Hi Jordan,
I have seen you mention in several places that you are not a big fan of block periodization and prefer concurrent periodization. Could you perhaps elaborate on why that might be? Thanks.
I don’t think I would say I’m “not a fan” of block periodization, but I do prefer concurrent models- especially for the gen pop and athletes who are not very close to a specific, meaningful competition.
I think the wider range of fitness adaptations potentially driven by concurrent programming leads to better performance and reduced risk of injury.
-Jordan
Jordan,
This kind of leads into another questions I’ve had for a while. It concerns the usefulness of having specific blocks or days dedicated to hypertrophy training. It’s common in block periodization models to see something like the following:
Hypertrophy Block (6 weeks, 8-12 reps on exercises)
Strength Block (4 weeks, 4-6 reps on exercises)
Peaking Block (3 weeks, 1-3 reps on exercises)
In the context of a concurrent model, using something like DUP you might see:
Monday (Hypertrophy, 3x10)
Wednesday (Powers, 6x2)
Friday (Strength, 4x5)
Considering the research I’ve seen which shows that sets between 5-30 reps taken to equal levels of strain, produce identical levels of hypertrophy, what exactly is the need to differentiate between the training of strength and hypertrophy in these various models? Atleast if one’s goal is focused on the development of hypertrophy WITH strength, wouldn’t it make sense to eliminate the higher rep (hypertrophy) training in these models since this athletic quality would be covered by the Strength Block (in BP) or Strength day (in DUP)?
The research I read shows that training in the conventional “hypertrophy rep range” makes for shorter workouts with less risk of injury and burnout as compared to higher intensity, lower rep sets. So with that in mind, I can understand why having this programmed in at times could be beneficial, but beyond that, what exactly would be the point?
I know that you are familiar with concepts of directed adaptation and adaptive resistance, Mike Israetel and Chad Wesley Smith kind of introduced me to them in their books.
What do you think about them? Is devoting your time to each quality individually (hypertrophy strength peaking say for a powerlifter)not leading to better long term results because of directed adaptation? Do we really need, say, strength work (75-90%) when hypertrophy is our main goal?
I don’t think that people reliably do better with block periodization compared to concurrent when it comes to strength outcomes, but hypertrophy probably is better suited towards block work.
Strength outcomes are specific to the variables with which they’re trained. Higher rep strength, e.g. strength endurance or strength stamina, are qualities one may wish to develop. Additionally, I wouldn’t necessarily think that 3 sets of 5 @ RPE 8 and 3 sets of RPE 10 @ RPE 8 produce the same hypertrophy or fatigue, though the hypertrophy differences from a single exercise in a single session are likely negligible.
Pertinent to everything you’ve said so far;
Chad also gets a mention
TLDR
- Concurrent training can get you really jacked and strong, +90% of what you could have expected otherwise
- The difference in results is like 1st place (block) vs 3rd or 4th place (concurrent) at top venues
- Phase potentiation isn’t remotely a big player in overall outcomes, but is present and enough to edge out concurrent
The only real point of contention here is probably phase potentiation. My guess is Jordan doesn’t think much of it, that’s the “big” disagreement here. All parties agree concurrent works great - some parties don’t think concurrent works best. The question to ask Jordan is this; does he think the difference between block and concurrent is the difference between 1st place and 4th place? That’s honestly the real question that “matters”.
I don’t think concurrent training is inferior to block or other programming models with respect to strength outcomes and unlikely to be reliably true given the wild inter-individual variation in training response.
That all being said, I find it very difficult to have firm opinions on much of exercise programming given the current state of the evidence.
Great. I just realized that you also said you think hypertrophy is “probably better suited towards block work”. Does that mean it is likely to cause better outcomes for hypertrophy? If we adhere to the axiom that hypertrophy is the predominant factor in the expression of strength, isn’t this all the kind of conjecture that justifies a hypothesis saying blocks could lead to better strength outcomes? Of course we need an expansion of what that phrase means.
I don’t think so, necessarily, though programming a hypertrophy training block can be difficult if still doing a lot of maximal strength wrok.
Hypertrophy is not the predominant factor in the expression of strength, so, I wouldn’t adhere to that axiom. That said, muscle cross sectional area increases tend to improve force production potential, though this isn’t as linear a relationship as we’d like it to be.
I’ve seen some big numbers thrown around for this relationship.
Greg Nuckols:
For more experienced lifters, gains in muscle mass may explain up to 65%+ of the variability in strength gains, highlighting hypertrophy as a key factor for strength gains in trained lifters.
The first by Baker involved lifters with at least 6 months of training experience, who needed to at least have a bodyweight bench press.
Over the course of the 12-week study, the correlation between gains in lean body mass (a pretty good proxy for muscle mass, assuming no big shifts in muscle glycogen levels or hydration status) and gains in squat and bench strength were r=0.59 and r=0.68 respectively, and “a multiple correlation between changes in squat and bench press strength and changes in LBM revealed an even stronger relationship (r=0.81, r2=0.65), suggesting that changes in LBM are the principal factor for increasing maximal strength in athletes of this level.” In other words, gains in lean body mass explained about 35% of the variation in squat gains, 46% of the variation in bench gains, and 65% of the variation in gains in both lifts combined.
Brechue and Abe found that in powerlifters, the correlation between strength in one of the powerlifts and the thickness of the prime movers for the lift (i.e squat strength and quad thickness or bench press and triceps thickness) was mostly r=0.8-0.95. Furthermore, the correlation between strength in the three lifts and FFM or FFM/cm was r=0.86-0.95. So, muscle thicknesses of prime movers explain about 65%-90% of the variation in strength, and FFM or FFM/cm explain about 75-90% of the variation in strength.
What’s the difference in saying gains in muscle mass may explain up to +65% of the variability in strength gains vs hypertrophy is the predominant factor in the expression of strength? It looks like muscle size plays a bigger role than technical proficiency, neurological adaptations, or leverages in a 1 to 1 comparison.
Language is very important, Sero. I wouldn’t disagree with Greg here, to be clear, as I think for predicting strength performance- LBM and muscle CSA are some of the best tools we’ve got.
That said, I would not necessarily agree that muscle CSA gained from training plays a bigger role than other adaptations, social inputs (e.g. opportunity), genetics (unrelated to muscle CSA), etc. in addition to muscle size not necessarily reflecting hypertrophy-specific training.
We obviously think muscle CSA is important for strength development, but it’d be hard to suggest- as you did- that any sort of hypertrophy improvement would therefore lead to an increase in strength. That said, we do think that increasing muscle CSA from training is an important part of getting stronger.
Some food for thought:
1 Like