Impulse Strength & Fitness White Paper Strength Training with High Frequency Maximise strength, lean muscle mass, and general fitness by challenging the common wisdom in modern strength training by Matthew Perryman, CSCS July 2010 White Paper: Strength Training with High Frequency Impulse Strength & Fitness Abstract In modern strength & conditioning circles, the principles of training stress and recovery are often taken as axiomatic, born out by both academic research and practical experience. That said, we have precious little formal knowledge regarding how to maximize training variables, and limited information on the body's recuperative powers. Most of what we take for granted as fact is extrapolation and speculation. In this white paper I wish to discuss the common assumptions regarding training stress and recovery, explore reasonable criticisms of those assumptions, and to lay out a programming strategy that can take advantage of a modified understanding of these factors. What We (Think We) Know Strength athletes rely on common styles, modes, and methods of training. For these purposes, anyone who relies on weight training to develop strength as a primary goal will be considered a strength athlete. This includes powerlifters, Olympic weightlifters, throwers, shotputters, strongmen, & bodybuilders. Modern strength programs derive from a handful of shared sources, namely a handful of books that detail Soviet-era knowledge and practice; trends in Western strength training that developed in the 20th century; and contemporary re-interpretations that have emerged from the combination of the first two sources. Very little is derived from current sport and exercise science in terms of practical application. Professional organizations issue routinely issue position statements on the subjects of programming and periodization, and while research is ongoing, those stances inevitably default to the three sources listed above. There is very little new in the practical side of strength training. From a scientific standpoint, contemporary research serves largely to illuminate the physiological basis for existing training practices. It is descriptive, with only weak practical application beyond confirming why many accepted practices are effective. Periodization and related methods of programming are among these practices. While various methods of organizing training and designing workouts have been in use for decades, there is surprisingly little research support for these methods, and for the physiological mechanisms of adaptation that periodization models exploit. Page 1 Impulse Strength & Fitness July 2010 http://impulsestrength.co.nz Impulse Strength & Fitness White Paper: Strength Training with High Frequency In particular, I'm speaking of the body's responses to exercise-induced stress, which includes both positive (or fitness) gains and negative (or fatigue) effects. Modern understanding of stress and adaptation originates with Hans Selye's General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) model. The GAS model is a black-box model that serves as an abstraction of the actual process. It only defines what happens in a general sense; it does not lay out hard, defined limits. In particular, we cannot say what would concretely define positive adaptive stress, nor what would encompass a truly exhaustive stress level. Even contemporary research into central fatigue has yet to provide those answers. This is exacerbated by the paucity of research into strength athletes, and in particular high- performing strength athletes. The bulk of exercise science deals with endurance athletes. What little does examine resistance exercise is almost always performed in untrained or recreationally-trained individuals. Ironically, one thing we do know is that a highly-trained strength athlete will demonstrate entirely different physiological and psychological responses as compared to an untrained or novice-level athlete. This makes it difficult to generalize from that research to high- performing strength athletes, and casts doubt on such speculation. We shouldn't dismiss the research, but filtering it through the lens of practicality means the bulk of it has only limited utility. In particular it is the assertion that the human body can only 'tolerate' a fixed amount of resistance exercise in a strength program that I wish to call into question. Strength athletes are commonly told they must respect hard limits on workout frequency, and to a lesser extent on daily volume in a single session, if they wish to avoid staleness and overtraining. While there is a rationale for this, limits on weekly frequency and tonnage are quite possibly a bottleneck in modern strength programming. Intensity is, rightly, considered the primary variable that drives adaptation, while workout frequency and volume are limited if not intentionally minimized. Yet we recognize that some progression in workload must occur in order to facilitate long-term progress in intensity (or training weights). Despite this we're told that volume must be carefully controlled and frequency should never exceed two or three workouts per week. There are considerable gaps and unknowns in the knowledge base that make it impossible to make any such conclusive statements. The contradition between the need to drive adaptation with progressive stimulus and the prescription to limit or minimize workloads is worth further discussion. In particular, the assumption that one cannot or should not increase workloads, versus the idea that one may be able to gradually and incrementally increase these variables within certain ranges, that I wish to discuss. July 2010 Impulse Strength & Fitness Page 2 http://impulsestrength.co.nz White Paper: Strength Training with High Frequency Impulse Strength & Fitness The Case for Daily Training In contrast to orthodoxy, which places limits on the weekly volume of strength training, the practices of strength athletes past and present seem to follow a different trend. In these groups there is an assumed trend towards progressively heavier weights and higher intensity. There is also a trend towards higher weekly volume (calculated as tonnage, the pounds or kilograms lifted per week) which is inevitable as one gets stronger, unless specific steps are taken to reduce the amount of volume. In some cases this increase in volume results from higher training frequency. Weekly tonnage may or may not increase as a function of the number of workouts; that is, a lifter may increase his weekly volume by doing more work in a fixed number of sessions, or he may add more total sessions. While it may appear at first glance that there are a variety of programing strategies and training methods in use between different strength athletes, this is deceptive. If you zoom out and look at the broad strokes as opposed to focusing on the details, the picture becomes far more clear and certain common themes emerge. In spite of the name, daily training does not imply lifting each and every single day. A better name might be frequency-oriented training or progressive tonnage training. Regardless of the name, the methodology discussed here implies weight training at least five days a week with at least three sessions for any given exercise. The first evidence in support of the idea can be traced as far back as you care to look in the history of strength sports. A glance at the routines attributed to 'Golden Age' strength athletes, extending from the late 19th century and up to perhaps the 1960s or 1970s, provides much insight. The current trend towards more minimalist strength workouts is a modern invention. Many lifters from this era used frequent and high-volume programs, often training five, six, or even seven days a week with workouts that would be considered excessive now. And yet, they worked – even in situations before anabolic steroids entered the picture. Yes, we can attribute some of this to genetic aptitudes and, in some instances, to anabolic steroids. Genetics undoubtedly play a role when talking about wonders such as Paul Anderson, Doug Hepburn, or Bob Peoples. Lifters from the 1960s on to the present will always have the specter of anabolics handing over them regardless of how much (or how little) drugs contributed to their success. Even so, this is this not sufficient to dismiss the concept out of hand. We can write off some absolute results as a consequence of drug use. What we cannot do is dismiss a relative Page 3 Impulse Strength & Fitness July 2010 http://impulsestrength.co.nz Impulse Strength & Fitness White Paper: Strength Training with High Frequency effect for any given person. That is to say, you can still take something away from the theme even if the exact workouts may not be compatible. A handful stick out from the 'Golden Age' physical culturists and have helped shaped my viewpoint over the years. Bob Peoples, Paul Anderson, Doug Hepburn, Anthony Ditillo, and Bill Starr all stand out as accomplished lifters that have also contributed to the body of practical knowledge. The commonalities between their ideas on training are greater than the differences, with an emphasis on frequent, heavy training which was adjusted or varied regularly. When contrasted with the modern trend towards “”functional exercise and the dominance of the barbell, it may be a surprise to realize that many powerlifters trained with machines and so-called isolation exercises even into the 1990s. With the rise of internet communities and the popularity of Westside Barbell's training methodology, this changed dramatically. Nevertheless, successful powerlifting routines from the beginning of the sport in the 1960s on int the 1990s resembled “”bodybuilding workouts. Powerlifters going back to Pat Casey, Don Reinhoudt, Ted Arcidi, Larry Pacifico, John Kuc, Vince Anello, Kirk Karwoski, Ricky Dale Crain, Lee Moran, Doug Young, Bill Kazmaier, and the great Ed Coan all made use of routines that look more like muscle-group split workouts than anything considered a powerlifting workout today. Boris Sheiko, coach of the Russian national powerlifting team, has become a popular figure in recent years. Sheiko's programming is heavily influenced by older Russian sports science, and this is clear in his model.