I’m currently trying to shed some weight over the next 2 months. I previously went on a massing phase and now I’m trying to lean out. These are my stats after a month of fat loss:
I really want to hop on group programming and hopefully take my lifts to the next level. Would it be best to finish out my fat loss on a hypertrophy template for the next 2 months then sign up for it? Does group programming cater to individuals who might want to enter a weight loss phase?
Are these weight goals reasonable for my height?
Will group programming be available in 2 months time? Are there cutoff dates to sign up to ensure that you get into the next/upcoming month?
Really appreciate all the content you release and thanks for taking the time to answer these questions!
Hi there! We’re not sure what being in a weight loss phase means here, like are you pursuing a fast, hard cut? I assume it gradual and you want to keep training well, so group programing is a good fit, for sure.
We can’t comment on these goals without a bit more-like your waist, your strength, etc.
Yes, we plan on having group programming continue as there is great interest and participation in it! The cut off each month is the 23rd.
To clarify, I meant weight loss in terms of losing fat and retaining as much muscle mass as possible. I’m of the mindset that a hypertrophy phase (consisting of sets of 8-12 reps using around 60-70% of 1RM for example) would compliment that goal the best. However, as has been stated in various podcasts and videos, I also accept the notion that it’s possible to get stronger while losing weight – assuming the individual has the “capacity” to do so.
Following my fat loss, I plan to maintain my ending weight for at least 1-2 months and then start eating in a calorie surplus again in the hopes of gaining more muscle (lean) mass and strength. I suspect eventually I’d want to go on another fat loss phase where again I maintain as much muscle mass as possible while losing fat.
So I guess my concern with group programming is whether or not the programming structure supports cycle of physical development, particularly during phases of fat loss. Now that I’ve typed all this out it makes sense that it would, but I hear Jordan and Austin talk so much about people gaining weight to increase and reach their strength potential and not so much about weight loss unless it pertains to health concerns. Which got into my head and made me think that the programming would be sub-optimal for someone trying to pursue fat loss.
(sorry if this get posted twice! not sure what happened when I hit post the first time)
Thanks for the responses!
So to clarify, I meant a gradual weight loss over a period of time with the aim of losing mostly fat and retaining as much muscle mass as possible. As I understand, a hypertrophy focused program is usually the best idea during this time. That said, I also agree with the notion that it’s possible for a person to gain strength while losing weight – assuming the individual has the “capacity” to do so.
The reason I’m trying to lose weight currently is because I’ve basically been operating in a calorie surplus for the past 2 years. I definitely got stronger and heavier over the course of that time. But after competing in April this year and weighing in at 226 lbs, I realized that I wasn’t happy with my body composition and wanted to enter a fat loss phase soon after the meet. I’m pretty sure I was in the mid to high 20’s bodyfat%-wise. I don’t mind weighing 226, but I’m pretty sure I can be that heavy and also have significantly more muscle on my frame. Once I finish the fat loss phase, I plan to maintain my weight for 1-2 months and then enter a calorie surplus again in the hopes of gaining more muscle mass (and the least amount of fat as possible). I suspect at some point I’ll probably want to enter a period of fat loss again, and so the cycle goes on.
So I guess my concern was whether or not group programming would support this cycle of physical development, particularly during the periods of time an individual may choose to enter a fat loss phase for a few months. After typing all this out, it makes sense that it would, but I hear Jordan and Austin talk so much about gaining weight and strength and not so much about losing weight unless it pertains to health concerns. So I guess that got into my head and it made me think the group programming would be sub-optimal for a period of fat loss vs. the GPP/Hypertrophy template for example.
We understand your concerns. There is no shortage of training volume in these programs, together with plenty of strength stimulus. When combined with the use of autoregulation, we like this approach for both strength gain and fat loss phases.
And, to be clear with respect to your last sentence - we cannot and do not claim that our programming is “optimal”. There is no such thing as “optimal” programming, but rather programming differences that result in better or worse training response for a given individual (… which itself is variable over time).
The idea with group programming is that we can provide more “general” programming to folks we’ve stratified into cohorts, while providing them with ongoing detailed technique coaching. Since this programming is not adjusted to each person’s individual response the way it would be in 1-on-1 coaching (hence allowing for the lower price point for folks), we therefore expect to see a spectrum of response and results – just like you see with literally any other standardized training intervention. So yes, there will be people who make great progress in the group programming, and there will probably be some others who don’t respond nearly as well. That’s just the way things work. But over time, we hope to continually tweak things to generate the most training response across the broadest sample of the population.
A tangential question if I may: do you find that advanced programming (as per the PPST definition) works better as generalized templates for a broader population of intermediate (again, PPST def) lifters? Hopefully my first post here makes sense. Thanks for all info you guys put out!
Lol, I’ll try again. After many unsuccessful attempts at what PPST considers programming appropriate for intermediate lifters, seeing the many questions of how to make a good intermediate program (for dem weekly gainzz) and looking at sooo many logs of failed attempts at intermediate programming, it strikes me that writing a good weekly progression program takes a lot of skill and experience. And then, even more monitoring. In the end the people least capable of writing such programs are the people that need/wants to run them. As I think you’ve mentioned in your podcast, individuality becomes a bigger factor in the programming decisions. The idea in my head of what constitutes a successful program entails that it a) builds/maintains muscle mass b) builds/maintains neuromuscular adaptations (or the neural component of strength, not sure what the correct term is) and maintains/improves skill/technique. All of these in a sustainable manner. LP I think does all three each workout. To make weekly progression these should be accomplished within a week. Lastly for the “advanced”, it would happen in what I suppose are blocks (accumulation, transformation, realization etc). Would the people that are in a situation where they need (for whatever reason; money, ego, optimism) to program for themselves, but lets face it, are really not capable of doing so, does it make more sense to attempt to use a periodization structure? Does it give more lee-way to be wrong in the programming decisions but still make decent progress? Probably an idle question, but your post before my questions pigued my curiousity. Thanks for entertaining it either way…
You’re asking whether post-novice trainees who need to program for themselves, but have no idea what they’re doing, should try to program for themselves?
I think he’s saying that…
If a post-novice trainee wants to program for themselves, but has no idea what they’re doing, is a “periodization structure” (found in the advanced section of PPST) the best way to program? Does a periodization structure “give more lee-way to be wrong” and “still make decent progress”?
He’s asking this due to the failure rate of PPST’s intermediate programs, which can be identified by all the failed logs at SS; that if jumping straight to a more advanced style programming in PPST better, even for an intermediate.
Just an observational clarification, I think it is a bit disingenuous to chalk failure in the logs up to the programming. It leaves out a whole bunch of other factors that contribute to a lack of training success that has absolutely nothing to do with programming.
