Periodization = Changing Your Workout's Sets and Reps with the Same Eventual Goal

I was flipping through my workouts that I completed during my masters program (last 2 years) and since I got my current job in May 2009... I noticed something peculiar. Out of the rough 148 weeks that I have been training since I arrived at UK, I only completed 15 weeks of sets of 12 reps (mainly focusing on hypertrophy, which is increase in muscle size).

source: elitetrack.com

Periodization can be linear (seen above) in which volume graduallt decreases and intensity of your workouts gradually increases to peak at your season, spring break, competition, or some other random end point) or undulating, seen below, in which intensity increases, but the ride looks more like a roller coaster, with dips and small peaks before the highest peak at the end.

source: elitesoccerconditioning.com

Aside from those 15 weeks (only 10% of my training since august 2007) I have been focused on strength. All my core, structural lifts (bench, squat and all its variations, deadlift, and all back movements) had been 4-6 sets of 6 or less repetitions... needless to say my periodization graph would look more like a horizontal line at a high intensity with a couple of twitches in it.

I am not a fan of lifting for high reps, but I should be... at least for a couple months a year. I love the shock undulating periodization gives to your body. If some skinhead looking guy approached me with this past programming, I would smack him in his fat head and tell him that you (and more importantly your joints) need some type of break from going heavy on every lift ALL THE TIME.

Now I'm sure there are some nay-sayers out there that never, EVER go for higher reps. I can only assume that they have their fair share of injuries as well. I am not talking about one set of 25 reps per exercise... that would be moving you into an endurance program for some one that could care less about any real type of results. I do not mean 5 sets of 20 reps--- you might as well shoot yourself. I am talking about 3-5 sets of 10-12 repetitions, with a drop set once a week per muscle group.

I am on week three of my high rep month and hitting every exercise as hard as I can, knowing that my master plan is playing itself out. I want to be strong... like, what is he taking strong, you know? I don't want to be a powerlifter whose stomach combos as a table/shelf when he sits down. I also don't have any attention of getting super lean (sub 6% body fat). Don't get me wrong, being a giant powerlifter means you work hard, being a body builder that gets to 4% body fat menas you work hard. I want to be around 11% body fat and still be pushing 315 on flat bench for reps.

I am going to do one more week of this high rep scheme and then go to sets of 8's, then 6's, then 5's, at 4-6 weeks at each interval. I will let you kow how it goes. What does your current program look like? Let me know in the comments.

MEATHEAD DEBATE Vol.1: Absolute versus Relative Strength

A new series on ASP... THE MEATHEAD DEBATE. I am going to randomly cover controversial topics that come up while I'm lifting or in my office. Whichever the case, I am in my gym. These topics could range from differing points of view and education of both parties, to ridiculous ignorance and one party "sitting down and shutting up," or to eventually agreeing to disagree.

First, I need to make sure all of you are on the same page. Absolute strength would be defined as the heaviest possible weight being pushed or pulled through an entire range of motion. Relative strength would be defined as comparing the amount of weight lifted to that individual's body weight (BW). Confused? Let me elaborate...

Guy 1: Nic Nak
Weight lifted: 205lbs
Nic's BW: 140lbs

Guy 2: Perilous Humphrey III
Weight lifted: 295
Perilous' BW: 210

So, examining the information above... paying close attention to the amount of weight lifted (we will just make these weights lifted for barbell bench press) and each lifter's BW and little attention to their names, we see that Perilous is a bigger guy. Looking at the amount of weight lifted by each meathead shows that Perilous is stronger than Nic, in an absolute sense. He lifts the heavier weight.

Let's assume these are one rep max numbers. To figure out which athlete is stronger in a relative sense, you take weight lifted divided by BW, and multiply by 100.

Weight lifted
BW x 100

Nic= 205
140 x 100= 146.4%
Nic Nak can bench 146% of his BW... let's look at Perilous.


Perilous= 295
210 x 100= 140.5%

Perilous can bench only 141% of his BW. This is when two scenarios could play out... Nic could swiftly kick Perilous in the balls and tell him he is relatively stronger than him. Or Perilous could pick him up and proceed to bench press him several times.

The Debate begins...
So I was watching a guy lift the other day in the gym and he asked for a spot on bench. His name actually happens to be Nic. So we shoot the shit as he reps out his weight... a relatively heavy weight for his body weight. Of course, shooting the shit turns into talking shit.
Conversations lead to some of the following comments:
"Nice weight, little guy"
"Wow, I wish I weighed 215 and could only bench 300 something"
"Hey, are you going to be around later, I need an extra dumbbell"
"When are you going to compete against people in your weight class?"

As the jabs go back and forth, I figured I would cover my thought process in the argument. The most important things are that we both are in the iron game and we both are trying to beat our worst enemies, ourself the last time we lifted.

I want to be as relatively strong as possible while still seeing my absolute strength increase. BW is not a big concern for me. I don't want to go on the McDonald's Supersize Me Diet, but I don't cut weight either. I eat healthy most of the time. Nic is a previous wrestler and his goals focus mainly on being as strong as possible while at his current weight. His absolute number will really only ever top people in his weight class because of his low BW, so his relative strength is very important.

He wants to be strong for his size, I want to move mountains. I believe a combination of the two is important, but they don't have a "World's Relatively Strongest Man" show. However, on the real show "The World's Strongest Man," the largest competitor is Terry Hollands (409.2 lbs or 186kg). A combination of the two, both relative and absolute strength, is vitally important in competition because Mariusz Pudzianowsk, a five time winner of the event, is not the biggest guy, as far as BW goes. But obviously, that hasn't hindered him in competition at all.

I believe a combination of the two strengths is important. I do not compete so my relative strength has no barring on my ego. However, my relative strength is average for a competitor, but I am not to the level of picking up a trophy at a competition. I also am not competing in a weight class where I could show up and set a record because of lack of participants.

Be huge, regardless of your weight.

TRAINING FOR SIZE

I am currently training for muscular size (hypertrophy) while splitting my workout routine into all push one day, and all pull the next day. Alternating the two four days a week, take Friday off or I will do light cardio and then hitting my weaker spots again on Saturday morning. I had a lot of help with this program from Chance Cianciola, CSCS, and the Power Training book by Coach Dos Remedios.
I also have added lifts that I prefer to my workout, while still incorporating exercises that fully challenege my muscular and central nervous systems.

I plan on starting a new 12-week hypertrophy/strength macrocycle at the end of this month. I will lift with my workout partner, Chance, and we will measure and record circumferences, body fat percentage, weight, and max lifts for at least bench and squat.