Adaptive Planning MILO 7(3): 76-83, 1999.Steven Plisk “ The right amount of unpredictability should not be left to chance.” — A.K. Dixit & B.J. Nalebuff, Thinking Strategically In the June ’98 issue of MILO, a relatively advanced accelerative strength training concept was inferred from a basic physical law: Since the forces acting on a mass are proportional to its acceleration, that object — regardless of weight — must be accelerated to the limits of one’s ability in order to generate maximum force. A case was then made for the equal importance of rate and magnitude of force development (even for non-ballistic exercises), and it was proposed that: · Without exception, movement range of motion can — and should — be considered an acceleration path. · Successful movement execution is determined by the ability to achieve a critical power output (read: velocity with given resistance) in the sticking region. While this paradigm can be a powerful realization, it’s only one weapon in an athlete’s training arsenal. This article will present a means of using this concept as part of a sound strategy — specifically, by coupling accelerative techniques with more traditional heavy resistance methods in order to capitalize on their additive effects. Processes vs. Tasks If there is one self-limiting tendency among strength athletes, it’s that they micromanage their training. Primary focus is often directed toward elementary tasks (such as exercise choice, reps and weight) rather than on planning them as part of a process. On one hand, this is understandable because the need for program planning leads to the issue of periodization, which has alienated its share of coaches and athletes. Indeed, there are still too many “experts” who try to explain this concept with intricate theories and jargon rather than in terms of its underlying simplicity. When probing such people for down-to-earth information, the smokescreen response that gives them away is usually something to the effect of “well, it depends on….” The good news is that periodization principles and their application are neither complicated nor confusing. Even at the task management level of planning, however, two prevalent but misguided tendencies deflect attention away from where it should be directed: 1. Volume-based factors (e.g. reps and sets) are generally emphasized at the expense of intensitybased factors (e.g. the resistance itself and how it’s being moved). This violates the fundamental premise that the quality of both effort and recovery is to be given priority over quantity. An example of this is the accelerative aspect of force addressed in MILO 6(1), which is often neglected in favor of a RM or pump-and-burn approach. The latter may have their place, but certainly aren’t the exclusive answers. Perhaps more typically, coaches and athletes are in the habit of adjusting resistance in order to achieve a predetermined rep count rather than doing the opposite — i.e. rest-pausing between reps as needed to achieve the desired power output. As will be discussed below, these two distinct approaches can yield very different effects. 2. The ubiquitous search for magic rep schemes continues. This is really another manifestation of the rep max mentality. Every weight room has more than its share of “x no. of reps builds strength, y no. of reps builds mass” disciples. Some researchers have reinforced this mode of thought by conducting studies along these lines. Once again, it’s possible — and desirable, at least during certain workouts — to complement this approach with other methods. Even operating on the assumption that resistance changes in concert with rep count, however, this Adaptive Planning Adaptive Planning Its goal is very straightforward: to exploit complementary training effects over an optimal time period. and the texts comprising Bud Charniga’s S p or ti vn y Pr es s ) . there’s absolutely no mystery to how this can be accomplished.g.approach is unsound by virtue of placing primary emphasis on a secondary (volume) parameter. Think of a periodized program as a series of summated cycles. Verkhoshansky’s “conjugate sequence” concept. Based on the following recommendations. In either case. but that’s not the case. S t r a t e gi c Thi nki ng Periodization refers to planned variation or distribution of workload on a cyclic or periodic basis. Even when examining programs that aren’t aimed at elite athletes. A fringe benefit is that stagnation and overtraining are prevented. Adaptive Planning . a 3-4 week period seems to be an optimal biological window within which to organize such training: Matveyev (pp. In an article entitled “Lift more. To illustrate the role of accelerative-impulsive training. Optimal results can be realized with a finite menu of basic movements. 344-421) cites the need to structure training cycles around a 4 ±2 week window in order to superimpose the delayed training effects of distinct targets distributed over that time. Randy Strossen demonstrated just how simple the whole idea could be. and remarkable overall volumes of work. In any case. Even some of the most radically advanced training methods — e. the following trends are seen: Multiple daily workouts. represent only the first tier of decision-making. There’s a better way. in Michael Yessis’ former S ovi et Spor ts Revi ew. It can — and ought to — consist of basic. using Matveyev’s principle” in the premier issue of MILO. low/moderate volume) tasks. The factors comprising a training session. in order to summate their training effects. Viru (pp. 241-299) cites the half-time of training effect involution as the rationale for a 24-28 day cyclic training structure consisting of 4-6 subcycles. low/moderate intensity) to intensive (high intensity. The number of sets per exercise is high (typically 5+ in addition to warm-ups). or try to make it sound like there are secrets shrouded behind some complicated rhetoric.g. each consisting of 3-6 subcycles of approximately 1 week duration. are usually conducted. each progressing from extensive (high volume. or the routines published in the weightlifting textbooks by Aján & Baroga or Vorobyev. the key considerations involve a progressive contrast of tasks in order to achieve interactive and summative effects. accelerative progression. each 4-7 days in duration. while significant. in order to exploit cumulative training effects. traditional exercises. Zatsiorsky (pp. 245-259) cites the existence of natural monthly biocycles as a rationale for constructing training cycles that are approximately 1 month in duration. consider the Eastern European weightlifting and field event throwing programs that have been translated into English in recent decades (e. Misunderstandings originate from those who manipulate numbers with no apparent rhyme or reason. a growing number of coaches and athletes are discovering the profound results that are possible with limited but well-planned volumes of work. where unidirectional blocks with progressively stronger effects are successively introduced — generally agree with this monthly cycle guideline. The next question then becomes: What are the tasks to be used in constructing it? This is where our accelerative approach fits in as an ideal complement to classic heavy training methods. where variation is achieved mainly through some sort of reciprocating heavy vs. This might seem to imply the need for an in-depth exercise science background (or all sorts of exotic exercises and technique variations). From a hierarchical standpoint. This is where the real fun and productivity starts. It’s important to note that these athletes. at least among those who overlook two important points. hypertrophic methods like “submaximal/repeated efforts” tend to be meticulously avoided. A given work volume is typically subdivided into multiple sets of low reps. Table 1 depicts an orthodox cyclic variation distributed over 3 weeks. of course. For example. So it seems that we could benefit by losing our fixation on what any training method is called (and how it looks on paper). where two Olympic lifting routines (e. The basic objective on heavy days is to lift the heaviest weights achievable with good form for the designated no. Each Jerk routine follows the same intensity. the objective of such training is almost universally aimed at power or “speed-strength”. but the advantages outweigh the drawbacks because high-threshold (and quickly fatigable) motor units are recruited at their greatest discharge frequency and synchronicity.· The rep schemes for Olympic-style movements tend to be very low (seldom venturing above 5. Furthermore. but even in the case of non-Olympic exercises (where the reps are a bit higher) they don’t appear to correspond with the prescribed intensities. effectively rest-pausing at every opportunity. By definition. Hence. volume and objective as the previous Clean/pull workout. this reciprocating heavy-explosive approach — coupled with periodic progression in intensity and volume — reaps the combined benefits of two simple means of variation. maximum force can be developed with either method. whereas on explosive days it is to reduce the weight ~10%. However. but rather to combine the benefits of weightlifting and powerlifting movements for athletes in other sports). According to Zatsiorsky. The key to success in either case is to outsmart your opponent. and attention is instead directed toward “maximal efforts” executed in an unfatigued state. and more typically 2-3 per set). but are in no rush to hurry through each set despite its brevity (in order to minimize metabolic stress). thereby preventing it from accommodating your tendencies. This scheme can be used independently. A Lesson From Game Theory What I’m going to propose now is nothing more than basic coaching strategy applied to strength training. have body weight limits to contend with. a classic repetition maximum approach). is to do so with a cooperative rather than competitive approach. and compensate by accelerating the bar with good form such that each rep is executed at full power. you’ve got to mix your plays and use the interior game (by running between the tackles) to set up the perimeter (passing) game. The critical difference in training.e.g. the latter tactic activates a narrower corridor of motor units than the former. while a 4-day-per-week routine was chosen in this example as a matter of convenience. focusing instead on its respective function and how to best use it as part of a sound plan. training schedules need not be constrained by the calendar. Case in point: anyone who has watched a weightlifter or thrower work out knows that they execute every rep at full power. of reps (i. Clean pull or Clean [M-Th] and Jerk [Tu-F]) are each performed twice per week. it’s commonly assumed that most Eastern European athletes undertaking such training were administered performance-enhancing chemicals that yielded exaggerated adaptation responses. or in conjunction with Table 2 when performing Olympic and non-Olympic movements in one’s training (note that these examples aren’t necessarily intended to be used in preparing competitive lifters. To borrow a simple football analogy. The objective is to manipulate your adversary — in this case. Adaptive Planning . This has lead to a good deal of confusion or disillusionment with periodization models. First. the same progression can be distributed over 4 weeks such that each movement is executed 3 times biweekly. Emphasis is directed at executing each rep with maximal effort in the freshest possible state. Second. except for the superheavyweights. which in turn seem more appropriate for sets of double-digit reps. your body’s adaptive mechanism — to regularly adjust or redirect its efforts. volume and objective as the previous Clean/pull workout. In each case.5%·1RM Volume: 5 reps/set Objective: heavy Jerk Jerk Clean pull Intensity: 90%·1RM Volume: 4 reps/set Objective: heavy Jerk Jerk Table 1: An orthodox cyclic variation distributed over a 3-week period.5%·1RM Volume: 5 reps/set Objective: accelerative Clean Intensity: 80%·1RM Volume: 4 reps/set Objective: accelerative Fri Jerk Clean pull Intensity: 87. Note that the supplemental routine follows the same intensity. This scheme can be used in conjunction with Table 2 for athletes performing Olympic and non-Olympic movements.g. The number of sets and/or exercises selected is a matter of individual discretion. on heavy days: Olympic lifts … a subsequent cycle starting at 2. The prescribed intensities and volumes are intended for actual training sets.5% greater resistance (and 1 fewer rep per set) can be deployed at the completion of the cycle outlined in Table 1.g. Step back and take another look at both examples. Note that the designated resistance on accelerative days is once again ~10% below repetition maximum weight. and immediately accelerate out of the hole and through the sticking point as powerfully as possible with good form. For example. Each Jerk routine follows the same intensity. where Clean & Jerk routines are each performed twice weekly. being careful to throttle down at the top of each rep. Once again this scheme can be used independently.Mon Clean pull Intensity: 85%·1RM Volume: 6 reps/set Objective: heavy Tue Jerk Wed Thu Clean Intensity: 75%·1RM Volume: 6 reps/set Objective: accelerative Clean Intensity: 77. Table 2 depicts an unorthodox cyclic variation distributed over 3 weeks. squat-deadlift) and supplemental (e. volume and objective as the previous structural workout. the following techniques can be used to achieve the prescribed intensities: Week 1 … reps to exhaustion Week 2 … partner-assisted reps Week 3 … rest pause The objective of accelerative squat-deadlift workouts remains essentially constant throughout. taken to its completion. In addition to a 10% weekly increase in resistance (and corresponding reduction in reps) on heavy days. and do not account for warm-ups. and also that the no. a pair of simple descending pyramids is effectively distributed over several weeks rather than concentrated within single sessions. upper body) movements are each performed twice per week. A similar tactic can be used on upper-body movements. where routines for structural (e. or in conjunction with Table 1. half) that of the previous heavy day. of reps/set is lower than (in this case. as was explained in MILO 6(1): to sit at a controlled speed into an optimal position. The total number of sets and/or exercises selected is thus a matter of individual discretion. and so on non-Olympic lifts … a subsequent cycle starting at 5% greater resistance (and 2 fewer reps Adaptive Planning . the load/rep scheme chosen in each of these cycles illustrates a possible starting point for a long-range plan. Likewise. The number of sets and/or exercises selected is a matter of individual discretion. and so on Otherwise.g. Mon Squat / Deadlift Intensity: 50%·1RM Volume: 20 reps/set Objective: heavy “reps to failure” Squat / Deadlift Intensity: 60%·1RM Volume: 16 reps/set Objective: heavy “assisted reps” Squat / Deadlift Intensity: 70%·1RM Volume: 12 reps/set Objective: heavy “rest pause” Tue Upper-body Wed Thu Squat / Deadlift Intensity: 65%·1RM Volume: 10 reps/set Objective: accelerative Squat / Deadlift Intensity: 70%·1RM Volume: 8 reps/set Objective: accelerative Squat / Deadlift Intensity: 75%·1RM Volume: 6 reps/set Objective: Fri Upper-body Upper-body Upper-body Upper-body Upper-body Table 2: An unorthodox cyclic variation distributed over a 3-week period. taken to its completion. Each supplemental routine follows the same intensity. This scheme can be used independently. or in conjunction with Table 1 for athletes performing Olympic and non-Olympic movements. The prescribed intensities and volumes are intended for actual training sets.g. simplicity in training can be found in fundamental principles. It’s a simple matter of appreciating and applying their interdependence. look beyond the numbers and think in terms of underlying strategy. upper-body) routines are each performed twice weekly. with the possible exception of the (hopefully) not-so-novel accelerative tactic. and in turn maximize the athlete’s abilities without exceeding Adaptive Planning . it has been said that anyone can complicate simple things. Summary Perhaps the management syndrome and other common shortcomings in many training programs can be rectified with a tactical approach. These principles are straightforward.per set) can be deployed at the completion of the cycle outlined in Table 2. Specifically. there are no surprises here — just a methodical progression designed to synergize the training effects achieved with basic exercises. where struggling to move the bar for a given rep count — or acute fatigue/exhaustion — presumably triggers the desired effect (typically accompanied by an anti-acceleration mentality. Squat/Deadlift) and supplemental (e. volume and objective as the previous structural workout. where momentum or velocity are believed to defeat the purpose of strength training) The isolation mentality. where the chain is supposedly best strengthened by targeting each link separately In closing. each of these mistakes can be corrected: The simplistic progressive overload mentality. and there isn’t any between-the-lines mystery about what they mean or how to skillfully manipulate them. where a valid principle is misinterpreted to mean that training intensity must be increased in a constant linear fashion The rep-max or pump-and-burn mentality. but not everyone can simplify complex things. and do not account for warm-up sets. As is the case with any endeavor. The operative concept is to optimize the trade-off between fitness and fatigue by emphasizing quality of work — and recovery — at the expense of quantity. In any case. where structural (e. not in catchy names or numbers. References 1.). In: Science in Athletics.P. Berlin: Sportverlag. 1988. L. Neuroendocrine responses to resistance exercise. 13. Livonia MI: Sportivny Press. pp. 1989 (translated by A. Principle-based training [part 1-6]. Sports Training Principles (3rd Edition). 1997. Nalebuff Ph. Supertraining (3rd Edition). MILO 1(1): 27-28. The Weightlifting Encyclopedia. Kraemer W. Weightlifting Federation. 7b. Principles of the organization of training for high performance athletes. Kiev: Zdorov’ya.V. pp. 86-107. A System of Multi-Year Training in Weightlifting. Plisk S. 1992. 1992. 357-369. Progress Publishers. Kraemer W. San Francisco CA: Lionheart Publications. 19. Weightlifting Federation. Coaching & Sport Science Journal 1(3): 2-14. 1998. Dubuque IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.J. London: A&C Black. pp. Moscow: Fizkultura i Sport. USWF Coaching Accreditation Course: Senior Coach Manual. A necessary direction in training: the integration of biological adaptation in the training program.C. 1994. In: Strength & Power in Sport. P. 11. Dick F. Modern Athl ete & Adaptive Planning .S. pp. 8. using Matveyev’s principle. Roman R. 32-76. pp. Lift more.S. 1985. Soviet Sports Review 20(1): 1-3. Yale University School of Management.S. 21. Charniga Jr. 245-318.O. Colorado Springs CO: U. Budapest: International Weightlifting Federation/Medicina Publishing House.V. Endocrine responses and adaptations to strength training. Moscow: Fizkultura i Spovt. Theory & Methodology of Training (3rd Edition). Tschiene P. Colorado Springs CO: U. Jones L. Livonia MI: Sportivny Press (translated by A. 9. pp. 17. The further development of training theory: new elements and tendencies. 5. 1998. P. The distinction of training structure in different stages of the preparation of athletes. 8(6): 26-31. Acknowledgment Thanks to Barry J. Satori J. 1993. USWF Coaching Accreditation Course: Regional Coach Manual. Science Periodical on Research & Technology in Sport 8(4): Physical Training W-1. 14. Charniga Jr. 1986. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. Garhammer J. 16. 78-157.J. & Tschiene P. Livonia MI: Sportivny Press. 1998. Dales (Editors). Verhoshansky Y. 1997. 7a. Komi (Editor).V. 1997.his/her adaptive capabilities. pp. Harre D. pp.). 1981 (translated by A. Drechsler A. 1997. Tschiene P. Matveyev L. Bompa T. 3. Medvedyev A. Medvedyev A. 9(1): 25-29. & Takano B. 1986. 1982. 20(2): 91-93. Del Mar CA: Academic Publishers. 9(4): 41-45. The Training of the Weightlifter (2nd Edition). 125-133. Komi (Editor). Olympic Style Weightlifting for the Beginner & Intermediate Weightlifter. 1982. Terauds & G. New Haven CT). Schmitz J. The long-lasting training effect of strength exercises [part 1-2]. 2. In: Essentials of Strength Training & Conditioning. & Verkhoshansky Y. 18. pp. Weightlifting: Fitness for All Sports. Fundamentals of Sports Training. 7. 1988 (translated by A. 6. 15.S. Jones7. Siff M. Managing the Training of Weightlifters. 183-395. 277-281. Baechle (Editor)/National Strength & Conditioning Association. Verhoshansky U.R.W. Zdornykh). Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand. pp. T. & Baroga L. J. 1997. 1977. 1995.V. 20. 4. Strossen R.J. 22. 1985. 10. 30-35.S. Jr. 12. 1994. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.A.J. 1988. Moscow: Fizkultura i Spovt. In: Strength & Power in Sport. Hardgainer 8(5): 7-12. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.D. 1991. Training for weightlifting. 1993. 9(3): 31-35. Charniga.). (Editor) Principles of Sports Training.G. (Milton Steinbach Professor of Management. Flushing NY: A is A Communications. 291-304. 1997. 1989. Aján T. 1979. 9(2): 22-25. 172-242. Adaptation in Sports Training. 1978. Vorobyev A. Brice). Viru A.). 33. Werchoshanski J. Budapest: International Weightlifting Federation. 1995. pp. Viru A. 26. A Textbook on Weightlifting (translated by W. Some facts about microcycles. 1988 (translated by A. 1982. Modern Athlete & Coach 20(4): 3-6. Training principles of elite athletes. Science & Practice of Strength Training. NSCA Journal 14(5): 46-57. Zatsiorsky V. Charniga Jr. 29. 1992. Modern Athlete & Coach 28(4):14-18.J. Moscow: Fizkultura i Sport. Viru A. Werchoshansky J. Modern Athlete & Coach 28(2): 29-32. 1993.N. 27. Zatsiorsky V. Programming & Organization of Training. 1990. Modern Athlete & Coach 19(2): 9-12. 1995. 30.M. Specific training for power. 1985. 1990.Coach 31(2): 3-7. 31. Veroshanski Y.V. Planning of macrocycles. 24. Intensity of strength training facts and theory: Russian and Eastern European approach. 1981. Verkhoshansky Y. 1988. 28. 32. Modern Athl ete & Coach 17(3): 11-13. Livonia: Sportivny Press. 25. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics. Adaptive Planning . Basic principles applicable to the construction of macrocycles. Principles of training for power events. Boca Raton FL: CRC Press. 23. Modern Athlete & Coach 26(1): 7-10. 1979.M. Viru A.