 2.54 2.50 2.46

0.59 1.04 1.37 1.62 1.80 1.92 2.01 2.07 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.12 2.11 2.09 2.06 2.03 2.01 1.98

0.46 0.81 1.07 1.27 1.41 1.51 1.58 1.63 1.66 1.67 1.68 1.67 1.66 1.65 1.63 1.61 1.59

0.36 0.64 0.84 1.00 1.11 1.19 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.31 1.30 1.29 1.27

0.28 0.50 0.66 0.78 0.87 0.94 0.98 1.01 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.02

0.22 0.39 0.52 0.62 0.69 0.74 0.77 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.81

0.18 0.31 0.41 0.48 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65

0.14 0.24 0.32 0.38 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51

0.11 0.19 0.25 0.30 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.41

0.09 0.15 0.20 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.32

0.07 0.12 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.25

0.05 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.19

0 RIR

1 RIR

2 RIR

3 RIR

4 RIR

5 RIR

6 RIR

7 RIR

8 RIR

9 RIR

10 RIR

11 RIR

12 RIR

1.00 1.69 2.23 2.63 2.92 3.12 3.26 3.35 3.40 3.43 3.43 3.41 3.39 3.35 3.31 3.26 3.22 3.16 3.11 3.06

0.76 1.32 1.75 2.06 2.29 2.45 2.56 2.63 2.68 2.70 2.70 2.69 2.67 2.64 2.61 2.58 2.54 2.50 2.46 2.42

0.59 1.04 1.37 1.62 1.80 1.92 2.01 2.07 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.12 2.11 2.09 2.06 2.03 2.01 1.98 1.95 1.91

0.46 0.81 1.07 1.27 1.41 1.51 1.58 1.63 1.66 1.67 1.68 1.67 1.66 1.65 1.63 1.61 1.59 1.56 1.54 1.51

0.36 0.64 0.84 1.00 1.11 1.19 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.31 1.30 1.29 1.27 1.25 1.24 1.22 1.20

0.28 0.50 0.66 0.78 0.87 0.94 0.98 1.01 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.95

0.22 0.39 0.52 0.62 0.69 0.74 0.77 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.75

0.18 0.31 0.41 0.48 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.60 0.60

0.14 0.24 0.32 0.38 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.47

0.11 0.19 0.25 0.30 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.37

0.09 0.15 0.20 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.30

0.07 0.12 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24

0.05 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19

Exer�on / Reps in Reserve (RIR) # Reps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Exer�on / Reps in Reserve (RIR) # Reps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Table 4.32. Relative PXL estimated using Load-Exertion table. Please note that there seems to be an area with the highest rPXL (red), which indicated the highest stimuli for hypertrophy (given XL model). Keep in mind that this is Small World model Exer�on / Reps in Reserve (RIR) % 1RM 100% 94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60%

0 RIR

1 RIR

2 RIR

3 RIR

4 RIR

5 RIR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

0 RIR

1 RIR

2 RIR

3 RIR

4 RIR

5 RIR

6 RIR

100% 94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60%

94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59%

91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58%

88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57%

86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56%

83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55%

81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

6 RIR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

7 RIR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Exer�on / Reps in Reserve (RIR) 8 RIR

9 RIR

10 RIR

11 RIR

12 RIR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

7 RIR

8 RIR

9 RIR

10 RIR

11 RIR

12 RIR

79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53%

77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52%

75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51%

73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% 50%

71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% 50% 49%

70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% 50% 49% 48%

% 1RM 100% 94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75% 73% 71% 70% 68% 67% 65% 64% 63% 61% 60%

0 RIR

1 RIR

2 RIR

3 RIR

4 RIR

5 RIR

6 RIR

7 RIR

8 RIR

9 RIR

10 RIR

11 RIR

12 RIR

1.00 0.85 0.74 0.66 0.58 0.52 0.47 0.42 0.38 0.34 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15

0.76 0.66 0.58 0.52 0.46 0.41 0.37 0.33 0.30 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13

0.59 0.52 0.46 0.40 0.36 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11

0.46 0.41 0.36 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09

0.36 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08

0.28 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07

0.22 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06

0.18 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05

0.14 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04

0.11 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04

0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03

0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03

0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02

0 RIR

1 RIR

2 RIR

3 RIR

4 RIR

5 RIR

6 RIR

7 RIR

8 RIR

9 RIR

10 RIR

11 RIR

12 RIR

1.00 0.85 0.74 0.66 0.58 0.52 0.47 0.42 0.38 0.34 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15

0.76 0.66 0.58 0.52 0.46 0.41 0.37 0.33 0.30 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12

0.59 0.52 0.46 0.40 0.36 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10

0.46 0.41 0.36 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08

0.36 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06

0.28 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.22 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04

0.18 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03

0.14 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02

0.11 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01

0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Exer�on / Reps in Reserve (RIR) # Reps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Exer�on / Reps in Reserve (RIR) # Reps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Table 4.33. Relative CXL estimated using Load-Exertion table. Please note that there seems to be an area with the highest rCXL (red), which indicated the highest stimuli for strength (given XL model). Keep in mind that this is Small World model

156

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Table 4.33. Relative CXL estimated using Load-Exertion table. Please note that there seems to be an area with the highest rCXL (red), which indicated the highest stimuli for strength (given XL model). Keep in mind that this is Small World model

Ballistic Movements As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, prescription for ballistic movements is a bit tricky (or trickier compared to grinding movements). Ballistic movements are tricky to define as well - they usually have a flight phase, where the implement or the body travels through the space (e.g., vertical jump, bench throw, broad jump). But it is not that easy - if you take a look at classification on the Figure 3.4, ballistic movements also consist of Olympic lifting and “fast grinding”, neither of which has “open” end point, where the implement “flies off”34. These two categories have defined stopping points. Could it be that definition of ballistic movement is similar to the definition of pornography: “I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it.” To me, ballistic either has a flight phase (object or the body), or it is done with the explosive effort. For example, sub maximal squat jumps have flight phase, but are not done with maximal explosive effort, while explosive squats have explosive effort, but no flight phase. Olympic lifting can be considered explosive since there is explosive effort, but there is also a small “flight” of the barbell, before one catches it at a specific point and rhythm. Compared to, say, squat jumps, in Olympic lifting (i.e., snatch, clean) sub-max weights are also caught with the same rhythm and at the same height. Otherwise, one would accelerate the bar so high, that the technique would be modified, and one might end up performing ‘muscle’ variants of the snatch and clean. For this reason, I think Load-Velocity profiling of the Olympic lifting is bullshit. If the barbell reaches same point and path with the same movement rhythm, that means that the velocity needs to be quite similar across loads. With the fast grinding movements, there will be some “breaking phase”. This is needed to actually prevent the implement or the body becoming ballistic. This method, termed “dynamic effort method” or (DE), is a staple in Westside Barbell programs (Simmons, 2007) and involves lifting 50-60% of 1RM for few reps (2-3) as fast as possible35. Shorter break, and repeated for around 10 sets. This is sometimes accompanied with the use of accommodating resistance, such as bands or chains, which 34 Some Olympic lifting derivatives, like Snatch High Pull doesn’t have fixed end point 35 This can mean multiple things: (1) concentric portion of the lift is as fast as possible, (2) both eccentric and concentric are as fast as possible, followed by a pause, and (3) all reps are done as fast as possible.

157

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

increase the weight at the top (hence reduce this “breaking phase”). Some coaches, like Mike Tuchscherer (Tuchscherer, 2013a,b)36 are critics of this method. But usually these type of disagreement happened due “Small World” models using a single metric that is defined as a construct that causes adaptation and improvement. For example, the idea behind DE is that compensatory acceleration during concentric range produce high forces, and those high forces are what drives adaptation. Well, according to research, Mike, and some of my own observations, forces (peak forces) with submaximal fast grinding movements are not that high37. But then, are the peak forces the only thing that causes adaptation? What about second-order effect of such a workout within bigger picture? These are all things that need to be considered when discussing cause and effects. For this reason, I am neither for nor against “fast grinding” - I am enlisting them and discussing them in this manual for the sake of completeness - it is up to you if you want to use them. When it comes to ‘true’ ballistic movements (i.e., not Olympic lifting nor fast grinding), we have two issues to solve: (1) what is 1RM in the ballistic movement, and (2) what is failure in the ballistic movement. I will discuss these two separately, but will also include their application to Olympic and fast grinding movements (and other applications).

What is 1RM with ballistic movements Figuring out 1RM with Olympic lifting is relatively easy - it is the maximal weight that you can clean, jerk or snatch. Fast grinding, usually uses 50-60% of the grinding 1RM (e.g., if your squat 1RM is 200kg, for dynamic effort you should use around 100120kg). But what about say, jump squats, or bench press throw?38 What would be the highest load (1RM) that can be used in training with ballistic movements? One simple rule of thumb (i.e., heuristic) that can be used, is that implement (i.e., barbell) or body needs to travel at least 10-15cm. This means that if you increase load in the movement, eventually you will not be able to jump or throw over 10-15cm. Since this is the load after which the movement pretty much looks like crap, it can be considered 1RM for the movement. Using the ballistic equation: 36 I wrote response to Mike Tuchscherer’s opinion (Jovanovic, 2013b,c) 37 According to my bench press data (N=1), to reach over 90% of Peak Force output one needs to use loads over 82% 1RM. To reach over 80% of Peak Force output one need to use more than 68% 1RM. Both above recommended 50-60% 1RM for Dynamic Effort method (“fast grinding”) (Jovanovic, 2013b,c) 38 I will exclude other type of jumps and throws here, and focus mainly to ‘barbell’ ballistic movements, such as hex bar jump, squat jump, bench throw.

158

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

or

10cm is equal to 1.4 m/s. This refers to take-off-velocity (TOV) of the barbell (in say bench throw) or center-of-mass (COM) of the barbell-body system (as in squat jump). Thus, it is tricky to use this threshold in Load-Velocity profiling, particularly with squat jump. Also, note that TOV is quite similar to peak-velocity (PV), but not the same, since there will be some deceleration involved just before take off. But again, other quality thresholds can be used if you have specialized equipment to use. In the ideal world, one can use force plate, contact mat or LPT (linear position transducer) to estimate this from 3 to 4 load increments. The easiest would be to use contact mat and measure jump height across loads, and figure out load for 10cm jump height using linear or polynomial regression (which means that when performing load profiling, one doesn’t need to go to 1RM, particularly with ballistic movements). But in the real world, most don’t have access to this equipment, so we need to use simple to remember heuristics. The question is, how is ballistic 1RM related to grinding 1RM (e.g., bench throw to bench press, squat jump to back squat)? Of course, this will differ depending on whether there is a concentric only or countermovement action, experience of the lifter, type of movement and so forth. But what would be simple, conservative and easy to remember rule of thumb that could be used as a prior when figuring out the highest load for ballistic movement, and something we can use to prescribe? The simple solution would be half or 50%. For example, if your squat 1RM is 180kg, squat jump 1RM is 90kg. Perfect? Oh hell no! Useful? Probably good conservative 159

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

estimate you can use. Will you use this load? Hell no - we will use this as 1RM to prescribe off, same as we did with the grinding movements. Thus, one will jump with much smaller weight. In either way, I suggest using some type of measurement - it can also be your eyes. If it looks like shit, smells like shit, taste like shit, it probably is shit. With ballistic movements, it is always useful to start light, and progress from there. No amount of profiling can beat this common sense. Total System Load Mike Boyle (Boyle, Verstegen & Cosgrove, 2010) suggested using 40% of the total system load (e.g. bodyweight + barbell load in the squat) for squat jump load when training (see Table 4.34). Please note that this is not squat jump 1RM, but rather suggested load for training.

Athlete A Athlete B Athlete C Athlete D

Bodyweight 75 100 80 80

1RM 150 150 150 200

Total 225 250 230 280

40% 90 100 92 112

SJ with 15 0 12 32

Table 4.34. Mike Boyle recommendation for suggesting squat jump load (Boyle, Verstegen & Cosgrove, 2010)

I believe that this "Mike Boyle rule" is too conservative, but it could be applied when working with complete noobs, particularly with the squat jump. It is better to be safe than sorry. What is interesting, is that Mike pinpoints the issues of not taking bodyweight into account. As already explained in this chapter, there is no a single, objective approach, but rather pluralistic approaches, particularly when external versus total system are considered. If one plans performing load profiling, then exact external load can be estimated (1RM), and if one doesn’t plan changing bodyweight much (e.g. over 10%) over the next few weeks, then total system load approach is not needed. Similarly to what is being discussed before, total system load makes complete sense, but it makes things more complex and assumes everything else is correct. Adding more complexity to uncertain estimates to begin with, doesn’t make things more precise - it makes it look more ‘scientific’ and probably less useful. Hence I opt for the less precise, but simpler approaches in this manual, by using them as priors and using your common sense to adjust on the go and across training sprints and phases. Peak Power Bullshit, or Peak Bullshit Some Intellectuals Yet Idiots (IYIs) believe that there is a magic load that produces peak power at which individuals should train. This is utter bullshit. First, the calculus 160

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

of this Peak Power (PP) Load depends on the metric used (e.g., mean velocity, peak velocity, take-off velocity), whether this velocity is related to barbell only, or COM, whether the load is only external or total system load. All of these will give different locations of PP (Jovanovic, 2013a). Second, the jump over Is/Ought gap is believing that lifting load associated with PP will somehow magically improve the Power construct. If you remember from Chapter 2, this is reflective vs. formative model (Figure 2.19). In this regard, I am taking constructivist stance and believe that this represents formative model - or just a numerical representation and simplification. In addition, I particularly don’t believe one should train solely at this optimal load that produces PP, but rather across different loads (Jovanovic, 2013a). It is formative Small World model, and IYIs would argue and publish useless scientific papers (you must admit that “The optimal load to train peak power” sounds scientific, but if you scratch the surface, it is bullshit) until the cows come home. I just don’t buy that crap, nor should you. All the “optimization” models are based on a single or few parameters of the Small World that needs to be optimized so the target variable maximizes or minimizes. To conclude, the highest load that can be used in ballistic movement (i.e., not the Olympic lifting or fast grinding) is around 50% of related grinding exercise 1RM (this heuristic will be applied to small number of exercises: squat jump, bench throw, hex bar jump). This has NOTHING to do with Peak Power bullshit propaganda, but it is rather a simple rule of thumb to base off your loads using special variation of the LoadExertion table. It bears repeating that doesn’t mean you should train at this load - they represent maximal loads, and you can always (and probably should) start lower.

What is failure with ballistic movements (and how many reps to do) So now we have 1RM of the ballistic exercise. How many max reps can (or should) be performed at say, 90% or 80% 1RM? Here we need to differentiate between quality reps which are done with the aim of improving explosiveness as a quality, and fatigue reps which are done to improve some type of explosive endurance39 . Quality reps hence have some type of the quality threshold over which one doesn’t go. This could usually mean 10-20% drop in height, power, velocity or what have you. With fatigue reps, the performance might drop much further, and might approach a failure point. In this 39 As a keen reader, you have probably noticed that I have performed a jump over Is/Ought gap here. I have assumed that quality reps improve “explosiveness”, while fatigue reps improve “ability to maintain explosiveness” (explosive endurance). It is thus better to classify based on the action performed, rather than potential outcome.

161

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

case, failure point is defined similarly as ballistic 1RM - a point where height of the implement or the body doesn’t reach 10cm. When it comes to Olympic lifting, this quality threshold is tricky to measure, and might indicate change in technique, rhythm, depth of the catch and so forth. Prilepin table (Table 4.35) has traditionally been applied as heuristic to suggest number of reps per set, as well as number of lifts. Prilepin's Chart % 1RM

90% + 80-90% 70-80% 55-65%

Reps per set

Total Reps Op�mal

Total Reps Range

1 to 2 2 to 4 3 to 6 3 to 6

7 15 18 24

4 to 10 10 to 20 12 to 24 18 to 30

Volume Guidelines HIGH MEDIUM LOW Total Reps Total Reps Total Reps 10 7 4 20 15 10 24 18 12 30 24 18

Table 4.35. Prilepin Table

Fast grinding movements have been already discussed, and they involve sets of 2-3 reps at around 50% of 1RM. For other bodyweight movements (i.e., jumps and throws), when done intensively (with the maximal intent), the highest number of reps should be around 5 to 6, after which the quality drops. If these are done extensively (sub-maximal intent), for example rhythmical jumps, then this number can go higher. In any case, it is up to you to decide what are you trying to do and what to achieve. One thing that I’ve noticed analyzing some of my data as well as other studies, is that during the grinding movements, if we use velocity loss40 of 10-20% (i.e., quality threshold) then the number of quality reps are halved compared to the maximal number of reps that are potentially possible. For example, if one uses 10RM, which is approximately around 75% 1RM (given Epley’s formula) maximal number of reps is 10. The 10-20% threshold will happen at around half that number, or 5 in this case41. It has been shown that minimizing and controlling for this velocity (or quality) drop with the grinding movements, using LPTs or other velocity measurement tools, one minimizes fatigue between sessions and negative effects of lifting to maximal training adaptations (Sánchez-Medina & González-Badillo, 2011; González Badillo, 2017; Pareja-Blanco et al., 2017b,a; Jovanovic, 2017c).This simple heuristic can be very useful for athletes who are in-season, who are just starting to lift (to minimize the soreness as well), or for those who have a lot of other training sessions. Therefore, this one-half heuristic can be applied to Load-Exertion table to indicate threshold for quality reps. Converting this to 40 Velocity is calculated using fastest rep, usually the first rep. For example, if velocity loss 10% is used, one performs repetitions in a set until velocity doesn’t drop more than 10%. 41 This represents rough rule of thumb from my re-analysis of some published papers and my own data (Jovanovic, 2017c). This heuristic will be covered in the PhD papers I am writing.

162

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

equation, this means that %1RM associated with a particular number of reps is the one associated with double reps: %1RM = 1 / (0.0333 x Reps x 2 + 1) %1RM = 1 / (0.0666 x Reps + 1) or Reps = (15.015 / %1RM) - 15.015 Table 4.36 might convey this one-half heuristic a bit better.

Max Reps Reps %1RM 1 100% 2 94% 3 91% 4 88% 5 86% 6 83% 7 81% 8 79% 9 77% 10 75% 11 73% 12 71%

Quality Reps Reps %1RM 1 94% 2 88% 3 83% 4 79% 5 75% 6 71% 7 68% 8 65% 9 63% 10 60% 11 58% 12 56%

Table 4.36. Quality reps (i.e. reps done over quality threshold, usually 10-20% velocity drop

The question that remains unanswered is whether this can be applied to ballistic lifts (e.g. squat jump, hex bar jump, bench throw). This is questionable, since I am not sure if Epley’s formula can be applied to them as well (how many reps over 10cm height one can do at given %1RM). But assuming it can be applied, using 0.0666 instead of 0.0333 in Load-Exertion table, one can get a special version of this table that I termed Ballistic Load-Exertion Table. Please note that this is still quite speculative (particularly its application to ballistic lifts). Table 4.37 contains Ballistic Load-Exertion Table together with Prilepin Table for the sake of comparison.

163

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Exer�on / Reps in Reserve (RIR) % 1RM 94% 88% 83% 79% 75% 71% 68% 65% 63% 60%

Max reps

1 rep short

2 reps short

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Max reps

1 rep short

2 reps short

94% 88% 83% 79% 75% 71% 68% 65% 63% 60%

88% 83% 79% 75% 71% 68% 65% 63% 60% 58%

83% 79% 75% 71% 68% 65% 63% 60% 58% 56%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Prilepin's Chart 5 reps short

Reps per set

Total Reps Op�mal

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5

1 to 2 2 to 4 2 to 4 3 to 6 3 to 6 3 to 6 3 to 6 3 to 6 3 to 6 3 to 6

7 15 15 18 18 18 24 24 24 24

3 reps short

4 reps short

5 reps short

79% 75% 71% 68% 65% 63% 60% 58% 56% 54%

75% 71% 68% 65% 63% 60% 58% 56% 54% 52%

71% 68% 65% 63% 60% 58% 56% 54% 52% 50%

3 reps short

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 reps short

Volume Guidelines Total Reps Range 4 to 10 10 to 20 10 to 20 12 to 24 12 to 24 12 to 24 18 to 30 18 to 30 18 to 30 18 to 30

HIGH

MEDIUM

LOW

Total Reps 10 20 20 24 24 24 30 30 30 30

Total Reps 7 15 15 18 18 18 24 24 24 24

Total Reps 4 10 10 12 12 12 18 18 18 18

Exer�on / Reps in Reserve (RIR) # Reps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Table 4.37. Ballistic Load-Exertion Table

The Ballistic Load-Exertion table can be used for planning grinding movements42, Olympic lifts, and potentially to ballistic lifts such as hex bar jump, bench throw and squat jump. The max 6 reps heuristic can be applied here as well. Table 4.38 contains example of using known hex bar deadlift (grinding movement) to estimate load for hex bar jump (ballistic) using half-load and half-reps heuristics. Load ratio column from Table 4.38 indicates simpler heuristic suggested by Dan Baker43 when prescribing load for jump squats and bench throws using current cycle squat and bench press reps and loads (for example, if one uses 3x5 with 110kg bench press, then bench throw is 40% of that or 3x5 with 45kg). It is important to remember that prescription for ballistic movements is tricky (particularly if one wants a specific number of reps and load) and that the presented heuristics for planning ballistic movements should be taken with a grain of salt. Ballistic Load-Exertion table can be useful for prescribing Olympic lifting and for estimating maximal load for ballistic movements. With Olympic lifting, I personally prefer looser prescription (either using rep or intensity zones) and go by feel, as well as using progressive warm-up sets. When it comes to ballistic movements, such as bench throws and hex bar jumps, load can really vary, and in this particular situation, Ballistic Load-Exertion table can be used just to make sure not to overdo it (ideally, you want to use some type of live feedback and velocity monitoring). For other types of ballistic movements (e.g. bodyweight jumps, and throws) the above recommendations, besides 42 With the aim of minimizing fatigue and soreness (although the total number of reps will be more important) with in-season athletes, athletes just starting up (who are learning techniques), or those who are training with very high frequency (although some go even lower with %ages) 43 Dan Baker actually suggest using 40-60% (Joyce, 2014)

164

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

limiting number of reps to 5-6, is pretty much useless. The next chapter will discuss planning the training phase using Load-Exertion and Ballistic Load-Exertion tables to create two methods of progression. As always, it is important to remember that these are all “Small World” models. We need to keep that in mind.

# Reps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Grinding 1RM %1RM 100% 94% 91% 88% 86% 83% 81% 79% 77% 75%

150 Load 150 141 136 132 129 125 122 118 115 113

Ballis�c 1RM %1RM 94% 88% 83% 79% 75% 71%

50% 75 Load 70 66 63 59 56 54

Load Ra�o 47% 47% 46% 45% 44% 43%

Figure 4.38. Example load calculus for hex bar jumps using known hex bar deadlift 1RM.

165

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Appendix: Exercise List

166

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Name Clean (Blocks) Clean High Pull (Blocks) Clean Pull (Blocks) Snatch (Blocks) Snatch High Pull (Blocks) Snatch Pull (Blocks) Clean Clean High Pull Clean Pull Power Clean Split Clean Clean & Jerk Power Snatch Snatch Snatch Balance Snatch High Pull Snatch Pull Split Snatch Clean (Hang) Clean (Muscle) Clean High Pull (Hang) Clean Pull (Hang) Power Clean (Hang) Power Snatch (Hang) Snatch (Hang) Snatch (Muscle) Snatch High Pull (Hang) Snatch Pull (Hang) Rack Pull Deadli� Snatch Grip Deadli� Sumo Deadli� Bridge (Straight Leg Ball) Bridge (Straight Leg) Bridge Drop Downs (Ball) Bridge Li� and Curl (Ball) Bridge Li� and Curl (Slide Board) Glute Bridge (Ball) Glute Bridge (Elevated Feet) Glute Ham Raise (GHR) Hip Thrust (Ball) Hyper 45 degree Hyper 90 degree Nordic Curl Pull Through Reverse Hyper Sumo Pull Through DB Romanian Deadli� Glute Bridge (Floor) Good Morning Hip Thrust (Bench) Romanian Deadli� Sumo Good Morning Sumo Romanian Deadli� Trap Bar Romania Deadli� Zercher Romanian Deadli� Bridge 1-Leg (Straight Leg Ball) Bridge 1-Leg (Straight Leg) Bridge Drop Downs (Slide Board) Bridge Drop Downs 1-Leg (Ball) Bridge Drop Downs 1-Leg (Slide Board) Bridge Li� and Curl 1-Leg (Ball) Bridge Li� and Curl 1-Leg (Slide Board) Glute Bridge 1-Leg (Ball) Glute Bridge 1-Leg (Elevated Feet) Glute Bridge 1-Leg (Floor) Glute Bridge 1-Leg Alterna�ng (Floor) Hip Thrust 1-Leg (Ball) Hip Thrust 1-Leg (Bench) Hyper 45 degree 1-Leg Hyper 90 degree 1-Leg Lateral Bridge 1-Leg (Straight Leg Ball) Lateral Bridge 1-Leg (Straight Leg) Reverse Hyper 1-Leg DB Romanian Deadli� 1-Arm/1-Leg (Contralateral) DB Romanian Deadli� 1-Arm/1-Leg (Ipsilateral) DB Romanian Deadli� 2-Arm/1-Leg Good Morning 1-Leg Plate Good Morning 1-Leg (Overhead) Romanian Deadli� 1-Leg Barbell Curls DB Curls Rings Inverted Row 1-Arm 1-Arm/1-Leg Row (Contralateral) 1-Arm/1-Leg Row (Ipsilateral) Bench Pull Bent Over Row Cable Row (Neutral) Cable Row (Pronated) Cable Row (Rope) Cable Row (Supinated) Chest Supported Row DB Bench Row 1-Arm DB Bench Row 2-Arm DB Bent Over Row 1-Arm (Neutral) DB Bent Over Row 1-Arm (Wide)

Category Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Ballis�c Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding

Pa�ern Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Olympic Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull

Variant Blocks Blocks Blocks Blocks Blocks Blocks Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Ground Hang Hang Hang Hang Hang Hang Hang Hang Hang Hang Blocks Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Accessory Accessory Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal

% 95% 75% 105% 95% 75% 105% 100% 80% 110% 85% 90% 100% 85% 100% 80% 80% 110% 90% 95% 60% 75% 105% 80% 80% 95% 60% 75% 105% 110% 100% 75% 100%

Related to Clean Clean Clean Snatch Snatch Snatch Clean Clean Clean Clean Clean Clean and Jerk Snatch Snatch Snatch Snatch Snatch Snatch Clean Clean Clean Clean Clean Snatch Snatch Snatch Snatch Snatch Deadli� Deadli� Deadli� Deadli� None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None 35% Squat 105% Squat 50% Squat 100% Squat 75% Squat 40% Squat 65% Squat 75% Squat 70% Squat None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None 30% Squat 25% Squat 20% Squat 30% Squat 10% Squat 45% Squat 35% Pull-up 20% Pull-up None 25% Pull-Up 25% Pull-Up 70% Pull-Up 65% Pull-Up 60% Pull-Up 60% Pull-Up 60% Pull-Up 60% Pull-Up 70% Pull-Up 35% Pull-Up 30% Pull-Up 35% Pull-Up 30% Pull-Up

%BW Used 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Equipment Used Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Fitness Ball Bodyweight Fitness Ball Fitness Ball Slideboard Fitness Ball Bodyweight Machine Fitness Ball Machine Machine Bodyweight Machine Machine Machine Dumbells Barbell Barbell Bodyweight Barbell Barbell Barbell Trap Bar Barbell Fitness Ball Bodyweight Slideboard Fitness Ball Slideboard Fitness Ball Slideboard Fitness Ball Bodyweight Bodyweight Bodyweight Fitness Ball Bodyweight Machine Machine Fitness Ball Bodyweight Machine Dumbells Dumbells Dumbells Barbell Plates Barbell Barbell Dumbells Gymnas�c rings Dumbells Dumbells Barbell Barbell Machine Machine Machine Machine Machine Dumbells Dumbells Dumbells Dumbells

Note

From 95-105%

* Each dumbell >105%

* Each dumbell

* Each dumbell

167 * Each dumbell * Each dumbell * Each dumbell * Each dumbell

Good Morning 1-Leg Plate Good Morning 1-Leg (Overhead) Romanian Deadli� 1-Leg Barbell Curls DB Curls Rings Inverted Row 1-Arm 1-Arm/1-Leg Row (Contralateral) 1-Arm/1-Leg Row (Ipsilateral) Bench Pull Bent Over Row Name Cable (Blocks) Row (Neutral) Clean Cable High Row (Pronated) Clean Pull (Blocks) Cable Pull Row(Blocks) (Rope) Clean Cable Row (Supinated) Snatch (Blocks) Chest Supported Row Snatch High Pull (Blocks) DB Bench 1-Arm Snatch PullRow (Blocks) DB Bench Row 2-Arm Clean DB Bent Over Clean High PullRow 1-Arm (Neutral) DB Bent Clean PullOver Row 1-Arm (Wide) DB BentClean Over Row 2-Arm (Alterna�ng) Power DB Over Row 2-Arm (Neutral) SplitBent Clean DB Bent Over Row 2-Arm (Wide) Clean & Jerk Rings PowerInverted Snatch Row (Neutral) Rings SnatchInverted Row (Rota�on) Rings SnatchInverted BalanceRow (Wide) Bar PullHigh Ups Pull (Neutral) Snatch Bar Pull Ups (Pronated) Snatch Pull Bar Ups (Supinated) SplitPull Snatch Pull Down (Neutral) Clean (Hang) Pull Down (Pronated) Clean (Muscle) Pull Down Clean High(Supinated) Pull (Hang) Pull Down (Wide) Clean Pull (Hang) Rings Pull Ups(Hang) (Neutral) Power Clean Rings Pull Ups (Hang) (Pronated) Power Snatch Rings Ups (Supinated) SnatchPull (Hang) Rings Ups (Wide) SnatchPull (Muscle) Rope SnatchClimbs High Pull (Hang) Towel Pull-ups Snatch Pull (Hang) BenchPull Press Rack DB Bench Press 1-Arm Deadli� DB Bench Press 2-Arm Snatch Grip Deadli� DB Bench Press 2-Arm (Alterna�ng) Sumo Deadli� DB Floor Press Leg Ball) Bridge (Straight DB Incline BenchLeg) Press 1-Arm Bridge (Straight DB Incline Bench Press 2-Arm Bridge Drop Downs (Ball) DB Incline Press 2-Arm (Alterna�ng) Bridge Li� Bench and Curl (Ball) DeclineLi� Bench Bridge and Press Curl (Slide Board) Floor Press Glute Bridge (Ball) InclineBridge Bench(Elevated Press Glute Feet) Push Ups Glute Ham(Narrow) Raise (GHR) PushThrust Ups (Normal) Hip (Ball) Push Ups (Wide) Hyper 45 degree Ring PushUps (Normal) Hyper 90 degree Ring PushUps Nordic Curl (Wide) DipsThrough Pull Ring DipsHyper Reverse 1/2 Kneeling KB Press Sumo Pull Through 1/2Romanian Kneeling Land Mine Press DB Deadli� DB Press 1-Arm Glute Bridge (Floor) DB Press 2-Arm Good Morning DB Press (Alterna�ng) Hip Thrust2-Arm (Bench) DB Push Press 1-Arm Romanian Deadli� DB Push Press 2-Arm Sumo Good Morning KB Press 1-Arm Deadli� Sumo Romanian KB Press 2-Arm Deadli� Trap Bar Romania KB PressRomanian 2-Arm (Alterna�ng) Zercher Deadli� KB Push1-Leg Press(Straight 1-Arm Leg Ball) Bridge KB Push1-Leg Press(Straight 2-Arm Leg) Bridge Log Press Bridge Drop Downs (Slide Board) MilitaryDrop PressDowns 1-Leg (Ball) Bridge Push Press Bridge Drop Downs 1-Leg (Slide Board) Trap Bar Bridge Li�Press and Curl 1-Leg (Ball) Press Up Bridge Li� and Curl 1-Leg (Slide Board) Yoga Push Up1-Leg (Ball) Glute Bridge Sled Backward Pushes Glute Bridge 1-Leg (Elevated Feet) Sled Marching Glute Bridge 1-Leg (Floor) Sled Walking Lunges Glute Bridge 1-Leg Alterna�ng (Floor) Sled Cross Over Hip Thrust 1-LegPushes (Ball) Sled Diagonal Bakcward Hip Thrust 1-Leg (Bench)Pushes Sled Lateral Pushes Hyper 45 degree 1-Leg Prisoner Hyper 90Squat degree 1-Leg Wall Squat Lateral Bridge 1-Leg (Straight Leg Ball) Back Squat Lateral Bridge 1-Leg (Straight Leg) Barbell Bulgarian Split Squat Reverse Hyper 1-Leg Barbell LateralDeadli� Split Squat DB Romanian 1-Arm/1-Leg (Contralateral) Barbell Split Squat DB Romanian Deadli� 1-Arm/1-Leg (Ipsilateral) BeltRomanian Squat DB Deadli� 2-Arm/1-Leg Box Squat Good Morning 1-Leg Cable Lateral Lunges Plate Good Morning 1-Leg (Overhead) Cable Lateral Split Squat Romanian Deadli� 1-Leg DB Bulgarian Barbell Curls Split Squat DB Curls Lateral Split Squat DB Split Squat Row 1-Arm Rings Inverted DB Squat 1-Arm/1-Leg Row (Contralateral) Front Squat Row (Ipsilateral) 1-Arm/1-Leg GobletPull Bulgarian Split Squat Bench Goblet Lateral Bent Over RowSplit Squat Goblet Split(Neutral) Squat Cable Row Goblet Squat Cable Row (Pronated) Ke�lebell Squat Cable RowFront (Rope) Leg Press Cable Row (Supinated) Overhead Split Squat Chest Supported Row Overhead Squat1-Arm DB Bench Row Sumo BackRow Squat DB Bench 2-Arm Trap Bar Over SquatRow 1-Arm (Neutral) DB Bent Zercher DB Bent Squat Over Row 1-Arm (Wide)

Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Category Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding

Hinge Hinge Hinge Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pa�ern Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Pull Olympic Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Push Hinge Sled Push Hinge Sled Push Hinge Sled Push Hinge Sled HingePush Sled HingePush Sled HingePush Squat Hinge Squat Hinge Squat Hinge Squat Hinge Squat Hinge Squat Hinge Squat Hinge Squat Hinge Squat Hinge Squat Hinge Squat Pull Squat Pull Squat Pull Squat Pull Squat Pull Squat Pull Squat Pull Squat Pull Squat Pull Squat Pull Squat Pull Squat Pull Squat Pull Squat Pull Squat Pull Squat Pull

Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Accessory Accessory Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Variant Horizontal Blocks Horizontal Blocks Horizontal Blocks Horizontal Blocks Horizontal Blocks Horizontal Blocks Horizontal Ground Horizontal Ground Horizontal Ground Horizontal Ground Horizontal Ground Horizontal Ground Horizontal Ground Horizontal Ground Horizontal Ground Ver�cal Ground Ver�cal Ground Ver�cal Ground Ver�cal Hang Ver�cal Hang Ver�cal Hang Ver�cal Hang Ver�cal Hang Ver�cal Hang Ver�cal Hang Ver�cal Hang Ver�cal Hang Ver�cal Hang Horizontal Blocks Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Ver�calLeg Double Ver�cal Leg Double Ver�cal Leg Double Ver�cal Leg Double Ver�cal Leg Double Ver�calLeg Double Ver�cal Leg Double Ver�cal Double Leg Ver�cal Leg Double Ver�calLeg Double Ver�calLeg Double Ver�calLeg Double Ver�calLeg Single Ver�calLeg Single Ver�calLeg Single Ver�calLeg Single Ver�calLeg Single Ver�calLeg Single Ver�calLeg Single Ver�calLeg Single Backward Single Leg Forward Single Leg Forward Single Leg Lateral Single Leg Lateral Single Leg Lateral Single Leg DoubleLeg Leg Single DoubleLeg Leg Single DoubleLeg Leg Single DoubleLeg Leg Single DoubleLeg Leg Single DoubleLeg Leg Single DoubleLeg Leg Single Double Leg Single Leg Double Leg Single Leg DoubleLeg Leg Single Double Leg Accessory Double Leg Accessory Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal Double Leg Horizontal

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

168

30% 10% 45% 35% 20% 25% 25% 70% 65% % 60% 95% 60% 75% 60% 105% 60% 95% 70% 75% 35% 105% 30% 100% 35% 80% 30% 110% 30% 85% 35% 90% 30% 100% 70% 85% 70% 100% 65% 80% 100% 80% 100% 110% 105% 90% 90% 95% 90% 60% 95% 75% 85% 105% 95% 80% 90% 80% 95% 85% 60% 90% 75% 90% 105% 100% 110% 30% 100% 35% 75% 30% 100% 30% 25% 30% 25% 105% 90% 80% 90% 100% 95% 90% 85% 120% 105% 35% 75% 35% 35% 105% 35% 50% 30% 100% 40% 75% 40% 35% 65% 35% 75% 30% 70% 40% 40% 100% 100% 120% 100%

100% 50% 30% 50% 25% 90% 20% 100% 30% 25% 10% 30% 45% 25% 35% 15% 20% 25% 40% 25% 85% 25% 50% 70% 40% 65% 30% 60% 70% 60% 45% 60% 130% 60% 35% 70% 70% 35% 90% 30% 110% 35% 60% 30%

Squat Squat Squat Pull-up Pull-up None Pull-Up Pull-Up Pull-Up Pull-Up to Related Pull-Up Clean Pull-Up Clean Pull-Up Clean Pull-Up Snatch Pull-Up Snatch Pull-Up Snatch Pull-Up Clean Pull-Up Clean Pull-Up Clean Pull-Up Clean Pull-Up Clean Pull-Up Clean and Jerk Pull-Up Snatch Pull-Up Snatch Pull-Up Snatch Pull-Up Snatch Pull-Up Snatch Pull-Up Snatch Pull-Up Clean Pull-Up Clean Pull-Up Clean Pull-Up Clean Pull-Up Clean Pull-Up Snatch Pull-Up Snatch Pull-Up Snatch Pull-Up Snatch Pull-Up Snatch Bench Press Deadli� Bench Press Deadli� Bench Press Deadli� Bench Press Deadli� Bench Press None Bench Press None Bench Press None Bench Press None Bench Press None Bench Press None Bench Press None Bench Press None Bench Press None Bench Press None Bench Press None Bench Press None Bench Press None Bench Press None Millitary Press None Millitary Press Squat Millitary Press Squat Millitary Press Squat Millitary Press Squat Millitary Press Squat Millitary Press Squat Millitary Press Squat Millitary Press Squat Millitary Press Squat Millitary Press None Millitary Press None Millitary Press None Millitary Press None Millitary Press None Millitary Press None None None None None None None None None None None Squat None Squat None Squat Squat Squat Squat Squat Squat Squat Pull-up Squat Pull-up Squat None Squat Pull-Up Squat Pull-Up Squat Pull-Up Squat Pull-Up Squat Pull-Up Squat Pull-Up Squat Pull-Up Squat Pull-Up Squat Pull-Up Squat Pull-Up Squat Pull-Up Squat Pull-Up Squat Pull-Up

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Used %BW 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 60% 0% 60% 0% 60% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 70% 0% 70% 0% 70% 0% 70% 0% 70% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Barbell Plates Barbell Barbell Dumbells Gymnas�c rings Dumbells Dumbells Barbell Barbell Equipment Used Machine Barbell Machine Barbell Machine Barbell Machine Barbell Machine Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Barbell Gymnas�c rings Barbell Gymnas�c rings Barbell Gymnas�c rings Barbell Chin Up Bar Barbell Chin Up Bar Barbell Chin Up Bar Barbell Machine Barbell Machine Barbell Machine Barbell Machine Barbell Gymnas�c rings Barbell Gymnas�c rings Barbell Gymnas�c rings Barbell Gymnas�c rings Barbell Rope Barbell Chin Up Bar Barbell Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Fitness Ball Dumbells Bodyweight Dumbells Fitness Ball Dumbells Fitness Ball Barbell Slideboard Barbell Ball Fitness Barbell Bodyweight Plates Machine Plates Ball Fitness Plates Machine Dip Belt Machine Dip Belt Bodyweight Machine Gymnas�c rings Machine Landmine Machine Landmine Dumbells Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Bodyweight Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Barbell Ke�lebell Barbell Ke�lebell Trap Bar Ke�lebell Barbell Ke�lebell Fitness Ball Ke�lebell Bodyweight Log Slideboard Barbell Ball Fitness Barbell Slideboard Trap BarBall Fitness Bodyweight Slideboard Bodyweight Fitness Ball Sled/Prowler Bodyweight Sled/Prowler Bodyweight Sled/Prowler Bodyweight Sled/Prowler Fitness Ball Sled/Prowler Bodyweight Sled/Prowler Machine Bodyweight Machine Fitness Ball Barbell Bodyweight Barbell Machine Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Dip Belt Dumbells Barbell Machine Plates Machine Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Dumbells Gymnas�c rings Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Ke�lebell Barbell Ke�lebell Barbell Ke�lebell Machine Ke�lebell Machine Ke�lebell Machine Machine Barbell Machine Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Trap Bar Dumbells Barbell Dumbells

* Each dumbell

Note

* Each dumbell * Each dumbell * Each dumbell * Each dumbell * Each dumbell * Each dumbell * Each dumbell

* Each dumbell * Each95-105% dumbell From

* Each dumbell * Each dumbell * Each dumbell >105% * Each dumbell * Each dumbell

* Each dumbell

* Each dumbell * Each dumbell * Each dumbell * Each dumbell

* Hard to carry/hold * Each Ke�lebell

* Each dumbell * Each dumbell * Each dumbell * Each dumbell

Box Squat Cable Lateral Lunges Cable Lateral Split Squat DB Bulgarian Split Squat DB Lateral Split Squat DB Split Squat DB Squat Front Squat Goblet Bulgarian Split Squat Goblet Lateral Split Squat Name Goblet(Blocks) Split Squat Clean GobletHigh Squat Clean Pull (Blocks) Ke�lebell Squat Clean Pull Front (Blocks) Leg Press Snatch (Blocks) Overhead Split Snatch High PullSquat (Blocks) Overhead Snatch PullSquat (Blocks) Sumo Back Squat Clean Trap Bar Squat Clean High Pull Zercher Squat Clean Pull Box Squat 1-Leg Power Clean DB Single Split CleanLeg Squat 1-Arm DB Single Leg Squat 2-Arm Clean & Jerk Inclined Step Down Power Snatch Off Box Pistol Squat Snatch Pistol SnatchSquat Balance Rings SnatchBulgarian High PullSplit Squat Speed SnatchSkater Pull Wall Squat 1-Leg Split Snatch Barbel(Hang) Lateral Lunges Clean Barbell(Muscle) Lunges Clean BarbellHigh Reverse Lunges Clean Pull (Hang) BarbellPull Step Up Clean (Hang) BarbellClean Walking Lunges Power (Hang) DB Lateral Lunges Power Snatch (Hang) DB Lunges Snatch (Hang) DB Reverse Lunges Snatch (Muscle) DB StepHigh Up Pull (Hang) Snatch DB Walking Lunges Snatch Pull (Hang) Goblet Lateral Lunges Rack Pull Leg Press 1-Leg Deadli� Overhead Snatch GripLunges Deadli� Overhead Reverse Lunges Sumo Deadli� Overhead Walking Bridge (Straight LegLunges Ball) Slide Board Lateral Bridge (Straight Leg)Lunges Slide Board Lunges Bridge DropReverse Downs (Ball) Bridge Li� and Curl (Ball) Bridge Li� and Curl (Slide Board) Glute Bridge (Ball) Glute Bridge (Elevated Feet) Glute Ham Raise (GHR) Hip Thrust (Ball) Hyper 45 degree Hyper 90 degree Nordic Curl Pull Through Reverse Hyper Sumo Pull Through DB Romanian Deadli� Glute Bridge (Floor) Good Morning Hip Thrust (Bench) Romanian Deadli� Sumo Good Morning Sumo Romanian Deadli� Trap Bar Romania Deadli� Zercher Romanian Deadli� Bridge 1-Leg (Straight Leg Ball) Bridge 1-Leg (Straight Leg) Bridge Drop Downs (Slide Board) Bridge Drop Downs 1-Leg (Ball) Bridge Drop Downs 1-Leg (Slide Board) Bridge Li� and Curl 1-Leg (Ball) Bridge Li� and Curl 1-Leg (Slide Board) Glute Bridge 1-Leg (Ball) Glute Bridge 1-Leg (Elevated Feet) Glute Bridge 1-Leg (Floor) Glute Bridge 1-Leg Alterna�ng (Floor) Hip Thrust 1-Leg (Ball) Hip Thrust 1-Leg (Bench) Hyper 45 degree 1-Leg Hyper 90 degree 1-Leg Lateral Bridge 1-Leg (Straight Leg Ball) Lateral Bridge 1-Leg (Straight Leg) Reverse Hyper 1-Leg DB Romanian Deadli� 1-Arm/1-Leg (Contralateral) DB Romanian Deadli� 1-Arm/1-Leg (Ipsilateral) DB Romanian Deadli� 2-Arm/1-Leg Good Morning 1-Leg Plate Good Morning 1-Leg (Overhead) Romanian Deadli� 1-Leg Barbell Curls DB Curls Rings Inverted Row 1-Arm 1-Arm/1-Leg Row (Contralateral) 1-Arm/1-Leg Row (Ipsilateral) Bench Pull Bent Over Row Cable Row (Neutral) Cable Row (Pronated) Cable Row (Rope) Cable Row (Supinated) Chest Supported Row DB Bench Row 1-Arm DB Bench Row 2-Arm DB Bent Over Row 1-Arm (Neutral) DB Bent Over Row 1-Arm (Wide)

Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Category Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Ballis�c Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding Grinding

Squat Squat Squat Squat Squat Squat Squat Squat Squat Squat Pa�ern Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Olympic Squat Hinge Squat Hinge Squat Hinge Squat Hinge Squat Hinge Squat Hinge Squat Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Hinge Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull Pull

Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Variant Double Leg Blocks Double Leg Blocks Double Leg Blocks Double Leg Blocks Double Leg Blocks Double Leg Blocks Double Leg Ground Double Leg Ground Double Leg Ground Single Leg Ground Single Leg Ground Single GroundLeg Single GroundLeg Single GroundLeg Single GroundLeg Single GroundLeg Single GroundLeg Single GroundLeg Single Leg Hang Single Leg Hang Single Leg Hang Single Leg Hang Single Leg Hang Single Hang Leg Single Hang Leg Single Hang Leg Single Leg Hang Single Leg Hang Single Leg Blocks Single Leg Double Leg Single Leg Double Leg Single Leg Double Leg Single Leg Double Leg Single Leg Double Leg Single Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Double Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Single Leg Accessory Accessory Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal Horizontal

100% 25% 30% 25% 15% 25% 40% 85% 50% 40% % 30% 95% 70% 75% 45% 105% 130% 95% 35% 75% 70% 105% 90% 100% 110% 80% 60% 110% 85% 90% 100% 85% 100% 80% 80% 110% 90% 25% 95% 40% 60% 40% 75% 40% 105% 35% 80% 10% 80% 20% 95% 20% 60% 20% 75% 20% 105% 25% 110% 70% 100% 30% 75% 30% 100% 30% 20% 35%

Squat Squat Squat Squat Squat Squat Squat Squat Squat Squat to Related Squat Clean Squat Clean Squat Clean Squat Snatch Squat Snatch Squat Snatch Squat Clean Squat Clean Squat Clean None Clean None Clean None Clean and Jerk None Snatch None Snatch None Snatch None Snatch None Snatch None Snatch Squat Clean Squat Clean Squat Clean Squat Clean Squat Clean Squat Snatch Squat Snatch Squat Snatch Squat Snatch Squat Snatch Squat Deadli� Squat Deadli� Squat Deadli� Squat Deadli� Squat None Squat None Squat None None None None None None None None None None None None None 35% Squat 105% Squat 50% Squat 100% Squat 75% Squat 40% Squat 65% Squat 75% Squat 70% Squat None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None 30% Squat 25% Squat 20% Squat 30% Squat 10% Squat 45% Squat 35% Pull-up 20% Pull-up None 25% Pull-Up 25% Pull-Up 70% Pull-Up 65% Pull-Up 60% Pull-Up 60% Pull-Up 60% Pull-Up 60% Pull-Up 70% Pull-Up 35% Pull-Up 30% Pull-Up 35% Pull-Up 30% Pull-Up

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Used %BW 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Barbell Machine Machine Dumbells Dumbells Dumbells Dumbells Barbell Ke�lebell Ke�lebell Used Equipment Ke�lebell Barbell Ke�lebell Barbell Ke�lebell Barbell Machine Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Trap Bar Barbell Barbell Bodyweight Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Barbell Bodyweight Barbell Bodyweight Barbell Bodyweight Barbell Gymnas�c rings Barbell Bodyweight Barbell Fitness Ball Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Barbell Dumbells Barbell Ke�lebell Barbell Machine Barbell Barbell Barbell Barbell Ball Fitness Slideboard Bodyweight Slideboard Fitness Ball Fitness Ball Slideboard Fitness Ball Bodyweight Machine Fitness Ball Machine Machine Bodyweight Machine Machine Machine Dumbells Barbell Barbell Bodyweight Barbell Barbell Barbell Trap Bar Barbell Fitness Ball Bodyweight Slideboard Fitness Ball Slideboard Fitness Ball Slideboard Fitness Ball Bodyweight Bodyweight Bodyweight Fitness Ball Bodyweight Machine Machine Fitness Ball Bodyweight Machine Dumbells Dumbells Dumbells Barbell Plates Barbell Barbell Dumbells Gymnas�c rings Dumbells Dumbells Barbell Barbell Machine Machine Machine Machine Machine Dumbells Dumbells Dumbells Dumbells

* Each dumbell

* Each dumbell MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ * Each dumbell * Each dumbell

Note * Hard to carry/hold * Each Ke�lebell

* Each dumbell * Each dumbell * Each dumbell * Each dumbell

From 95-105%

* Each dumbell >105%

* Each dumbell

* Each dumbell

169 * Each dumbell * Each dumbell * Each dumbell * Each dumbell

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

References Adams S. 2014. How to fail at almost everything and still win big: kind of the story of my life. Affordance. 2019. Wikipedia. Baker D. 2015.ASCA Level 1 Course Materials. Module 5. Available at https://www. strengthandconditioning.org/courses-accreditation-sub Berger JG, Johnston K. 2016. Simple habits for complex times: powerful practices for leaders. Bevelin P. 2013. Seeking wisdom: from Darwin to Munger. Malmö, Sweden: PCA Publications. Binmore K. 2011. Rational Decisions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bompa TO, Buzzichelli C. 2015. Periodization Training for Sports. Champaign: Human Kinetics Publishers. Bompa TO, Buzzichelli C. 2019. Periodization: theory and methodology of training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Bondarchuk AP, Yessis M. 2007. Transfer of training in sports. Volume 1. Michigan: Ultimate Athlete Concepts. Bondarchuk A, Yessis M. 2010. Transfer of training in sports. Volume 2. Michigan: Ultimate Athlete Concept. Borkenau P, Ostendorf F. 1998. The Big Five as States: How Useful Is the FiveFactor Model to Describe Intraindividual Variations over Time? Journal of Research in Personality 32:202–221. DOI: 10.1006/jrpe.1997.2206. Borsboom D. 2008. Latent Variable Theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective 6:25–53. DOI: 10.1080/15366360802035497. 170

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Borsboom D, Cramer AOJ. 2013. Network Analysis: An Integrative Approach to the Structure of Psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 9:91–121. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185608. Borsboom D, Mellenbergh GJ, van Heerden J. 2003. The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review 110:203–219. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.203. Borsboom D, Rhemtulla M, Cramer AOJ, van der Maas HLJ, Scheffer M, Dolan CV. 2016. Kinds versus continua: a review of psychometric approaches to uncover the structure of psychiatric constructs. Psychological Medicine 46:1567–1579. DOI: 10.1017/ S0033291715001944. Bosch F. 2015. Strength training and coordination: an integrative approach. 2010 uitgevers. Bosch F, Klomp R. 2005. Running biomechanics and exercise physiology in practice. Edinburgh [u.a.: Elsevier Churchill Livingston. Boudry M, Pigliucci M (eds.). 2017. Science unlimited? the challenges of scientism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Boyle M. 2011.5 Great Lessons. Available at https://www.t-nation.com/training/5great-lessons (accessed May 29, 2019). Boyle M. 2016. New functional training for sports. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Boyle M, Verstegen M, Cosgrove A. 2010. Advances in functional training: training techniques for coaches, personal trainers and athletes. Santa Cruz, Calif: On Target Publications. Bringmann LF, Vissers N, Wichers M, Geschwind N, Kuppens P, Peeters F, Borsboom D, Tuerlinckx F. 2013. A Network Approach to Psychopathology: New Insights into Clinical Longitudinal Data. PLOS ONE 8:e60188. DOI: 10.1371/journal. pone.0060188. Brougham G. 2015. Cynefin Mini-Book. Place of publication not identified: LULU COM. Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, Mattocks KT, Jessee MB, Mouser JG, Counts BR, Loenneke JP. 2016. The problem Of muscle hypertrophy: Revisited: Issues & Opinions: Problems with Muscle Growth. Muscle & Nerve 54:1012–1014. DOI: 10.1002/mus.25420. Campbell J. 2008. The hero with a thousand faces. Novato, Calif: New World Library. 171

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Campbell J, Moyers BD, Flowers BS. 1991. The power of myth. New York: Anchor Books. Carzoli JP, Klemp A, Allman B, Zourdos MC, Kim J-S, Panton LB, Ormsbee MJ. 2017. Efficacy Of The Repetitions In Reserve-based Rating Of Perceived Exertion For The Bench Press In Experienced And Novice Benchers: 3644 Board #91 June 3 8. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 49:1041. DOI: 10.1249/01. mss.0000519859.98511.10. Chernetskiy. 2019. 3D monolith cube structure. Chow JY, Davids K, Button C, Renshaw I. 2016. Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition: an introduction. London ; New York, NY: Routledge. Christian B, Griffiths T. 2017. Algorithms to live by: the computer science of human decisions. Comerford MJ, Mottram SL. 2001. Movement and stability dysfunction – contemporary developments. Manual Therapy 6:15–26. DOI: 10.1054/math.2000.0388. Comerford M, Mottram S. 2015. Kinetic control: the management of uncontrolled movement. Chatswood, NSW: Elsevier Australia. Cramer AOJ, van der Sluis S, Noordhof A, Wichers M, Geschwind N, Aggen SH, Kendler KS, Borsboom D. 2012. Dimensions of Normal Personality as Networks in Search of Equilibrium: You Can’t Like Parties if You Don’t Like People: Dimensions of normal personality as networks. European Journal of Personality 26:414–431. DOI: 10.1002/per.1866. Cunanan AJ, DeWeese BH, Wagle JP, Carroll KM, Sausaman R, Hornsby WG, Haff GG, Triplett NT, Pierce KC, Stone MH. 2018. The General Adaptation Syndrome: A Foundation for the Concept of Periodization. Sports Medicine 48:787–797. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-017-0855-3. Davids K, Button C, Bennett S. 2008. Dynamics of skill acquisition: a constraintsled approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. delcarmat. 2019. Knight Fighting Black Dragon. Dienes Z. 2008. Understanding Psychology as a Science: An Introduction to Scientific and Statistical Inference. New York: Red Globe Press. Doerr JE. 2018. Measure what matters: how Google, Bono, and the Gates Foundation rock the world with OKRs.

172

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Ekkekakis P, Parfitt G, Petruzzello SJ. 2011. The Pleasure and Displeasure People Feel When they Exercise at Different Intensities: Decennial Update and Progress towards a Tripartite Rationale for Exercise Intensity Prescription. Sports Medicine 41:641–671. DOI: 10.2165/11590680-000000000-00000. Epley B. 1985. Poundage Chart. Boyd Epley Workout. Lincoln, NE: Body Enterprises. Epskamp S, Borsboom D, Fried EI. 2016. Estimating Psychological Networks and their Accuracy: A Tutorial Paper. arXiv:1604.08462 [stat]. Eriksson M.Polarised training with Stephen Seiler, PhD | EP#177. Available at https://scientifictriathlon.com/tts177/ (accessed May 29, 2019). Fagerli B. 2012. Myo-reps - The Secret Norwegian Method to Build Lean Muscle in 70% Less Time. Farrow T. 2017. Arete Performance Philosophy Presentation. Farrow T. 2018. Personal Communication. Feldman D. 2017.Introduction to Dynamical Systems and Chaos. Available at https://www.complexityexplorer.org/courses/71-introduction-to-dynamical-systemsand-chaos-2017 (accessed May 29, 2019). Fernandez MA. 2016.Cynefin framework – Automation Journal. Available at https://www.automationjournal.org/tag/cynefin-framework/ (accessed May 29, 2019). Folland J, Mccauley T, Williams A. 2008. Allometric scaling of strength measurements to body size. European journal of applied physiology 102:739–45. DOI: 10.1007/s00421-007-0654-x. Frederick R. 2017.Monitoring training stress with exertion load. Available at http://www.strongur.io/monitoring-training-stress-with-exertion-load/ (accessed May 27, 2019). Frederick R. 2018.Using Exertion Load to Predict Metabolic Stress. Available at http://www.strongur.io/using-exertion-load-to-predict-metabolic-stress/ (accessed May 27, 2019). Fried J, Hansson DH. 2018. It doesn’t have to be crazy at work. Gibson JJ. 2014. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New York, London: Routledge.

173

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Gigerenzer G. 2004. Striking a Blow for Sanity in Theories of Rationality. In: Models of a Man. MIT Press, 1–12. Gigerenzer G. 2008. Why Heuristics Work. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3:1–10. Gigerenzer G. 2015. Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions. Penguin Books. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W. 2011. Heuristic decision making. Annual review of psychology 62:451–482. Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R, Pachur T. 2015a. Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Behavior. Oxford University Press. Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R, Pachur T. 2015b. Heuristics: The Foundations of Adaptive Behavior. Oxford University Press. González Badillo JJ. 2017. Fundamentals of velocity-based resistance training. Murcia: Ergottech. Guyon H, Falissard B, Kop J-L. 2017. Modeling Psychological Attributes in Psychology – An Epistemological Discussion: Network Analysis vs. Latent Variables. Frontiers in Psychology 8. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00798. Hamaker EL, Dolan CV, Molenaar PCM. 2005. Statistical Modeling of the Individual: Rationale and Application of Multivariate Stationary Time Series Analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research 40:207–233. DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr4002_3. Hartman ME, Ekkekakis P, Dicks ND, Pettitt RW. 2019. Dynamics of pleasure– displeasure at the limit of exercise tolerance: conceptualizing the sense of exertional physical fatigue as an affective response. The Journal of Experimental Biology 222:jeb186585. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.186585. Helms ER, Byrnes RK, Cooke DM, Haischer MH, Carzoli JP, Johnson TK, Cross MR, Cronin JB, Storey AG, Zourdos MC. 2018a. RPE vs. Percentage 1RM Loading in Periodized Programs Matched for Sets and Repetitions. Frontiers in Physiology 9. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2018.00247. Helms ER, Cronin J, Storey A, Zourdos MC. 2016. Application of the Repetitions in Reserve-Based Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale for Resistance Training: Strength and Conditioning Journal 38:42–49. DOI: 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000218.

174

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Helms ER, Cross MR, Brown SR, Storey A, Cronin J, Zourdos MC. 2018b. Rating of Perceived Exertion as a Method of Volume Autoregulation Within a Periodized Program: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 32:1627–1636. DOI: 10.1519/ JSC.0000000000002032. Hristov H. 2005. How to Design Strength Training Programs using Prilepin’s Table. Issurin V. 2008a. Block periodization versus traditional training theory: A review. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness 48:65–75. Issurin VB. 2008b. Block Periodization: Breakthrough in Sport Training. Michigan: Ultimate Athlete Concepts. Issurin VB. 2013. Block Periodization 2: Fundamental Concepts and Training Design. Michigan: Ultimate Athlete Concepts. Issurin VB. 2015. Building the Modern Athlete: Scientific Advancements and Training Innovations. Ultimate Athlete Concepts. Issurin VB. 2019. Biological Background of Block Periodized Endurance Training: A Review. Sports Medicine 49:31–39. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-018-1019-9. John D. 2013. Intervention: course corrections for the athlete and trainer. Aptos, CA: On Target Publications. John D. 2015.Dan John’s Four Quadrants [Infographic]. Available at https://www. otpbooks.com/dan-johns-four-quadrants-infographic/ (accessed May 29, 2019). John D. 2017. The hardstyle kettlebell challenge: A fundamental guide to training for strength and power. Dragon Door. John D, Tsatsouline P. 2011. Easy strength: how to get a lot stronger than your competition - and dominate in your sport. New York, NY: Dragon Door Publications. Jovanović M. 2008a.Concurrent Strategies in Strength Training, Part 1. Available at https://www.elitefts.com/education/training/powerlifting/concurrent-strategies-instrength-training-part-1/ (accessed May 29, 2019). Jovanović M. 2008b.Concurrent Strategies in Strength Training, Part 2. Available at https://www.elitefts.com/education/training/concurrent-strategies-in-strengthtraining-part-2/ (accessed May 29, 2019). Jovanović M. 2008c.Concurrent Strategies in Strength Training, Part 3. Available at https://www.elitefts.com/education/training/powerlifting/concurrent-strategies-instrength-training-part-3/ (accessed May 29, 2019). 175

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Jovanovic M. 2010.The Function of Muscles in the Human Body. Available at https://complementarytraining.net/the-function-of-muscles-in-the-human-body/ (accessed May 30, 2019). Jovanovic M. 2013a.The Problem With (Peak) Power (Calculus) – or Why I Don’t Believe in This Sacred Cow. Available at https://complementarytraining.net/theproblem-with-peak-power-calculus-or-why-i-dont-believe-in-this-sacred-cow-2nd/ (accessed May 27, 2019). Jovanovic M. 2013b.Does Speed Work Work? My Response to Mike Tuchscherer’s Article [Part 1]. Available at https://complementarytraining.net/doesspeed-work-work-my-response-to-mike-tuchscherers-article-part-1/ (accessed May 27, 2019). Jovanovic M. 2013c.Does Speed Work Work? My Response to Mike Tuchscherer’s Article [Part 2]. Available at https://complementarytraining.net/does-speed-work-workmy-response-to-mike-tuchscherers-article-part-2/ (accessed May 27, 2019). Jovanovic M. 2017a.Concurrent Strategies in Strength Training - Part 1. Available at https://complementarytraining.net/concurrent-strategies-in-strengthtraining-part1-by-mladen-jovanovic/ (accessed May 29, 2019). Jovanovic M. 2017b.Concurrent Strategies in Strength Training - Part 2. Available at https://complementarytraining.net/concurrent-strategies-in-strengthtraining-part2/ (accessed May 29, 2019). Jovanovic M. 2017c.VBT, Heuristics and Prilepin. Available at https:// complementarytraining.net/vbt-heuristics-and-prilepin-by-mladen-jovanovic/ (accessed May 27, 2019). Jovanovic M. 2018. HIIT Manual: High Intensity Interval Training and Agile Periodization. Ultimate Athlete Concepts. Jovanovic M, Flanagan E. 2014. Researched applications of velocity based strength training. Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning 22:58–69. Jovanovic M, Jukic I. 2019. Optimal vs. Robust: Applications to Planning Strategies. Insights from a simulation study. SportRxiv. DOI: 10.31236/osf.io/8n4jf. Joyce D (ed.). 2014. High-performance training for sports: the authoritative guide for ultimate athletic conditioning. Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics. Kay J. 2010.Think oblique: How our goals are best reached indirectly. Available at https://www.johnkay.com/2010/03/18/think-oblique-how-our-goals-are-best-reachedindirectly/ (accessed May 29, 2019). 176

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Kay JA. 2012. Obliquity: why our goals are best achieved indirectly. New York: Penguin. Kelso JAS, Engstrøm DA. 2008. The complementary nature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. Kenn J. 2003. The coach’s strength training playbook: featuring the tier system. Monterey, CA: Coaches Choice. Kiely J. 2009. Periodization, Planning, Prediction: And why the future ain’t what it used to be! Techniques. Journal of USA Track, Field and Cross-country Association. Kiely J. 2010a. Letter: New Horizons for the Methodology and Physiology of Training Periodization Block Periodization: New horizon or false dawn? Letter submitted to Sports Medicine. Kiely J. 2010b. New Horizons for the Methodology and Physiology of Training Periodization: Block Periodization: New Horizon or a False Dawn? Sports Medicine 40:803–805. DOI: 10.2165/11535130-000000000-00000. Kiely J. 2011. Planning for physical performance: the individual perspective. In: Performance Psychology. Elsevier, 139–160. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-443-067341.00010-9. Kiely J. 2012. Periodization Paradigms in the 21st Century: Evidence-Led or Tradition-Driven? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 7:242– 250. DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.7.3.242. Kiely J. 2016. Essay: A New Understanding of Stress and the Implications for Our Cultural Training Paradigm. New Studies in Athletics 34:69–74. Kiely J. 2018. Periodization Theory: Confronting an Inconvenient Truth. Sports Medicine 48:753–764. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-017-0823-y. Kiely J, Pickering C, Halperin I. 2019. Comment on “Biological Background of Block Periodized Endurance Training: A Review.” Sports Medicine. DOI: 10.1007/ s40279-019-01114-9. King I. 2002. Get buffed: Ian King’s guide to bigger, stronger and leaner! Reno, Nev: King Sports Pub. Kovacs K, Conway ARA. 2019. What Is IQ? Life Beyond “General Intelligence.” Current Directions in Psychological Science:096372141982727. DOI: 10.1177/0963721419827275.

177

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Ladwig MA, Hartman ME, Ekkekakis P. 2017. Affect-based exercise prescription. ACSM’s Health & Fitness Journal 21:6. Layton M, Morrow D. 2018. Scrum for dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Layton M, Ostermiller SJ. 2017. Agile project management for dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Legg C, Hookway C. 2019. Pragmatism. In: Zalta EN ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University,. Liebig’s law of the minimum. 2018. Wikipedia. Lindy effect. 2019. Wikipedia. Loland S. 1992. The Mechanics and Meaning of Alpine Skiing: Methodological and Epistemological Notes on the Study of Sport Technique. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 19:55–77. DOI: 10.1080/00948705.1992.9714495. Loturco I, Nakamura FY. 2016. Training Periodization: An obsolete methodology? Aspetar Journal 5. Magness S. 2014. The science of running: how to find your limit and train to maximize your performance. S.l.: Origin Press. MathWorks. 2019. Fuzzy Logic ToolboxTM User’s Guide. Maul A. 2013. On the ontology of psychological attributes. Theory & Psychology 23:752–769. DOI: 10.1177/0959354313506273. McElreath R. 2015. Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC. Millette J-P. 2014.The use of ratios for weakness identification and programming. Available at https://firstpull.net/2014/03/26/the-use-of-ratios-forweakness-identification-and-programming/ (accessed May 29, 2019). Mitchell SD. 2002. Integrative Pluralism. Biology & Philosophy 17:55–70. DOI: 10.1023/A:1012990030867. Mitchell S. 2012. Unsimple truths: science, complexity, and policy. Chicago, Mich.: The Univ. of Chicago Press. Molenaar PCM. 2004. A Manifesto on Psychology as Idiographic Science: Bringing the Person Back Into Scientific Psychology, This Time Forever. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective 2:201–218. DOI: 10.1207/s15366359mea0204_1. 178

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Molenaar PCM, Campbell CG. 2009. The New Person-Specific Paradigm in Psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18:112–117. DOI: 10.1111/j.14678721.2009.01619.x. Molenaar PCM, Huizenga HM, Nesselroade JR. 2003. The Relationship Between the Structure of Interindividual and Intraindividual Variability: A Theoretical and Empirical Vindication of Developmental Systems Theory. In: Staudinger UM, Lindenberger U eds. Understanding Human Development. Boston, MA: Springer US, 339–360. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4615-0357-6_15. Muñoz I, Seiler S, Bautista J, España J, Larumbe E, Esteve-Lanao J. 2014. Does Polarized Training Improve Performance in Recreational Runners? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 9:265–272. DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2012-0350. Nesselroade JR, Molenaar PCM. 2016. Some Behaviorial Science Measurement Concerns and Proposals. Multivariate Behavioral Research 51:396–412. DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2015.1050481. Neth H, Gigerenzer G. 2015. Heuristics: Tools for an Uncertain World. In: Scott RA, Kosslyn SM eds. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 1–18. Neumann E. 2014. The origins and history of consciousness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Olympic Weightlifting Calculator. 2017. Available at http://www.olylifts.co/ (accessed May 29, 2019). Ontology. 2019. Wikipedia. Page SE. 2012.Model Thinking. Video 3: Intelligent Citizens of the World. Available at https://www.coursera.org/learn/model-thinking (accessed May 29, 2019). Page SE. 2018. The Model Thinker: What You Need to Know to Make Data Work for You. Basic Books. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Sánchez-Medina L, Sanchis-Moysi J, Dorado C, Mora-Custodio R, Yáñez-García JM, Morales-Alamo D, PérezSuárez I, Calbet JAL, González-Badillo JJ. 2017a. Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 27:724–735. DOI: 10.1111/ sms.12678. Pareja-Blanco F, Sánchez-Medina L, Suárez-Arrones L, González-Badillo JJ. 2017b. Effects of Velocity Loss During Resistance Training on Performance in 179

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

Professional Soccer Players. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 12:512–519. DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0170. PDCA. 2019. Wikipedia. Peterson JB. 1999. Maps of meaning: the architecture of belief. New York: Routledge. Peterson JB. 2017. Maps of Meaning 5: Story and Meta-story. Toronto: University of Toronto. Peterson JB, Doidge N, Van Sciver E. 2018. 12 rules for life: an antidote to chaos. Toronto: Random House Canada. Pirsig RM. 1991. Lila. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Pirsig RM. 2006. Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance: an inquiry into values. New York: HarperTorch. Prilutsky BI, Zatsiorsky VM. 1994. Tendon action of two-joint muscles: transfer of mechanical energy between joints during jumping, landing, and running. Journal of Biomechanics 27:25–34. R Core Team. 2018. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Renshaw I, Davids K, Savelsbergh GJP. 2012. Motor learning in practice: a constraints-led approach. London: Routledge. Richards C. 2017.Concept: “What You Should Focus On.” Available at https:// hinmanfp.com/portfolio-item/what-you-should-focus-on/ (accessed May 29, 2019). Ries E. 2011. The lean startup: how today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. New York: Crown Business. Rippetoe M, Baker A, Bradford SE. 2013. Practical programming for strength training. Wichita Falls, Texas: Aasgaard Company. Rippetoe M, Kilgore L. 2011. Starting strength: basic barbell training. Wichita Falls, TX: Aasgaard Co. RStudio Team. 2016. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Boston, MA: RStudio, Inc. Rubin KS. 2012. Essential Scrum: a practical guide to the most popular agile process. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.

180

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Sánchez-Medina L, González-Badillo JJ. 2011. Velocity Loss as an Indicator of Neuromuscular Fatigue during Resistance Training: Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 43:1725–1734. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318213f880. Savage LJ. 1972. The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Dover Publications. Schmittmann VD, Cramer AOJ, Waldorp LJ, Epskamp S, Kievit RA, Borsboom D. 2013. Deconstructing the construct: A network perspective on psychological phenomena. New Ideas in Psychology 31:43–53. DOI: 10.1016/j. newideapsych.2011.02.007. Seiler S. 2010. What is Best Practice for Training Intensity and Duration Distribution in Endurance Athletes? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 5:276–291. DOI: 10.1123/ijspp.5.3.276. Seiler KS, Kjerland GO. 2006. Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance athletes: is there evidence for an “optimal” distribution? Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports 16:49–56. DOI: 10.1111/j.16000838.2004.00418.x. Seiler S, Tønnessen E. 2009.Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training. Available at http://usetu.htmww. sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm (accessed May 29, 2019). Sheiko B. 2018. Powerlifting: Foundations and Methods. renaissanceperiodization. com. Shuhari. 2019. Wikipedia. Shute D. 2015.Some Strength Ratios and Numbers For You. Available at http:// www.crossfitignitesydney.com.au/fitness-and-training-tips/some-strength-ratios-andnumbers-for-you/, http://www.crossfitignitesydney.com.au/fitness-and-training-tips/ some-strength-ratios-and-numbers-for-you/ (accessed May 29, 2019). Simmons L. 2007. Westside Barbell Book of Methods. Columbus, OH: Westside Barbell. Smith DW. 2018. Phenomenology. In: Zalta EN ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University,. Staley C. 2005. Muscle logic: escalating density training changes the rules for maximum-impact weight training. Emmaus, Pa.: Rodale : Distributed by Holtzbrinck. Stellman A, Greene J. 2014. Learning Agile. Beijing: O’Reilly. Stilwell P, Harman K. 2019. An enactive approach to pain: beyond the 181

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

biopsychosocial model. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. DOI: 10.1007/ s11097-019-09624-7. Sutherland JV. 2014. Scrum: the art of doing twice the work in half the time. New York: Crown Business. Taber CB, Vigotsky A, Nuckols G, Haun CT. 2019. Exercise-Induced Myofibrillar Hypertrophy is a Contributory Cause of Gains in Muscle Strength. Sports Medicine. DOI: 10.1007/s40279-019-01107-8. Taleb NN. 2004. Fooled by randomness: the hidden role of chance in life and in the markets. New York: Thomson/Texere. Taleb NN. 2010. The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks. Taleb NN. 2012. Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder. New York: Random House. Taleb NN. 2018. Skin in the game: hidden asymmetries in daily life. New York: Random House. Thibaudeau C. 2015.Know Your Ratios, Destroy Weaknesses. Available at https:// www.t-nation.com/training/know-your-ratios-destroy-weaknesses (accessed May 29, 2019). Thing-in-itself. 2019. Wikipedia. Tuchscherer M. 2008. The Reactive Training Manual: Developing your own custom training program for powerlifting. Tuchscherer M. 2013a.Why Speed Work Doesn’t Work. Available at https://www. jtsstrength.com/why-speed-work-doesnt-work/ (accessed May 27, 2019). Tuchscherer M. 2013b.Speed Work: Not This Again. Available at https://www. jtsstrength.com/speed-work-not-this-again/ (accessed May 27, 2019). Van Hooren B, Bosch F. 2017a. Is there really an eccentric action of the hamstrings during the swing phase of high-speed running? part I: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Sports Sciences 35:2313–2321. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1266018. Van Hooren B, Bosch F. 2017b. Is there really an eccentric action of the hamstrings during the swing phase of high-speed running? Part II: Implications for exercise. Journal of Sports Sciences 35:2322–2333. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1266019. 182

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ

Verkhoshansky Y. 1998. Main features of a modern scientifc sports training theory. New Stud Athl 13:9–20. Vermeil A, Helland E, Gattone M. 1999. VERMEIL’S SPORTS AND FITNESS TRAINING SYSTEM FOR ENHANCING ATHLETIC PERFORMANCE. Version 7-02. Unpublished manuscript. Volz KG, Gigerenzer G. 2012. Cognitive processes in decisions under risk are not the same as in decisions under uncertainty. Frontiers in neuroscience 6. DOI: 10.3389/ fnins.2012.00105. Waxman S. 2017.Those Magic Little Lift Ratios. Available at https://www. waxmansgym.com/liftratios/ (accessed May 29, 2019). Wendler J. 2017. 5/3/1 Forever. London, Ohio: Jim Wendler LLC. Wendler J, Koss L. 2013. Beyond 5/3/1: simple training for extraordinary results. Wodtke CR. 2015. Radical Focus: Achieving Your Most Important Goals with Objectives and Key Results. Cucina Media, LLC. Wood TM, Maddalozzo GF, Harter RA. 2002. Accuracy of Seven Equations for Predicting 1-RM Performance of Apparently Healthy, Sedentary Older Adults. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 6:67–94. DOI: 10.1207/ S15327841MPEE0602_1. Zourdos MC, Goldsmith JA, Helms ER, Trepeck C, Halle JL, Mendez KM, Cooke DM, Haischer MH, Sousa CA, Klemp A, Byrnes RK. 2019. Proximity to Failure and Total Repetitions Performed in a Set Influences Accuracy of Intraset Repetitions in ReserveBased Rating of Perceived Exertion: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research:1. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002995. Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Schau KA, Jo E, Helms E, Esgro B, Duncan S, Garcia Merino S, Blanco R. 2016. Novel Resistance Training–Specific Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale Measuring Repetitions in Reserve: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 30:267–275. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001049.

183

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One

About

Mladen Jovanović is a Serbian Strength and Conditioning Coach and Sport Scientist. Mladen was involved in the physical preparation of professional, amateur and recreational athletes of various ages in sports, such as basketball, soccer, volleyball, martial arts, tennis and Australian rules football. In 2010, Mladen started the Complementary Training website and in 2017, developed the scheduling and monitoring application, AthleteSR. He is currently pursuing his PhD at the Faculty of Sports and Physical Education in Belgrade, Serbia. Twitter: @physical_prep Instagram: @physical_prep Facebook: www.facebook.com/complementarytraining/ Website: www.complementarytraining.net Email: [email protected]

184