Jordan & Austin programming video: Parts 1, 2, and 3

[TimK]

I don't really think variation selection was a big part of these videos.

Yeah, after 10 pages of arguing I guess it's hard to remember what was in the video vs what came up afterward in the thread.

I think many folks here are generally picking up what Jordan and Austin are laying down, so those parts aren't going to get discussed much.

The parts that are, as our esteemed Mr. Hanley says, "mushier" are what people are going to talk about, and chase down various side avenues of discussion. Kinda the nature of the beast.

Yeah, I was just giving an explanation for my conflation of the exercise variation discussion with the contents of the video.

[MattNeilsen]

I think many folks here are generally picking up what Jordan and Austin are laying down, so those parts aren't going to get discussed much.

The parts that are, as our esteemed Mr. Hanley says, "mushier" are what people are going to talk about, and chase down various side avenues of discussion. Kinda the nature of the beast.

Yeah, it’d be a little boring to discuss the settled stuff:

“So you’re saying volume goes up as intensity goes down?”
“Yup.”
/thread

Doesn’t have the same catchiness

[ChrisMcCarthy1979]

What I’m most interested in is why Hanley is not on board with our model, however.

Finally watched the vids. Thought they were great.

Unfortunately, this thread devolved into useless squabbling.

Jesus H Christ, Hanley - this seems uncharacteristically blunt of you, unless I'm missing something?

[Hanley]

What I’m most interested in is why Hanley is not on board with our model, however.

Finally watched the vids. Thought they were great.

Unfortunately, this thread devolved into useless squabbling.

Jesus H Christ, Hanley - this seems uncharacteristically blunt of you, unless I'm missing something?

Well, I watched the videos after wading through much of this thread...and I’m still baffled as to how those videos inspired this thread.

I’m presently wrestling with a fever though, so I’m especially irritable and slightly insane.

[ChrisMcCarthy1979]

What I’m most interested in is why Hanley is not on board with our model, however.

Finally watched the vids. Thought they were great.

Unfortunately, this thread devolved into useless squabbling.

Jesus H Christ, Hanley - this seems uncharacteristically blunt of you, unless I'm missing something?

Well, I watched the videos after wading through much of this thread...and I’m still baffled as to how those videos inspired this thread.

I’m presently wrestling with a fever though, so I’m especially irritable and slightly insane.

Allowed.

[Les]

What I’m most interested in is why Hanley is not on board with our model, however.

Finally watched the vids. Thought they were great.

Unfortunately, this thread devolved into useless squabbling.

Jesus H Christ, Hanley - this seems uncharacteristically blunt of you, unless I'm missing something?

Well, I watched the videos after wading through much of this thread...and I’m still baffled as to how those videos inspired this thread.

I’m presently wrestling with a fever though, so I’m especially irritable and slightly insane.

I'm sorry you caught my sickness via e-mail.

[PapaSmurf]

Part 3 is up

[Wilhelm]

Part 3 is up

Sweet.

I regularly jones for more decent lifting viewing.
Hoping this week's Jugglife isn't that oly shit

[quark]

Part 3 is up

Do you have a link? IG links to last week's 2 min Tuesday and nothing new on YouTube, atm.

[Stenson]

https://m.soundcloud.com/user-344313169 ... mmingpart3

[PapaSmurf]

Part 3 is up

Do you have a link? IG links to last week's 2 min Tuesday and nothing new on YouTube, atm.

I see it in iTunes.

[jwilson625]

Part 3 is up

Do you have a link? IG links to last week's 2 min Tuesday and nothing new on YouTube, atm.

I see it in iTunes.

Google Play Music as well.

[quark]

Some highlights. I'd encourage you to listen to the full podcast.

Repeat some definitions:

Stress - something which decreases performance. Productive stress moves towards the goal. Unproductive stress does not.

Recovery - return to baseline. Improves with training.

Repeated Bout Effect. Note that they are using RBE to essentially mean an attenuation of response rather than the classic definition. See viewtopic.php?p=76314#p76314 for more.

Specificity of adaptation to given stressor.

Spectrum of training sensitivity - how much you respond to training stimulus. Varies between people and within individual over time.

Volume = sets x reps; tonnage = volume x weight. Volume and average intensity more important metric than tonnage. Relative and absolute intensity.

Any program might work or fail for any individual. Can't necessarily generalize from any one person. They are trying to create a general model which explains why something might work for one and not another.

Training novices: observe carefully at the beginning, given inter-individual differences. Main question at end of NLP is response to stress rather than absolute numbers.

[ad break at 27:30]

After novice progression, issue is long-term development.

Determinants of force production. See viewtopic.php?p=73129#p73129, viewtopic.php?p=73291#p73291, viewtopic.php?p=73294#p73294 and related discussion for detail. The key things you can modify are muscle size (hypertrophy) and neuromuscular efficiency. The more trained you get, the more you have to increase skeletal muscle mass.

Hypertrophy: More volume is key, it's the main driver. There is a dose response (more volume gets you more hypertrophy, although diminishing return). Once you get over approx 60-70% you recruit all motor units. Higher intensity doesn't get you more hypertrophy, but higher intensity in initial sets can limit how many sets you can do as a result of fatigue and soreness. Too many sets at lower intensity can make you too sore. They almost never program below 70% of e1RM. Adding weight to the bar does not add more hypertrophy.

Lower volume is worse for hypertrophy, all else equal. Increased intensity has other benefits, but not hypertrophy once within these ranges. Those other benefits of intensity include neuromuscular and skill to drive strength improvement.

One idea: As weights get heavier shift from sarcoplasmic (enlarge non-contractile proteins) to myofibrillar (enlarge contractile muscle proteins) hypertrophy - this idea is false.

To maximize long-term strength potential - need to get more jacked and do this as soon as practicable, which requires productive volume. If you need more volume but you can't tolerate it, then have to do something to increase work capacity and recovery rates - train more and do conditioning.

Neuromuscular development: Intensity is important. Must expose people to tolerable amounts of high intensity training (above 70%, 85%, 90%). Intensity is fatiguing, so must balance intensity and fatigue. Above ~85% is needed, but in relatively small doses compared to lower intensity volume.

Foundation is volume for hypertrophy, then heavy weights for strength.

Exercise variation. One reason is RBE - newness allows less volume for same amount of stress and allows lighter which helps manage fatigue. There's also a psychological effect - less boring and can make training more enjoyable, encouraging compliance and consistency.

Exposing yourself to different motor patterns is helpful, making you a better athlete.

Some evidence people, given individual variation, get different responses from different exercises.

These variation issues are the squishiest part of exercise science.

How should people evaluate and manipulate programming? Change one v. many variables? When you start coaching, changing one variable at a time can help gather information, but will take a long time. Once you've gathered enough info, the person has already changed in response to training, so may have different responses to training variables. Therefore, one variable at a time is not optimal.

[1:03:00]

1) No benefit to just running it out at the end of NLP (unless someone is going to a meet or is necessary for compliance)

2) Reduce average intensity and increase volume at end of NLP, but do not remove all high intensity work, e.g., need frequent exposure to heavy singles.

3) Include a wider variety of exercises, for hypertrophy, skill and fatigue management. See article "Great Wide Open".

[ad at 1:06:00]

Their summary:

1) Spectrum of training sensitivity.

2) Untrained lifter - NLP is a great start.

3) The more trained a person is, the further post-novice, differences in skeletal muscle mass make the biggest proportion of differences, therefore hypertrophy should be maximized sooner rather than later and training volume is the driver of hypertrophy.

There is no evidence that different training strategies and loadings result in different responses in terms of sarcoplasmic v myofibrillar hypertrophy or that this should be a concern that drives programming decisions at all.

To tolerate the most training volume, must have enough work capacity, then a primary goal is to increase tolerance, by doing enough volume. Therefore increase volume as tolerated, in 70-80% range.

Need intensity work for neuromuscular adaptation for strength, but not to the point that they are too fatiguing (see above).

Goal is long-term strength, not adaptation tomorrow.

Humans are complex. Programming is complex.

--------
Any corrections would be appreciated.

EDIT: clarify RBE.

EDIT 2: Here's the youtube video:



EDIT 3: expand hypertrophy section

[BassPlayer]

Some highlights:

Thanks for doing this!

[MattNeilsen]

@quark Looks good. I just finished listening to it and was about to add my notes until I saw your post. I didn't see anything in my notes that differed from yours.

I'm glad Jordan and Austin did this series and it should provide a great foundation for future conversations. I appreciate their emphasis that evidence-based practice is a synthesis of experience + research, tempered with the knowledge that you must continually seek to find where your understanding is false (because statistically, it's almost guaranteed that your current model isn't accurate).

As an extension of that idea, I also liked their emphasis at the end that an appeal to overly reductionist models is certain to be problematic. Biological organisms do not respond the same way as mechanical entities, and it's too simplistic to treat them as equals. Models are certainly helpful, but not when they're so broad as to capture more noise than signal.

Great job, Austin/Jordan.

[Marenghi]

Great job.

Im not happy with the use of RBE, though.

Have posted at length about it.

Short: The proper RBE definition in the literature is: Loss of muscle damage with repeated similar stresses.

Avoiding RBE would mean reactivating high muscle damage - that cant be the goal.

--> Stop using the term "RBE" for the things u have in mind. Refer to my posts on it what could be alternative theory-crafting.

[Austin]

Great job.

Im not happy with the use of RBE, though.

Have posted at length about it.

Short: The proper RBE definition in the literature is: Loss of muscle damage with repeated similar stresses.

Avoiding RBE would mean reactivating high muscle damage - that cant be the goal.

--> Stop using the term "RBE" for the things u have in mind. Refer to my posts on it what could be alternative theory-crafting.

Please listen to the podcast.

[PatrickDB]

[Marenghi]

Please listen to the podcast.

Im sorry, I wont have time for that until in a couple of days, and generally and ofc highly subjectively, I prefer concise written context instead of rather long audio. I thought as two guys here were confirming the bullet points, I trusted they summarized the content correctly.

Apologies if I misrepresented your statements and in that case also consider my criticism of that point obsolete.

Keep doing the great work!

[stevan]

Great job.

Im not happy with the use of RBE, though.

Have posted at length about it.

Short: The proper RBE definition in the literature is: Loss of muscle damage with repeated similar stresses.

Avoiding RBE would mean reactivating high muscle damage - that cant be the goal.

--> Stop using the term "RBE" for the things u have in mind. Refer to my posts on it what could be alternative theory-crafting.

They said that they have no other word for what they're trying to say.

I think the podcast was great but maybe too long for someone that's not familiar with the drama because many of the claims were just responses to gibberish some SSC's presented.

@Austin, I wonder if claims about signalling attenuation could be explained solely by a logarithmic curve of training progress. I believe everyone observed this trend of progress and Rip's graph about training progress over time is probably close to accurate. So further progress will depend solely on what point of the graph you're at. So if you're just starting, if you linearize the graph at some point, you'll get a steep line, and if you're more advanced, you'll get a more gentle line which would represent a slower progress. I delved into math again, but I hope my point is clear. So, is my statement from the first sentence of this paragraph probably too bold?