Different template loading pattern

Hi
one can notice two main loading patterns in the most of your templates: (1) ramping to working sets @8 and (2) 1@8, -10-12% @9.
Is there any difference between them (in the way they work / should be implemented)? What are the pros and cons of both schemes? In what circumstances each one would be preferably used?

1 Like

Yes, because there would not be two different protocols programmed if they had the same effect and same set of pros/cons. Context indicates or contraindicates any given protocol.

The protocols that I will outline below are not to be viewed as interchangeable or having the same effect, because they are not and do not, respectively. I am listing them for example purposes only. Also, I want to note that the best thought process is not to pick the method with the most pros, least cons, or most favorable ratio of pros:cons. The ideal way to go about examining these is seeing which set of pros and cons best fits with the lifter’s needs for the time when they will be prescribed.

Programming work-ups to @8 (e.g., “x6@6, x6@7, x6@8”) followed by down sets (e.g., plus 3 down sets [repeat])
Pros

  1. 8 RPE allows for more volume to be accumulated (compared to a 9 RPE top set) since effort on the “hardest” set is lower
  2. Effort is predetermined
  3. Work-ups allow for more fine-tuned top set load selection
  4. NL is predetermined due to the prescription of repeat sets of @8 loadCons
  5. 8 RPE is not as specific as 9 RPE
  6. Some coaches might prefer to autoregulate based on effort at a predetermined load instead of load at a predetermined effort
  7. Work-ups might not provide much of a meaningful training effect, and use energy that could be dedicated to the performance of more sets at a potentially more appropriate/higher load
  8. Number of repeat sets one can perform is limited due to the top set RPE already being on the higher end of the spectrumProgramming x1@8

Pros

  1. Very specific to powerlifting
  2. Helps curb temptation to deviate from program due to this load being in the 90% range
  3. Generally, its fun for most peopleCons
  4. Lifters who intensely psych up for this set can quickly become fatigued by frequent programming of this set when they consistently achieve this high level of psych for the set
  5. Takes a lot of time to work up to this load
  6. Method can be ruined by lifters who are unable to set their ego aside and routinely overshoot the 8 RPE, or are not honest in their reporting of effort

Programming down sets based on percentage, with predetermined sets and reps (e.g., “x1@8, -10-12% @9,” OR “x1@8, 80%x4x4,” OR “x1@8, x6@9”)
Pros

  1. Allows for all volume accumulated to be accumulated with a potentially more appropriate/higher load
  2. Some lifters prefer this method because it only requires that they note and record their effort, insetad of controlling bar load based on effort, which can be tricky to some trainees
  3. Favorable for coaches who think more in the mindset of autoregulating based on effort at a predetermined load instead of load at a predetermined effortCons
  4. Training effect of this load may change since effort on first set performed will not be the same as at the last set performed
  5. Doesn’t allow for any autoregulation of down set load based on down set load performance, and relies entirely on e1RM of the top single. This can be a problem if a lifter does not have a custom RPE chart made based on their own performance at given loads.
  6. Some lifters take comfort in knowing that their level of effort is predetermined, which is not a luxury that this method affords
9 Likes

Thanks a lot, it is really helpful!

Bump.

With % based down sets, if the first downset is unexpectedly tough (say RPE 10), should I adjust the subsequent downsets further downward?

This has happened to be several times with bench sets in the beginner prescription. My interset recovery seems to fall off quite a bit after a certain point.