Tanizaki????? Is that you?????
What Roll Does Science Play in Your Program??
- Thread starter goergen1
- Start date
Tanizaki????? Is that you?????
But that isn't any test of the hypothesis of whether sprint racing can make you go faster compared to ' hard pounding ' at all, because you never engaged in any sprint ' training ' at all - i.e you quit after one session cause it is too hard for you. You need to allow an adaptation repsonse to occur - and this takes repeated sessions of either sprint ' training ' or ' hard pounding ' .
All an elevated heart only shows that you aren't ready for sprint training - likely because you aerobic base / fitness level is inadequate to properly test the hypothesis. It in no way indicated whether sprint training could be of help to you or not - which is what you wanted to determine.
I agree - but that is more an issue of your fitness level than a judgment of the efficacy of either protocol
So, in reality your hypothesis was simply to determine if you were fit enough undertake sprint training ( and not whether sprint training is better or worse than another protocol ) - and in this case since your heart rate is to high, the answer is no - so in this context, only doing one session gives you the answer you want.
I agree.
Yes, but given the proper indications, in most cases Lipitor does what it says it will do for patients it is indicated for - as shown by clinical trials and as approved by the FDA.
If you say so.
Interesting stuff.
So, in 6 week period ( A ) where you did only gained 5lbs and had no change in power output - assuming you trained 36 days - do you have any idea how many of those 36 were actually " Power Days " ?
By comparison, in the revised 6 week period ( B ) where you went up by 35lbs, deadlift increased by 75lbs, average power outputs increased 18% - assuming you trained 36 days - do you have any idea how many of those 36 were actually " Power Days " ?
Just trying to be clear won what hypothesis is being tested here and conclusion that can be made. If, for example, it turned out ( all other things being equal ) ........
Period A " Power Days " = 15 days
Period B " Power Days " = 22 days
Period B " Power Days " = 22 days
............is the hypothesis that you would improve lbs. lifted and output after Period B vs Period A ?
But, if it turned out.....
Period A " Power Days " = 15 days
Period B " Power Days " = 15 days
Period B " Power Days " = 15 days
......is the hypothesis that you would not improve lbs. lifted or output after Period B vs Period A ?
Or, does the hypothesis have more to do with your average power output for the day vs. best average output percentage somehow ?
Well, with all due respect, people can ' define ' these terms any way they like - that's why I asked.
What do reps and sets ' typically ' look like on this day ?
Curious - reps below or over 5 ?
That makes sense.
Well, that's what I was wondering. Thanks for clarifying. I think science is important, but I wouldn't sit and study all the data just to make a program. I do see what others have tried and do a lot of experimenting. I think a lot of it has to do with your body type.
I could look at my training journal and count them if I want. I will say what I said in my last post. The number of each type of training day will be different in each 6 week example. So there is no real knowledge to be gained from counting the days.
I can say that the power day was still done more often than everything else. Though not every day but one, like the first 6 weeks or so.
I simply found that using higher percentages got me better results. It has everything to do with finding the proper percentages (% of best average output) since that is what will dictate the type of training day.
The power day. The exercises are usually two or three reps. Sometimes 5 reps. I will use up to 6 reps if I am using the vertimax. This usually only counts for the first couple of exercises or so. After that the reps tend to go up and the training leans more toward just getting work done.
For the heavy day, 1 - 3. Usually one though. This again only counts for the first couple exercises or so. After that the reps tend to go up and the training leans more toward just getting work done.
Once again, what I stated above are the norms. There are some days where I break the rules and do whatever I like.
Click on the link to my training log in my last post. Look at the last 3 or 4 weeks. You will see how things turn out in real life.
So to answer the original question I guess science dictates Wrangell.
Actually, science provides a form of validation...whether it be through inductive or deductive methods.
Which is also why others on this forum - other than myself - cite academic studies and scientific evidence to support their positions on various topics of health & fitness.
Last edited:
I would have thought it is the quite the opposite actually - i.e there is a lot of knowledge to be gained by comparing the days.
In fact, before you could really explain why a period A protocol might be better than and B, some comparisons of how many days were allocated to each protocol in each periods would have to be done IMO.
For example, during the 36 training days in Period A in which there were ' NO significant gains ' , the number of days you did each workout would serve as a benchmark. Perhaps ( and this is just for illustrative purposes ) they were split
evenly such as in .........
Power days .............12
Heavy/Max days........12
Work Capacity Day.....12
Heavy/Max days........12
Work Capacity Day.....12
Then, let's say you did another 6 weeks that has only ' modest gains ' , and you found the split was ( again, only an example ) .....
Power days .............12
Heavy/Max days........16
Work Capacity Day.....8
Heavy/Max days........16
Work Capacity Day.....8
Then, in yet another another 6 weeks you achieved ' maximum gains ' and you found the split was ( again, only an example ) .....
Power days .............18
Heavy/Max days........12
Work Capacity Day.....6
Heavy/Max days........12
Work Capacity Day.....6
...so the optimal adaption to maximize how much you can lift and improve output has to do with the number of days you do a certain workout - in this example, it is the greater number of " power days " done over 36 days, that yields the best results. So, the percentages become a moot point IMO. It is the number of days you do a certain type of workout over 36 days that will maximize results - and this can be determined either with percentages ( as you have done ) to decide which workout to do, or arbitrarily, at random etc. You would simply have to test the frequency and combination of the 3 types of workouts that produced the best results.
Or, put another way, the more days you did " Power " workouts, the better results you got. Because, even if on a day when your revised %s would suggest you do a ' Power " protocol - if you instead - did a ' Heavy/Max ' workout, then you would likely expect, less than optimal results. So, could it be that your best result stem from the fact you did more " Power " workouts on more days, not that you achieved high %s that day ?
Your bold/underline method. I think that is what many have said here, though you are breaking down all posts.
I usually do what makes sense to me. When I read the stuff heavy in science like Super Training or some crazy Russian study, it all just goes over my head and I don't really feel the need to understand it. I feel that since I am new, anything will really work, so that's what I'm doing...But I won't just do anything, I like to talk to people who have had things work for them, like G, Evo, and trainers with athletes who have made great gains...stuff that kind of calls out to me. I was never athletic or strong, so I'm building my knowledge and intuition on stuff that works for me and has worked for people like me.
I usually just copy what I read in Flex. "Ten inches on your biceps in one week!"
No, it has to do with the preparedness of the body and nervous system. Which is a concept that seems difficult for you to grasp.
Wrangell - thank you for playing, as well as completely misunderstanding the use of the power test. It has nothing to do with the number of days. It is used to test the efficiency of the nervous system before workouts, in order to stop over training as well as make more consistent progress.
Also, thank you for not carefully reading any of my posts.
You are over complicating the whole idea, which is the downfall of many people who over analyze things.
You are stuck on the distribution of training days, information which can only be useful over a 2 or 3 month period. Where knowledge about the manipulation of the percentages can be used over years of training and can evolve as the lifters training evolves.
So our discussion is over.
I agree - preparedness is one thing. But to maximize strength adaptation gains, you have maximize the process of progressive overload - and this is a consequence of the type and frequency of training protocols employed.
So, it isn't hard to grasp actually. You simply said you were doing you own scientific experiments and that you found that you got superior results by choosing one set of protocol over ( i.e 36 days ) another set of protocols depending on which power %s you obtained on a given day.
So, then the question simply is, what is the hypothesis being tested. It seems to me that your experiment has shown that you maximize gains but choosing one type of protocol over another in a given 6 week period, So, as an example, doing 20 ' Power " days over 36 sessions will result in more gains than doing only 12 ' Power " days over 36 sessions.
The only way anyone can get stronger over 6 weeks is by causing the body to adapt more quickly due to progressive overload, and the extent to which to maximize that overload is due to the frequency of one protocol employed over another.
The ' power test ' is simply a simple decision tool or filter to help you decide which protocol - Power Day....Heavy/Max Day....Work Capacity Day - to use on any given day.
Have I got that right ?
The power test does tell you which protocol to use on a given day. So if you are comparing and trying to explain why one 6 week period yielded superior results to another 6 week period, comparing how many days were allocated to each Power Day....Heavy/Max Day....Work Capacity Day in each 6 week period help explain why there is difference.
Actually, I think your experiment is very simple and uncomplicated. That is, if you do one form of protocol - i.e " Power " over others during a 6 weeks period you can optimize strength gains - which is fact what you have shown.
Seems to me if you employ 20 Power days over 36 days versus 12 Power days over the same period - and 20 Power days yield greater results - then it follows the greater the number of Power days the greater the strength gains.
I would guess how many of what days if the best would vary alot. Seeing as what day he chooses is based on how fatigued his CNS is. So one time period of 36 days 20 power days might show the best results, however, another time period of 36 days he might only get 12 power days, and it will show better results than if he had done 20, because the reason he did 12 was because his CNS told him to. If he had done 20 PWR days the second time period, it would have been to much, seeing as the CNS obviously was more fatigued in that time period than the first (could be a number of reasons). that's why I don't think how many of what days you have matter, since it's really your body telling you what days you should do when.
That's my understanding.. (correct me if I'm wrong Goergen)
That's my understanding.. (correct me if I'm wrong Goergen)
Good post.
See if my take on this makes any sense to you.
The claim was that by following a certain initial power output predictor a selection of protocols was chosen over a 6 week ( i.e 36 session ) - Power Day....Heavy/Max Day....Work Capacity Day. The days weren't tracked, so we don't know how many of the 36 days were allocated to each of the 3. The initial predictor resulted in protocols that yielded few if any gains in power/ strength over 6 weeks.
Then a revised predictor was established. And again, a selection of protocols was chosen over a 6 week ( i.e 36 session ) - Power Day....Heavy/Max Day....Work Capacity Day. Once again, these days weren't tracked, so don't know how many of the 36 days were allocated to each of the 3. However, this 6 week session caused superior results.
The first question I had was - what " caused " the better result ? The first thing to look at , it seemed to me, was to compare how many " Power sessions " were employed in each 6 week session. If increased strength is due to a greater magnitude progressive overload, then it might be that more " Power days " provided that additional progressive overload.
The question is - what ' causes ' the better results over 6 weeks if none of the days are tracked ?
So, I still can't figure out why a comparison of the allocation of the 3 protocols between the 2 6 sessions is irrelevant to interpreting the results.
Thoughts ?
Last edited:
I think the reason for the bad second 6 week session would have been something else than the ammount of power days.
If you did the same ammount of days every 6 week session, you would kid yourself, since some sessions this would be too much for your CNS, some it would be to little, and some it would be just enough. You would cycle inn and out of "overtraining" since what you want is to be exactly on the edge, you want to do as much as you can, train as hard as you can, without overtraining. I think the tendo unit is a good tool in finding that balance.
If you did the same ammount of days every 6 week session, you would kid yourself, since some sessions this would be too much for your CNS, some it would be to little, and some it would be just enough. You would cycle inn and out of "overtraining" since what you want is to be exactly on the edge, you want to do as much as you can, train as hard as you can, without overtraining. I think the tendo unit is a good tool in finding that balance.