The Effect of Distance Traveled on Programming
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 тра 2021
- So a very popular post I made on Instagram a while back covered the "why" behind high rep deadlifts and who they work for. What this really came down to is factoring distance traveled into the volume equation. In my opinion, distance traveled is one of the most important aspects of individualizing training. So I wanted to expand on this more and cover how this can affect all lifts on both ends of the spectrum. So in my latest UA-cam video, I go into full detail on the effect distance traveled has on programming. Height, bodyweight, limb lengths, sex, high arch vs. no arch, sumo vs. conventional, and many other variables play into an individuals distance traveled per repetition on each lift. And fortunately we actually have a couple studies that have really broken this down for us, so I take a look at both of those and see the variance in repetitions people can perform at given percentages. From there, I discuss the "better" volume equation and how that accounts for why we see such disparity between some lifters and the rep ranges they respond to. And then taking that concept, I develop personalized percentages charts for what the possible outliers of distance traveled, short versus long, would look like if we accounted for this. From there, I show how using this concept can give an idea of the rep ranges certain lifters respond to and how that is implemented within a couple of my athletes programs. And then lastly, I give the synopsis of what this means for your deadlift, squat, bench, and total workload based on your individual leverages, technique, and body type.
#powerliftingprogramming #powerliftingcoach #squatvolume #deadliftvolume #benchvolume #powerliftingvolume #powerliftingprogram #sumodeadlift #bencharch #deadliftrangeofmotion #benchrangeofmotion #squatrangeofmotion
Instagram: / prs_performance
Website: prsontheplatform.com/
Understanding Distance Traveled When Equating Volume: prsontheplatform.com/2020/08/...
Optimizing The Program Based on Lifter Psychology:
• Programming Series Par...
Body Mass and Femur Length Are Inversely Related to Repetitions Performed in the Back Squat in Well-Trained Lifters: journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Ab...
Monitoring Training Volume Through Maximal Number of Repetitions or Velocity-Based Approach: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33406...
MASS Research Review: www.strongerbyscience.com/mass/
sean - this guy is a bench technician, crazy short range of motion insane technique on all 3 of his lifts, amazingly built for deadlifts
Rob - just a very tall dude
I definitely didn’t do the legend of Rob justice, as he is undoubtedly the sex symbol of team PRs with the mass he has cultivated and his unmatched pure masculinity.
I've been thinking about this for years. You put it into words perfectly. Thanks!
Me too, just took me this long to finally conceptualizing my thoughts!!
The amount of info you provide in your videos is the best. Always appreciate it 🤝
Glad you like them!
Everything in this video is so good, but a great nugget in there was the point made about the difference that distance travelled has on relative intensity of, say, an 8 RPE single between a short and long ROM lifter. As a long limbed lifter, I’m definitely recognising things about my programming and how I react to different aspects and immediately thinking about how this can/will influence my training from now on. Thanks, Steve!
You’re welcome!
this video was great man!
Thank you!
Great video! Thank you
You are welcome!
These videos help so much more than u know 🤝
Great to hear!!
Thank you for the amazing content! Just for context, in the example where you use Sean's programming, is this an example of a super specific block closer to a meet or more of an off-season one?
This was closer to a meet, but his programming off-season vs. near a meet is fairly similar outside of a couple small changes.
Its funny because there was a time when we would say that the variability in reps performed at a given percentage was linked to the fiber type of muscles while the distance travelled is probably a more relevant explanation and at least is easily identifiable
I remember those times. And this is definitely a multi-factorial issue, more at play than just distance traveled, but I'd argue distance traveled is the most impactful.
Really appreciate the videos, quick thought on a new video or article; How to program accessories within a block. For example, how many sets of accessories is too much, what types of accessories and why. Kind of similar to your volume video but with the attention towards accessories. Any help would be appreciated!
I like the idea, I’ll definitely keep it in mind!
I am really surprised that this kind of content is available for free on YOutube. You really deserve more audience compared to the mediocre content that is being put by so-called mainstream channels.
and this video has been my Aha moment for this really explained why I feel trashed if I do 8 reps in my squats and Deadlift ( Conventional) whereas I seem to be super fine with 5 to 6 Reps. Also, on the contrary, I use a narrow grip in my bench press combined with a decent arch so that puts me somewhere between 6 to 8 reps for my bench press but that doesn't work the same for my OHP.
I always felt that the RPE % Charts that are available on the internet were based on the proportions of Mike Tuchscherer. NO wonder why Late Dr. Fred Hatfield placed the law of individual differences as the most important thing in his 7 granddaddy laws of Training.
I have seen similar concepts in the name of MRV ( Maximum recoverable VOlume) by Chad Wesley Smith and he has a Volume selection Chart where it takes account of the individual differences which results in fewer sets for larger framed lifters and more sets for Smaller framed lifters.
Do you think the number of muscles involved also determines how much work is being done? For I get trashed when I do 8 reps whereas I can easily do 12 reps for many sets in Belt squat provided I use maximal loads relative to the movement.
Glad this was helpful man! The only thing I will say is individualization is key, but at the same time most people fit within the bell curve, which is why the typical RPE charts work. The majority of people will fit into that average, and then from there we will see varying levels of deviation from that. And the amount of muscles will matter, as thats adding into total work/stress performed. There is a reason a deadlift is more taxing than bicep curls.
@@PRsPerformance THank you, brother. What's your opinion on using accessories for back-off sets instead of using the main movements in case someone has issues doing them?
Say example someone has back pain or some knee issues and Main movements are causing a flare-up if they do it for volume.
But instead of doing all their back-off sets with the main movement alone, Can we alter in such a way that they are mixing their main movement combined with accessory movements.
For example, Person A is supposed to do their Single @ 7 or 8 Followed by 6 sets of 5 reps with 80% of 1RM for their Back offsets with the main movements. They are doing their Single, But instead of doing all the Back offsets with the main movements alone, can we alter in a way that 3 sets are done with regular squat style followed by 4 to 5 sets of belts squats? or do we have to push it further?
Great video! I can't believe I've never thought about volume in terms of work done. I'd be interesting to take a step further and look at energy expenditure for each lifter in the respective "most responsive" rep range. If the equation for work done is Force x Distance traveled, and Energy = 1/2 * mass * (final velocity^2 - initial velocity^2). We can call initial velocity zero and call that the point where the bar breaks the ground on the deadlift, leaves the chest on the bench press, and when the lifter comes out of the hole on the squat since work done can really only take into account the concentric. And we can call "final" velocity the average velocity for a given rep (distance traveled divided by the time the rep took). So energy expenditure for a single would be 1/2*mass*(average velocity^2) and for a set of multiple reps, you can take the average of the average velocity for all reps done. It may not yield significant results and might be more trouble than it's worth but it might be interesting to compare the average energy expenditure for a lifter like Sean doing a set of 8-10 in comparison to the energy expenditure on his 1RM to a lifter like Rob. So if on average Sean's average energy expenditure on a set of 9 is X% of the energy expenditure on his 1RM it would be interesting to see what rep range Rob would fall into with that same X% of his 1RM energy expenditure. This could also be done using the Work = Force x Distance equation, but the equation for energy also takes into account velocity (which is based on distance) and mass (proportional to force) and might give a better idea on how lifters respond.
This is probably too extensive and complicated to be practical, but it would be interesting to look at and would probably validate the video content.
Haha that is what I alluded to in that I get that aspect of "work" within physics, but definitely don't know how to calculate. All of this would be super interesting IMO to see a study on to help give some baseline and deeper understanding of the concept. Just in practical application would be tough to track.
@@PRsPerformance Concentric Work done by the bar onto the lifter (not necassilty total work) would be Weight x Vertical Distance Traveled x Reps x Sets. This is down stream of the work force relationship dW = dot(F, dx). The relation can be integrated agross the concentric bar path. However this is trivial to preform as gravity is a conservative force, therefore we only need to consider end points. The result of the integration would then be Weight x Final Height - Weight x Initial Height or Weight x Vertical Displacement. Vertical displacement could then be tracked by either taking a measurement at the start of a block or rep to rep with one of those velocity tracking cable devices.
Suppose you have a lifter with a shorter ROM who tends to get easily beat up with higher intensity deadlift work (RPE 7.5+.) The lifter is well past his novice phase, and current programming keeps the RPE below 7 for DLs, working sets are 4 per week.
At this point I can imagine two potential reasons for this sensitivity and potential adjustments to his program to account for these reasons. But, I'm not sure if they should be implemented simultaneously or if they should be implemented individually to reduce signal to noise.
The first potential reason would be that he lacks the work capacity to handle the programmed deadlift volume. So, I think I would want to reduce working volume for primary deadlift, and bias more work towards secondary and accessory movements. The long term intent would be to increase volume with the accessory movements, then slowly transfer that work to the secondary and primary over time.
The second potential reason for his sensitivity to DL training (based on this video) is due to his shorter ROM. Therefore, the RPE chart and effective reps per set should be adjusted to account for his ability to train in a closer proximity to failure.
How would you go about determining which intervention would carry a greater likelihood of success? Should they be implemented at different times, or simultaneously?
PS
After proof re-reading my comment, I guess what I'm asking is "How do I know if the lifter is volume sensitive or intensity sensitive?"
So there are other factors as well with intensity sensitivity. Deadlift is the most common one, and a big reason is you usually are lifting the most weight. The low back in particular tends to get disproportionately fatigued in some lifters, and once that happens it can have a fairly dramatic effect on deadlift strength. For that kind of lifter I'd probably rely on squat volume and hamstring accessory work to train the involved musculature, and then keep deadlifts fairly submax. Definitely plenty of people who gain strength deadlifting with very low set count and only reaching to those high intensity very occassionally.
just makes you realize how many different potential iterations you can have using a single variable. I know you only used rep count as the number you were playing around with but from how I understand it (and im sure you would agree), I could just tackle it from a different perspective where you could use a static %, lets say 80% and one person could do a 3x3 vs another person doing a 5x3 because he can handle more work given that %/rep range combo, or using a variation so that the shorter rom lifter could have the same average RPE with the same sets/reps/% as a longer rom lifter... just rambling here haha but great video!
Yes for sure, I could have went off on a dozen different tangents on the implications and applications this could have, but I tried to keep this one "shorter" haha.
Thank you! What considerations would you have when programming for a conventional or a sumo puller? Would you ever try to have a conventional puller have a secondary session where they are hitting sets of 8?
Yes I would, there are plenty of conventional pullers who have a short distanced traveled as well. Albeit, there is the option of RDLs for higher rep work that be very closely mimics conventional, and I often will bias to that for higher rep work.
This video in brilliant
Thank you!
Great video! I think that the math would change drastically and differences would decrease if they tool account of the fact that in a squat you lift part of your bodyweight as well which would greatly alter the actual percentages
While I have seen that matter and need to be taken into account for unilateral lower body work, I'm not sure that plays too much of a factor in bilateral squatting. A bodyweight squat for a 300lb powerlifter is seemingly just as easy as for a 150lb lifter. Take those same lifters though and have them do a Bulgarian Split Squat, and you'll find bodyweight might actually be somewhat challenging for the 300lb lifter. And you'll often find the smaller lifter can use more external load on BSS than a heavier lifter who can actually barbell squat noticeably more. Whereas on the actual squat, its pretty well correlated that the heavier weight classes squat more external load than lighter weight class. A deadlift in sense you are having to hinge part of your bodyweight as well, or somewhat half squat on sumo, but it's so insignificant that it really doesn't play a role.
@@PRsPerformance I'm actually talking about 1-2 reps difference not a huge one. Which sounds about right if you do the math.
Say we have 2 100kg lifters one with 100kg 1rm and the other with 200kg 1rm. We make them do an amrap at 75% calculated as 0.75*1rm so person a lifts 75kg and person b lifts 150kg. According to exrx the actual resistance in an air squat is ~70% of bodyweight so for both that equates to 70kg. If I calculate the actual percentages then person a is lifting at ~85% and person b at ~81%. So maybe that is a 1-2 rep difference between the lifters. And it certainly is a massive 6-10 percentage points different for the intended 75%. What's your take?
I think if we are seeing a difference in reps, it’s most likely due to the fact that someone who weighs more is taller, therefor longer range of motion. I don’t believe that bodyweight difference would really play a role. Where that would possibly have more application is power production. But we also see offensive lineman with higher verticals than NBA players. So again, just not sure bodyweight plays a huge role once strength reaches a certain level.
Overall this makes a lot of sense to me, a couple random thoughts (caveat I’m only 10 mins in):
- I’d imagine there are other factors that play into how much force you need to exert to move X distance. Limb ratios (versus raw length), and other things you may not be able to measure as a coach like muscle insertions or fiber types or who knows what else.
- It’s still probably difficult to take distance traveled and have a 100% accurate estimate that someone can do X reps with 70%. So using it as a heuristic in conjunction with something like and AMRAP and/or RPE cap would probably still be the way to go!
Probably also explains why some people get a better hypertrophy stimulus out of the competition lifts than others, I know personally I’ve had to look outside of just comp bench to make progress so maybe this is why!
Oh there are plenty of more factors, this is just one variable within the equation, albeit an important and impactful variable. And I wouldn't recommend actually tracking distance traveled, I think that is something more we can eye. The rep test can help, but there are limitations to that too since people can vary fairly greatly within rep range past that 85% mark. But knowing how distance traveled can then affect programming decisions was the hope of this video.
Hey coach, amazing vid as always! Random q, what wrist wrap length do you recommend for lifters??? (~74kg) btw 😊
24-36 inches just based on preference. Typically the lighter you are the more you might bias towards 24 inch wraps, and the heavier you are the more towards 36 inches.
@@PRsPerformance thank you!!! Any preferences on brands?? Would probably just end up getting stoics otherwise lol
Do you believe in still programming high reps for the long ROM lifter in their close barbell accessory?
I'm not saying I'd never do it, but I'd more so bias towards programming their dumbbell or machine accessory work higher reps, as that most likely would be a more efficient way to satisfy volume/hypertrophy requirements for them.
i havnt watched this video yet, but my distance travelled means i cannot do volume. 12 reps of deadlifts seems to be my limit each week. (even rpe7 and below)
I am going to assume a conventional puller with shorter arms?
So when you're progressing the % work, you're basing it off of the adjusted high-rep 1RM's that Sean uses right, and not the adjusted RPE table? I assume the adjusted RPE table is more for demonstrating purposes, becausae if you used both an adjusted 1RM AND and adjusted RPE table, you'd actually account for his shorter distance twice, which doesn't make sense to me.
I'm just trying to understand how to apply this to myself. I want to start experimenting with a bit higher reps on DL since I have a very efficient ROM, and it has worked in the past.
Given the following protocol of a peak week, 1x3 @8, 1x5 , 2x8, where all three backoffs are %-based, I'm not really sure how to program it.
I'd assume that you'd first apply a fatigue % for the 1x5, and then you'd also try to account for the 2 rep difference, as well as the ROM. Given the normal RPE chart, and a pre-determined fatigue drop of 5%, you'd do .863 * .95 * .94 = 77% for that backoff 1x5 which equates to a 6.5 RPE set (if you exclude the fatigue induced from the top triple).
Given the short ROM RPE chart, that's below a 4RPE. Based on that, I'd guess you'd backoff less in this case, to arrive at a 6.5 RPE equivalence in the short ROM RPE chart? If I don't even account for the two reps difference, we end up with .863 * .95 = 82%, which is a ~6RPE, which seems closer to what we want.
To come full circle, I guess that's why you have different E1RM's chart for the different rep ranges, because jumping between two different RPE charts and trying to equate percentages seems very time consuming.
I guess my question then is: how do you use the different E1RM charts when there's crossovers, like going from a 3 top set to a 6 backoff for instance.
So a simple thing I'll use with someone like Sean is generally 1 RPE or 1 rep is a 3% difference, but for Sean's squat and deadlift I do 2%. In your case, I'd program the 1x5 per normal, and then start adjusting and tailoring it based on the new e1rm you get from it. So if you 1rm is let's say 200kg, but your RPE based off the 1x5 projects out to 220kg, based % work off 220. Again using Sean, I have an e1rm for his 1-3 rep range, his 4-6, and his 7+. Then from there back off the 2x8 in 2% increments to the extent you want versus the 3%. So if you want a 3 RPE drop, instead of backing off 9% you'd back off 6%.
@@PRsPerformance Okay. The 2% instead of 3% is regardless of the max he's using, just because the RPE chart "scales" differently, correct?
And I guess you'd make backoff work more based on E1RM of the different charts rather than -% from the top sets in cases like these? In my example, I wanted to program the 2x8's as a -% off of the 1x5, but you're saying to program it as a % of E1RM?
🐶
Enjoy!