Sheiko Forum
General Powerlifting => Universal Topics => Topic started by: Robert Frederick on April 28, 2014, 03:29:45 PM
-
If the volume of load in a training week cycle is less than 20% of the total for one month, it can be regarded as small; if it is from 21-30%, it is considered medium; between 31-40%, it is considered large and greater than 40% is a maximum load.
Boris states that monotonous training loads, even more so the more frequently used, the faster the body gets used to them and the less effective they become for the development of the athlete. Thus, load variability is one of the most important principles in the construction of the training process. Variability is the basis for stable progress.
Table 10 shows that the relative weekly load volumes vary between small, medium, large and maximum loads. It should be noted that these options are not the only load distribution possibilities. There are other options, especially in the preparatory months.
Options with one digit (1, 2, 3, etc.) indicate that the maximum volume of load falls on that week of the month. If two numbers indicate the option, the first digit indicates the week with a highest volume; the second digit indicates the week with a comparable but slightly reduced volume.
When A.V. Cherniak analyzed training diaries of qualified weightlifters (Master of Sport, Master of Sport International Class and Honored Master of Sport), he found that the most common schemes during the competition period were: 1, 2, 1-3, 3-1, with deloading the last week before competition.
Table 10
Variants For Weekly Load Distribution In A Preparatory Mesocycle (B. Sheiko, 2011)
| Variants |
% Monthly Volume |
|
|
|
Number of Lifts |
|
1st Week |
2nd |
3rd |
4th |
1st Week |
2nd |
3rd |
4th |
TOTAL |
| 1 |
46% |
20% |
22% |
12% |
138 |
60 |
66 |
36 |
300 |
| 1-2 |
34% |
30% |
24% |
12% |
119 |
105 |
84 |
42 |
350 |
| 1-3 |
36% |
16% |
27% |
21% |
144 |
64 |
108 |
84 |
400 |
| 1-4 |
35% |
22% |
14% |
29% |
158 |
99 |
63 |
130 |
450 |
| 2 |
22% |
38% |
25% |
15% |
110 |
190 |
125 |
75 |
500 |
| 2-3 |
20% |
34% |
30% |
16% |
110 |
187 |
165 |
88 |
550 |
| 2-4 |
21% |
35% |
13% |
31% |
126 |
210 |
78 |
186 |
600 |
| 3 |
15% |
28% |
35% |
22% |
97 |
182 |
228 |
143 |
650 |
| 3-1 |
28% |
15% |
35% |
22% |
196 |
105 |
245 |
154 |
700 |
| 3-2 |
22% |
27% |
33% |
18% |
165 |
203 |
247 |
135 |
750 |
| 3-4 |
17% |
21% |
35% |
27% |
136 |
168 |
280 |
216 |
800 |
| 4 |
18% |
26% |
12% |
44% |
153 |
221 |
102 |
374 |
850 |
| 4-2 |
15% |
28% |
22% |
35% |
135 |
252 |
198 |
315 |
900 |
| 4-3 |
22% |
15% |
28% |
35% |
220 |
150 |
280 |
350 |
1000 |
Table 11
Variants For Weekly Load Distribution In A Competition Mesocycle (B. Sheiko, 2011)
| Variants |
% Monthly Volume |
|
|
|
Number of Lifts |
|
1st Week |
2nd |
3rd |
4th |
1st Week |
2nd |
3rd |
4th |
TOTAL |
| 1 |
40% |
27% |
20% |
13% |
108 |
73 |
54 |
35 |
270 |
| 2 |
29% |
38% |
22% |
11% |
101 |
134 |
77 |
38 |
350 |
| 3-1 |
28% |
24% |
34% |
14% |
120 |
103 |
147 |
60 |
430 |
| 1-3 |
38% |
20% |
28% |
14% |
190 |
100 |
140 |
70 |
500 |
See Fig. 9 Diagram of possible load distributions in a competitive mesocycle
Application of the principle of variability is acceptable for athletes of any skill level in any sport. The above allocation scheme for weekly cycles is fully applicable to the various qualifications of powerlifters across weight categories.
The largest volume of load often falls on the first or second week of the month before the event. Rarely is a large volume of load observed in the third week.
Upon completion of the training week it is necessary to make a comparative analysis between what was planned and what was actually done. If there is a deviation from the plan, it is necessary to find an objective reason, which must be corrected for in the following week.
- This is incredibly interesting. My question concerns the differences (and the similarities) between the overall volume of load per month and the ones for each individual lift. Is the big idea that I pick one variant for each lift and then just combine them and hope for the best or are there better strategies to employ here?
- These are total volume patterns. For distributing the volume across the lifts you could start with 50% bench, 25% squat and 25% deadlift. From there you could tweak it a little so it makes more sense for you. There are a couple examples of lift distributions in the intermediate spreadsheets.
- Thank you for responding so quickly. I downloaded the spreadsheets and had a look a few minutes ago and looked at closely those things.
I can see how you would partition the total volume the way you describe; it'd be interesting to read a little more about the thought process that went in to that.
- My understanding of it is that it works out to be 50% upper body and 50% lower body, which seems like a logical starting point. Say you want to overload the bench for a bit. Then bump it up, possibly with a larger bench pyramid and reduce the others accordingly. The next week you give the bench a break from that with possibly more higher end lifts and less volume. Meanwhile, the other lifts go up. Maybe throw in a squat pyramid during the week, followed by more high end the next week. And so on.
So that's how it works out in theory. Then you go try it and find out something needs a little adjusting. For one person maybe it's too much volume for benching and not enough for squats. Maybe someone else has a decent squat but needs more for the deadlift. Or maybe you do more squats one period and more deadlifts the next. So you wind up with something that's loosely based on the 50:50 starting point and will vary from person to person depending on individual needs.
- Something I tend to do in programs that I author, is that sometimes I'll synchronize the squat and deadlift (albeit inverted). I.e.: I'll back down on the number of deadlifts as a function of an increasing number of squats (per week). At other times I'll pull back on all lifts in order to scale the entire week back a little (because the week before was huge.)
But I always find myself struggling a little with good rules of thumb and more thought-through patterns of distribution. The tables and examples listed in this article are all very helpful for this very reason.
-
If the volume of load in a training week cycle is less than 20% of the total for one month, it can be regarded as small; if it is from 21-30%, it is considered medium; between 31-40%, it is considered large and greater than 40% is a maximum load.
How do you calculate the training load per week and compare it to the month? Is it total work (ie. all main movements performed totaled together) divided into the months total or is it individual work (ie. each main lift divided by that main lifts total for the month)?
Thanks,
RB
-
If the volume of load in a training week cycle is less than 20% of the total for one month, it can be regarded as small; if it is from 21-30%, it is considered medium; between 31-40%, it is considered large and greater than 40% is a maximum load.
How do you calculate the training load per week and compare it to the month? Is it total work (ie. all main movements performed totaled together) divided into the months total or is it individual work (ie. each main lift divided by that main lifts total for the month)?
Thanks,
RB
Weekly load is total work as you defined it, divided by the month's total, and multiplied by 100%.
- Thanks man.
RB
- Interesting.
Have some weekly load distribution options been more successful than others?
Or is it a matter of determining what option fits best into the larger plan?
Also. Is there significance to the "Total" column in Table 10 and 11?
-
Interesting.
Have some weekly load distribution options been more successful than others?
Or is it a matter of determining what option fits best into the larger plan?
Also. Is there significance to the "Total" column in Table 10 and 11?
I know there are some that I don't like. Having the biggest load on the first week is no fun nor is having it the last week. Put it in the middle and I like it much better. Actually, I take that back about the last week. I like 4-2.
The total column just shows you that the percents can apply to any monthly volume.
- Thank you for your reply.
I can see how this thread clearly applies to the 3 day plan for under 80kg.
e.g. 3 day under 80kg plan
#37 (3): 26% 24% 30% 20%
#30 (1-3): 30% 23% 28% 19%
#32 (2): 24% 41% 24% 11%
The 4 day plan is a bit unusual (#2, #3).
e.g. 4 day plan
#1 (3-4): 25% 18% 29% 28%
#2 (5): 25% 22% 27% 21% 34% 21%
#3 (3-5): 16% 24% 29% 27% 28%
#4 (1-3): 38% 25% 31% 20% 11%
I used the 2-4 weekly loading to make a plan in excel.
2-4
21% 35% 13% 31%
231, 385, 143, 341, 1100 total
From doing this I noticed that Sheiko uses less extreme weekly loading variation compared to the examples in the original post. Is this to make each week more tolerable for the lifter?
2-4 less extreme weekly loading variation
25% 31% 17% 27%
275, 341, 187, 297, 1100 total
- Why do the number of lifts increase for each variant going down the chart?
-
Why do the number of lifts increase for each variant going down the chart?
It's just an illustration that the percentages can be applied to different volumes.
-
When A.V. Cherniak analyzed training diaries of qualified weightlifters (Master of Sport, Master of Sport International Class and Honored Master of Sport), he found that the most common schemes during the competition period were: 1, 2, 1-3, 3-1, with deloading the last week before competition.
Does this mean the deload week is NOT included in the volume distribution? For example, the 4th week is not considered the deload week before the week?
- The fourth week looks like the deload week to me. I think Boris really likes variant 2. In Pozdeev's latest interview he said he ramps up all the way to a week out so he could be using something like the 3-1 variant.
- Pardon me if this has been asked and answered someplace.
What are some of the reasons behind selecting the "extremeness" of a loading scheme. As I can imagine, the usual suspects as far as parameters go are involved in this, I'd just like to hear opinions and reasonings from you guys.
(The parameters are: lifter qualification, weight class, age, position relative to the meet date, etc.)
Thank you!
-
Pardon me if this has been asked and answered someplace.
What are some of the reasons behind selecting the "extremeness" of a loading scheme. As I can imagine, the usual suspects as far as parameters go are involved in this, I'd just like to hear opinions and reasonings from you guys.
(The parameters are: lifter qualification, weight class, age, position relative to the meet date, etc.)
Thank you!
If you ask me I'd say you almost never want an extreme program relative to your current self. Just slightly out of reach is better I think. Someone else could be doing something extreme as compared to me but its probably a bad idea if I just jump on it. And I could be doing something extreme as compared to when I first stared, but it took a while to get here.
Did I understand your question correctly?
- I've been putting the different comp period examples here into an Excel spreadsheet as you suggested since the usual comp period in the 3 day program didn't peak me properly.
(I'll try to share them once they're fully completed)
My way of doing it was to copy the most similar weeks into each variant, and then adjust the volume up or down based on the NL outlined here (adding in extra warmup or working sets, or decreasing them).
Something I've run into, when should the testing day occur? I notice in 32 it's on Week 1 Wednesday, in 32v2 it's split across Week 1 Wed, & Fri, would it work to have the testing day during week 2 when the overall volume that week is lower like in variant 1? (I have this feeling doing the testing day, then a bunch of volume afterwards is not going to be a good idea)
Last time I ran the comp from variant 2, testing day went exceptionally well, but by the time mock meet day came around I felt pretty over-reached and I couldn't hit my testing day singles.
- I see a lot people having trouble with the comp cycles. They feel that the deload is too long. This could be true for 2 reasons:
1) if before sheiko you're used to higher intensity programs,
2) the lower volume the new programs have.
One solution for this could be something Sheiko has wrote in his book and in the first program published in the site. A 4 week comp cycle with variant 1-2 or 2-1. Week 1 high intensity, 85% for squat and deadlift, 90% for bench press and low volume. Week 2 maxing week but stay at 100%. After that slowly reduce volume and intensity until the meet
-
I see a lot people having trouble with the comp cycles. They feel that the deload is too long. This could be true for 2 reasons:
1) if before sheiko you're used to higher intensity programs,
2) the lower volume the new programs have.
One solution for this could be something Sheiko has wrote in his book and in the first program published in the site. A 4 week comp cycle with variant 1-2 or 2-1. Week 1 high intensity, 85% for squat and deadlift, 90% for bench press and low volume. Week 2 maxing week but stay at 100%. After that slowly reduce volume and intensity until the meet
Thanks,
Reason 1 sounds applicable to me, I was working in the 80% range before I started Sheiko.
I haven't written those variants because they weren't in the post on here, but I guess I could give it a go by duplicating one week and adding the testing to it.
I don't really understand the part about low volume during week 1 or 2 though, in the other post it says that the numbers 1-2 indicate those weeks would be higher volume than the rest of the training block, I know you say intensity would be higher, so does that mean the same thing for the numbers?
- Variant 1-2. NL per week: 123 - 127 - 85 - 46
Variant 2-1. NL per week: 159 - 140 - 85 - 46
Does this answer your question?
-
Variant 1-2. NL per week: 123 - 127 - 85 - 46
Variant 2-1. NL per week: 159 - 140 - 85 - 46
Does this answer your question?
Yes, thanks very much for the help, I will make these and try one of them soon!
- How does Sheiko's methodology compare to standard western linear periodization? Mike Israetel writes about this (http://jtsstrength.com/articles/2013/12/03/nonsense-periodization-powerlifting/ (http://jtsstrength.com/articles/2013/12/03/nonsense-periodization-powerlifting/)), and argues that different goals such as hypertrophy, strength, and peaking cannot be fully acheived simultaneously, so they should be pursued in independent blocks. Jack of all trades, master of none, so to speak. So a 5-month program using this appraoch might contain 2 months of 'hypertrophy' training in the 5-10 rep range, 2 months in the 3-6 rep range, and 1 month of peaking.
Is it fair to say that Sheiko attempts to program for these different goals concurrently? Why is this approach better than the linear method, which is fairly common in american powerlifting?
- I've done blocks of hypertrophy and blocks of strength. I got bigger then smaller as I moved from hypertrophy to strength. Meanwhile, the first couple months of strength training were me just trying to get back to where I was before. All in all it was a waste of time for me to do long periods like that. But I can do one week of hypertrophy focus followed by a week of strength without losing strength. That seems to work for me.
-
I've been putting the different comp period examples here into an Excel spreadsheet as you suggested since the usual comp period in the 3 day program didn't peak me properly.
(I'll try to share them once they're fully completed)
My way of doing it was to copy the most similar weeks into each variant, and then adjust the volume up or down based on the NL outlined here (adding in extra warmup or working sets, or decreasing them).
Something I've run into, when should the testing day occur? I notice in 32 it's on Week 1 Wednesday, in 32v2 it's split across Week 1 Wed, & Fri, would it work to have the testing day during week 2 when the overall volume that week is lower like in variant 1? (I have this feeling doing the testing day, then a bunch of volume afterwards is not going to be a good idea)
Last time I ran the comp from variant 2, testing day went exceptionally well, but by the time mock meet day came around I felt pretty over-reached and I couldn't hit my testing day singles.
I had this experience too, test day went very well then by meet day I felt weaker and was weaker as I never hit what I did on all 3 lifts as I did on test day.
Robert- would it be a good idea to instead work up to a heavy double/ new max double? instead of a new max , plus adding in a few heavier sets on week 3 before tapering on week 4?
-
I see a lot people having trouble with the comp cycles. They feel that the deload is too long. This could be true for 2 reasons:
1) if before sheiko you're used to higher intensity programs,
2) the lower volume the new programs have.
One solution for this could be something Sheiko has wrote in his book and in the first program published in the site. A 4 week comp cycle with variant 1-2 or 2-1. Week 1 high intensity, 85% for squat and deadlift, 90% for bench press and low volume. Week 2 maxing week but stay at 100%. After that slowly reduce volume and intensity until the meet
this is what I was after, this sounds like it would work better for me , thanks :)