Hi guys. First of all, I’d like to thank you for the wealth of quality content included in your latest Toronto Q&A (Part I); also, as an aside, Jordan was in rare form with the comedic interjections during Austin’s responses.
At approximately 45:15 Jordan begins talking about the false dichotomy of volume versus intensity as the principle driver of strength outcomes (where strength is defined as improved 1-5RM squat, bench, deadlift performance). He argues that quantity (emphasis mine) of appropriately intense reps/sets (70-80% of e1RM) is the principle driver of subsequent strength adaptations as observed in a testing situation in the future. He states that he doesn’t particularly care about whether the weight lifted from week to week changes as long as it stays within the prescribed intensity range.
This got me thinking. Are you guys arguing that an accumulation of appropriately intense volume can lead to an improvement in strength outcomes regardless of relative intensity of work/backoff sets? So as an example, let’s say that a trainee works up to a single at 8 (accumulating a certain amount of fatigue), reduces weight on the bar such that the absolute intensity is at say, 77% of her e1RM for the day and never changes the absolute load on the bar for subsequent training sessions; that is to say, even if her single at 8 is improving (as we would expect), she chooses to keep the weight for her back off sets fixed.
Even in this scenario, are you all arguing that the slow resultant decrease in % of e1RM load would not (in and of itself) have any negative impact on her ability to express her strength on test day?
I guess to go along with this, should the RPE of back off sets remain constant from set-to-set and from week to week in order to achieve the best strength outcomes (as defined above)?
I think it is reasonable that could work if the progressive overload is generated in some manner, though if someone hit a higher 1 @ 8, their back off sets would be heavier if they were prescribed at a certain effort level of percentage. Basically, you’re example is not indicative of a programming setup we use, e.g. hit a single at this RPE but don’t take that into consideration for your back off intensity.
I think it would be difficult to reliably say there is a huge difference between doing sets of 70-73% of 1EM in outcomes, which may be 5-20lbs+ of difference.
I think the overall programming aims should be to use enough volume at the appropriate intensity to drive improvements in the stated goals. This can be done multiple ways to gradually increase the stress over whatever time period you’re looking at, of course.
Not necessarily. Depends on the specific context and aims of the programming arrangement.