low fatigue vs traditional high volume

Docs,

I’m on my 3rd run of the Strength I/III templates and 7 weeks out from meet. I’ve found this time to be more successful so far (haven’t tested yet so the jury is still officially not out). I attribute this time being more successful and efficient, and also more fun, due to the fact that ive lowered back off sets RPE by 1 from the template Rx, or the % by about 5-10% depending on the lift. The first couple times I followed RPE and back off % to the T and felt I accumulated too much fatigue. This time around, although the weights seem too light on paper for me, it is actually working well. This leads to my question, have you guys determined that a lower fatigue strength model is more effective in general for strength gains? Or do you still stand by the higher volume traditional methods seen in your strength templates? I ask becasue you two obviously got incredibly strong by doing heavy, high intensity work followed by tons of volume, and the new low fatigue theories out there use much lower intensities and even volumes.

Thanks for your awesome content!

Cole

have you guys determined that a lower fatigue strength model is more effective in general for strength gains? Or do you still stand by the higher volume traditional methods seen in your strength templates? I ask becasue you two obviously got incredibly strong by doing heavy, high intensity work followed by tons of volume, and the new low fatigue theories out there use much lower intensities and even volumes.

I wouldn’t say that the “lower fatigue” approach is better per se’, but it is a viable option and may work better for some. The volume and intensity are also quite high, but the proximity to failure is less. That’s the main difference - not the intensity or volume.

1 Like