Hi BBM team! Long-time podcast listener here: thanks a ton for the content over the years! The thoughtful and thorough education/discussions on all the things have been my go-to for cardio or a long drive. The great debates format has been awesome lately too!
I have a programming/coaching philosophy topic that I’m interested in as a self-coached lifter. I’ve taken in content from many folks in the powerlifting space over the years. Recently in designing my own training, I often feel like I have too many tools to pick from, and it can make programming complex. One of the tools available is whether to have a static microcycle for a block, or to have some gradient/progression from week to week. I’ll first share what I understand about this topic, and I have some philosophical questions at the end because I’m curious how the BBM coaches think about it.
From the Progressive Loading series, one of the key takeaways (as I understand it) is to avoid forcing progress by changing the weight on the bar in a way that is out of sync with the effort target for the day. For example, squatting 5lbs more than last week at a slower bar-speed doesn’t necessarily indicate that the lifter got stronger. The RTS programming concept of Emerging Strategies encapsulates this concept well, such that the programming prescription is largely static throughout the course of a block (the same microcycle gets repeated each week). Austin talked about his “1@7-8, -25% for backoff” approach on one of the Q&A podcasts a couple years ago that also demonstrates this concept.
This static style of training has a lot of benefits: training stress is consistent week to week, and it should be fairly clear whether there was progress at the end of a training block. On the other end, the lack of progression from week to week can make training stale, and the lifter likely doesn’t get much exposure to higher RPE work unless it’s programmed for the entire block.
Many coaches in the powerlifting space use an RPE progression model within a block compared to a static structure (e.g. Steve DeNovi, David Woolson, Marcellus Williams, etc). An example 4 week structure might look something like:
Week 1: 1@6, Week 2: 1@7, Week 3: 1@8, Week 4: 1@9
Benefits to this style of training include exposures to heavier weights, a deload of sorts by nature of the gradient, and expectations for when to push hard and “get hype” for a lift (don’t overshoot week 1, save that for week 4). Downsides of this approach are the dynamic training stress, difficulty in measuring progress compared to a static approach, and the top-down planning model that doesn’t adapt well if performance is variable from week to week (or if dealing with pain in training).
These two styles aren’t mutually exclusive obviously: many programs may have a progression for the primary lift, and a static prescription for a secondary day. They might have progression for a single and static backoffs/rep work, or vice versa. It’s interesting to think about the concept of progressive loading in relation to an RPE progression model: the prescription is changing week to week, so the lifter is expected to change the weight on the bar, but still maintain the effort target.
My questions are:
- As a coach, are there situations where you tend to prefer the static model vs. an RPE progression within a block?
- Have you found one of the models to be more effective? More preferable for certain kinds of lifters? One to be more ideal for managing pain/injury?
- If training for 1RM powerlifting performance, do you feel that a lifter may be missing out on some potential benefits by using a static model?
- For your own personal training, have you preferred one approach to the other? Why? Personally, I’d prefer the simplicity of a more static approach and I find it helpful for managing pain, but I feel that I may be missing some benefits given this seems to be the trend of many powerlifting coaches/programs these days. I’d love to hear the team’s perspective and opinions on how you folks like to use these tools. Thanks for engaging with this, again this is purely philosophical and to better understand the tools that are available to me when self-coaching.