Likes Likes:  7
Dislikes Dislikes:  1
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Volume destroys me. Change things up, or train through it?

  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    799
    Post Thanks / Like
    That’s another thing to keep in mind: heavier lifters can not sustain the same workload as lighter lifters. I find no matter what, athletes above 90kg need to reduce volume/intensity/frequency relative to my other athletes, regardless of them being leaner or not. The total mass lifted is just a lot on the body. I also find training heavier lifters based off relative intensity rather than absolute intensity is better suited for them. For example if you wanted intensity to be 85% for the day, then doing 70% for 3-4 reps would be equivalent.

  2. Likes Blairbob liked this post
  3. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks. Is there a different method of calculating rel. intensity for the classics or would it be the same calculation as strength movements?

  4. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    35
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by b_degennaro View Post
    That’s another thing to keep in mind: heavier lifters can not sustain the same workload as lighter lifters. I find no matter what, athletes above 90kg need to reduce volume/intensity/frequency relative to my other athletes, regardless of them being leaner or not. The total mass lifted is just a lot on the body. I also find training heavier lifters based off relative intensity rather than absolute intensity is better suited for them. For example if you wanted intensity to be 85% for the day, then doing 70% for 3-4 reps would be equivalent.
    Does it matter how much they're lifting? E.g., does someone who weighs 100kg and snatches 100kg need their workload adjusted? Or does that really only matter when the weights are far above BW?

  5. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    799
    Post Thanks / Like
    I haven’t noticed it being different with high or low level lifters.

    Macca, relative intensity works the same way for classic as it does strength lifts in my experience. I think the Germans use relative intensity for most of their training.

  6. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    198
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Blairbob View Post
    All that being said, I do think the very explosive natured WLers have to be trained differently. Chaplin never trained like that until the OTC and got banged up there. Same with a lot of other OTC lifters if you listen to Sean Hutchinson which is something to be thought about given the nature of LSUS.
    It's partly individual differences, and partly an adjustment thing. Most lifters who went to the OTC were used to training 3-5 times a week. I've heard that the head coaches just threw a ton of volume at lifters. Some took it really well, but others (Norik, Chaplin, etc.) had some really bad issues.

    I guess it's a sign of "if you're on drugs, anything works."

  7. Likes Blairbob liked this post
  8. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    799
    Post Thanks / Like
    Not even that, most foreign coaches assume we have a training system that takes kids and moves them through 8000 reps the first year, then 10000, then 12000, then 16000, and finally 20000 reps per year before they move to a national training center. I assume Dragomir and Zygmundt assumed their pool of athletes went through the appropriate progressions before becoming residents.

    Many foreign coaches I’ve spoken to have such a look of bewilderment on their face when I mention there is no progression or system in place on a national level.

  9. Likes Blairbob, psstein liked this post
  10. #17
    Member Blairbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,102
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yep, the US is in a weird place, especially when we get older athletes that never were youths or juniors. A lot of the time they come in from a previous sports background, maybe for 5-10yrs, maybe a couple. Give them a couple years and some mass and they make our teams. But do you really have time to give them 10yrs when they will be pushing mid to late 20s? All while maybe getting a smallass stipend, working PT, living at home or bunking up?

    At least with the OTC, they got room and board and some extras.

    With some athletes, they've already developed their GPP like Kitts playing sports in HS with some CF after college, or the girls being gymnasts for 10ish years.

    Compared to the professional WL nations, as my buddy/coach said, "We are amateurs trying to play with the professionals." We're doing well all things considering I'd say.

  11. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by b_degennaro View Post
    That’s another thing to keep in mind: heavier lifters can not sustain the same workload as lighter lifters. I find no matter what, athletes above 90kg need to reduce volume/intensity/frequency relative to my other athletes, regardless of them being leaner or not. The total mass lifted is just a lot on the body. I also find training heavier lifters based off relative intensity rather than absolute intensity is better suited for them. For example if you wanted intensity to be 85% for the day, then doing 70% for 3-4 reps would be equivalent.
    This is something that I was considering messing about with myself. I handle lower intensities so much better and make much better progress.

    With Prilepin's chart, do you still apply it in the same way, just for your relative intensity figures? So if I wanted 80% for 5x3 as a workload, as is recommended for that %, I would go for 80% of my 3RM instead of 1RM?

    How does this work with the rep ranges? Do you count the absolute intensity reps or the relative intensity reps, with regards to acceptable workloads?
    In the above example of 80% at 5x3, my 3RM is 85% of my 1RM, so the absolute intensity will be 68%. Do I go off the chart numbers for 80%, or for 68% with regards to total sets / reps ?
    Last edited by CNL; 08-15-2019 at 06:44 AM.

  12. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    799
    Post Thanks / Like
    I tend to stick with the ranges outlined with Prilepin's since that is for absolute percentages. There are still days where I bring the absolute intensity up for the heavier guys but I try to make the majority of their lifting with reps at more moderate weights.

  13. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    897
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    I've been trying to build up my volume lately just by working off of Prilepin's Chart, while sticking to the classics on MWF. Generally I treat Tu/Sat as optional days to get a bit of movement down or maybe some light bodybuilding, but mostly I'm doing both classical lifts per day (one the main focus at 70 - 85% for the "optimal" amount of reps, one done lightly at 55 - 70% for 4 or so sets), follow by squats, and pulls (usually about 6 sets).
    The Soviet system is, well, a system. You can't just take one aspect (in this case Prilepin's chart) and ignore the rest. Each clean and each jerk is counted as idividual reps. Also anything 50% and above. For class 3 and 2, the recommended volume is 1,000 to 1,500 per month in the prep phase. Based on your example, and assuming some obvious lifts you must be doing before 70%, you have a range of 984 to 1536 lifts for the month on average. This doesn't count your "bodybuilding", and any significant hamstring exercise would be counted in the number of lifts. Considering the large amount of heavy pulls you have, you should be tired!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •