On Sunday, I wrote The Origins of the 242 Method. When all is said and done, I wanted the 242 Method to be an eBook about my “go-to” program. And after I wrote the first part Sunday, my mind was whirling with ideas. But when I opened up the Word document Wednesday morning, I was blank. Completely. Blank.
After whining and throwing temper tantrums for an hour, I did something I should have done from the get-go: I breathed, I read Rework, and I simplified.
Rework is my baby because it reminds me that compelling need not be complex. And that there’s no harm in breaking down individual thoughts into individual sections. And that one sentence in itself can be one small idea, not necessarily conjoined to its surroundings. And that starting a sentence with “and,” even if three in a row, is quite alright.
So instead of trying to architect a grand piece of prose, I simply broke each of my thoughts down and said what needed to be said.
The organization is a bit skewed. Some ideas are repeated. But I kind of like how it turned out.
The Philosophy of the 242 Method
The downfalls of choice
Every week, I try a different coffee because I can. Because the selection is available.
When it comes to training and hopping from program to program and exercise to exercise, even the littlest bit of equipment gives multitudes of choice.
This past year alone I program hopped. Yeah, me. The same guy that once compared program hopping to clubbing baby seals.
We can’t run from choice, or our desire to try different things, without causing problems. Instead, embrace it.
The fitness industry’s problem
The fitness industry has a problem. Not an information problem, but a direction problem. There are so many paths; the paths themselves are overwhelming—even though they all lead to the same place.
Popular set exercise programs
Most programs out there are three or four day per week training routines centered around the squat, bench press, overhead press, and deadlift.
They are popular because they are safe, reliable, and generally decent programs. For an average person, they are almost fool proof.
If I recommend one to you—a popular practice—and you don’t see results, you’re at fault. Not me. So they are always recommended to people looking for programs.
It’s just like any recommendation. It better be reliable. No one recommends a crapshoot. No one refers a friend to a new restaurant unless they visited it themselves and have verified its worthiness.
Program hopping
People hate choice. But they love thinking they have the ability to choose. So even if a program has choice built in, no one really wants it.
They want to know what rowing variation to use. They want to know the best bench press assistance exercise. They want to know how many sets and reps to do.
They want to do what’s best. And since they trust the program maker, it’s the maker’s job to take decisions out of their hands.
People want reliability. They want their chocolate chip cookies to be the same as everyone else’s. They want to fit in with the masses.
But this is short lived.
Initially, no one really wants choice. They just want the feeling of having choice. But eventually, everyone wants the actual choice. Safe and reliable programs are only appealing for a little while. And when that little while ends, riskier “new age” becomes appealing.
The same thing that attracts eventually repels.
Traditional scheming
The classic four day per week template—regardless of the specifics—is usually an upper and lower body split with one main focus daily. Assistance work and other shenanigans are thrown in to enhance the main exercise. So all four days end up being rather exhaustive.
Take an overhead press day, for example. After doing overhead presses, assistance exercises like upright rows, lateral raises, dips, and skull crushers fill in the rest of the workout. But because they are designated as “assistance,” they are usually taken to failure.
But assistance work is assistance for a reason. Does it make sense to expel so much muscular and nervous energy performing it?
Rethinking traditional scheming
On most four day templates, each day has some mentally stressful or boundary pushing exercise, whether it’s repping out a main lift or taking an assistance lift to failure.
There’s also exercise overlap. Rows and chins intertwine with front squats and deadlifts. Just because something is “upper” and something is “lower” doesn’t mean they are mutually exclusive.
So there’s mental recovery and physical recovery issues on most four day programs.
Rethinking assistance work
If assistance work is nothing more than assistance, should it be taken to failure? Or is going through the motions with some intensity and meaning “enough?”
Wouldn’t training it exhaustively turn it into a main exercise?
From a mental and energy expenditure perspective, most people put more stock into assistance lifts because they aren’t as physically demanding. Is it sensible?
If turkey is the main attraction on Thanksgiving, shouldn’t it get the most prep attention?
What if the turkey was left to burn in favor of concocting a slew of mashed potatoes? And the mashed potatoes were awesomely presented in massive proportions? (I’m not sure I would complain about this.) Wouldn’t the potatoes—a usual side dish—now be the main attraction?
Shouldn’t the side dishes compliment, and not exhaust, the main dish?
The concept of main lifts
I think the concept of main lifts is a bit dysfunctional because everyone associates “main lift” with barbells. Why can’t a chin-up be a main lift? A dip?
The popular answer to this is: they can’t be loaded or progressed as easily, readily, or tangibly.
So?
Does that automatically bump them down to a second tier of care?
By the same logic, using front squats as a main lift over back squats freaks some people out. But does it matter if the back squat can be loaded more?
The front squat can be overloaded by the same mechanism (barbell and plates) and it’s still a squat.
Isn’t that what matters?
All about the weird
The fitness industry is in a mass rut. Go to any beginner forum and see how many people recommend either Starting Strength or 5/3/1.
Hint: it’s a lot because they are safe, reliable, and easy choices.
If you can’t progress on these program, well then that’s your problem. After all, everyone else progresses.
But do they?
And what did people do before these programs existed?
Sadly, I’ve even fielded questions like, “is it possible to get strong without Starting Strength?”
Of course it is. But everyone (or so I’m told), in today’s world, does Starting Strength.
But I’m not interested in everyone anymore. I’m interested in those that are willing to de-conceptualize the idea of main and assistance lifts.
I want to talk to those that have weighted muscle-ups as their “main lift,” because they’re bold enough to break away from the pact and create new methods.
Rescheming
Even assuming a traditional four day split centered around the bench press, overhead press, squat, and deadlift, why are each separated on their own day? Can’t they be tiered?
For instance:
Day One – Squat, Bench, Best Squat Assistance, Best Bench Assistance
Day Two – Deadlift, Overhead Press, Best Deadlift Assistance, Best Overhead Press Assistance
That way there’s only two big mentally and physically taxing days per week.
Of course, the question then becomes, “What do I do the other days of the week?”
My response: “Does it matter?”
High level athletes
Go heavy or go home.
That’s the modus operandi of most lifters. But perhaps it’s why Pavel and Mark Reifkind can joke about something they call the “tough guy cycle”: Heavy, heavier, even heavier, injury, light…(this originally appeared on Tim Ferriss’s blog).
Some people are adverse to “light” days.
But nearly all high level athletes have “light” days. Sprinters jog and do aerobic work when they aren’t sprinting at max speed.
“Light” days promote blood flow and recovery to tissues stressed the day prior. Even though the same muscles are trained, the lower intensity work becomes somewhat stimulating, meaning they feel better after having done it.
Rethinking recovery
The 48 hour rule states a muscle needs 48 hours to recover.
The 48 hour rule needs to die.
What if I do one set of squats at 60% of my max weight for 50% of my max reps? How much recovery do I need?
How do I walk up steps after a heavy squatting session if my muscles need 48 hours to recover?
Lighter workouts
Lighter workouts are side dishes to the main course. Sometimes, they just need to be there. And most times, the meal is never ruined by their presence, but rather enhanced.
The big problem
People want cookie cutter. They want to fit in with the masses. That is, until they see someone with a gigantic unique cookie and get jealous.
It’s like learning how to drive. When you first learn, you can’t look anywhere but the immediate road in front of you. One year later, you’re texting and mooning school busses.
Set programs only work as long as we’re comfortable with the settings. The fact that the program works is secondary.
Although contradictory, people rarely want something that works. They want immediate progress.
How many people abandon ship after realizing that doing 5/3/1 and starting at a 10% drop off means it will be months before any sign of progress is had? A lot. And one of the many reasons people don’t start at the 10% drop.
And since no program, unless you’re a beginner, yields immediate results, long term results are irrelevant.
Any set program, no matter how well constructed, gets boring.
This quest for immediate progress fuels program hopping. New exercises lend themselves to immediate results and instant gratification, so everyone wants to incorporate them into previously set programs.
“When should I do “x” exercise in “y” program.”
In nearly every case, however, progress isn’t a result of assistance exercise. The assistance work is there only because it’s expected to be there and it gives a semblance of choice.
You can’t have a hotdog stand without hotdogs. But most hotdog stands have condiments. Are condiments necessary? No. But they’re there.
New designations
Instead of having “main lifts” and “assistance lifts,” it’s better to have three categories:
Best – A select “forever” lifts—the one’s you never want to stop doing. It could be as little as two or as many as four.
Better – A pool of useful lifts that interest you that you wouldn’t mind regularly doing without as much focus as the Best category.
Good – Where most things are, especially those things that don’t readily interest you.
A better program
Consistency is one the most important aspects of any program. So the best program is one that promotes consistent training with the Best lifts.
Having four mind blowing days is a tough operation because four days of the week you have to be “on.” What if you slept bad? Had to stay up late? Had bad eating patterns?
And you have to show up. What if you can’t make it to the gym one day? Bye bye consistency.
So on most programs, four days consume your week. Hair cuts are rescheduled. Doctors appointments, cancelled. And before you know it your entire week is shot because your schedule revolves around four days that have to be perfectly planned to maximize results on each day.
A note on frequency
I’m looking at hockey schedules right now—one of the most grueling sports, schedule-wise—and more often than not, there aren’t more than three games per week.
Yet we choose to have four heavy, mind blowing sessions per week. We’re afraid of training the entire body in one session and we’re afraid of foregoing our wonderful assistance exercises. And the only way to accommodate both is to spread the workload over four days.
Power of two
Sticking to just two “heavy” days per week—not to be confused with two total training days per week—does a few things.
- It means we only have to be “on” and “in the game” half the time.
- It promotes consistency. Bring it twice, that’s all.
- It’s easy to work around schedule conflicts.
- It makes recovery easier.
- It promotes experimentation.
- It keeps the focus where it should be.
- It gives you time to have fun and experiment with other things.
- It means you only have to have two perfectly planned days instead of three or four.
The other days
What about the other one, two, or three days of training? What should be done on those days?
Whatever you want.
CONCLUSION AND THANKS
The finalized 242 Method will be rolled out within — fingers crossed — the next month (with a new website). And I wanted to say thanks.
I take each comment to this blog seriously, and I respect everyone’s opinion. Rarely does a comment go by that doesn’t get my reply, holding true to Facebook, Twitter, and even email. I can’t thank you enough for participating and sharing your opinions. It’s an honor to get to know all of you more and more simply from your participation.
I’m going to release the 242 Method for free if enough interest is sparked. Is there anything that YOU would want in a book about a specific training method? What areas of programming are lacking coverage in the fitness world?
Enjoy this article? See the first one in the series -> The Origins of the 242 Method (Why Cheese is Like Exercise).
I’m proud to say I very often have weighted chins as my main exercise
I’m not proud to say that I usually have BAND ASSISTED CHIN-UPS as my main excercise
Have to start somewhere. Don’t get too down on yourself, either. Just try to improve day in and day out.
Nice.
But, everyone has their preference. Although, chin-ups are one of mine too.
This sounds right up my alley. I was just finishing phase 2 of AGTCKP (fixed the onset of knee pain I was getting and helped me to feel my glutes more in everyday life – thanks Anthony!) when on Sunday, I was playing football, caught a pick and got nailed ankle-high. Broke both bones in my ankle, and one of my first thoughts (after the obvious “Oh shit that hurts,” and “There goes my season”) was “Better start planning my post-injury training”. I knew just the man to turn to. Keep it coming sir.
Ah, great and terrible at the same time Rory!
I wish you a speedy recovery.
Any chance you would want to write or make a video testimonial for AAGTCKP?
great article! I’m old, from before the days of SS or 5/3/1 and the internet and believe it or not, there were just as many if not more, really strong people in the 1980′s and many of their “programs” had similarities to the dogma breaking questions you pose in this article. Kudos for giving the collective internet’s head a shake. Looking forward to seeing more.
Thanks Craig. Programs are thousands deep. They all work to some extent.
About 80% of my workouts are filled up with bodyweight exercises (no gym available) haha. My main exercise is either a chin up or handstand pushup (with feet on the wall).
Nice article!
Also, quick question… how would you categorize Hurricane Training in the energy system contiuum?
For a reminder: Hurricane training looks like this:
1a. Treadmill at 10mph and 10% grade incline for 3 sets of 30 seconds
1b. Bar Dips 3×12
1c. Hip Raise Crunch 3×20
and then another 2 tri-sets of the same intensity and duration. Ends up being about 4-5 minutes of straight work before there is a rest period. Rooney says it’s anaerobic training but if it goes that long, then the aerobic system becomes the dominant energy system by the time you’re done with the first minute.
Would it be aerobic power? Or am I wrong?
High intensity, anaerobic.
The aerobic system is important, no doubt. But it’s anaerobic.
The best way to tell is if your heart rate goes above 150bpm.
Aerobic power would keep be explosive bouts that still keep the HR under 150. Hurricane goes above 150. Not PREDOMINATELY aerobic anymore. And that’s what it’s about.
Whatever works. Better than trudging around like a slug.
well done on excellent article. i think that 2 simplifyied heavy days a week is enough especially if you playing a sport as well. with regard to areas lacking coverage i have 1 that springs to mind. there is very little info for long limbed athletes. im 6’6 basketballer and have plateaued on the 4main lifts for sometime now no matter what i try. what im trying to say is that these lifts and olympic lifts just dont build strength as effeciently as they do for most guys. maybe its because technique doesnt come as easy. i know their are some incredibley strong tall athletes but i think they are athletes with a lot of natural fast twitch fibres that allow them to overcome the extra distance the bar has to travel.
The lifts build strength. But it might be its more difficult to get strong because of the levers. The only way to make levers better are to gain muscle, so it’s kind of one of those tricky spots. But, yeah, there’s nothing wrong with the lifts. Some guys, like us taller folk, have our advantages and disadvantages. It’s all about working to the best we can.
Wonderful article. You definitely have peaked my interest. Even though I’m only 20, I have come to realize the importance of recovery. I’m often guilty of under-recovering, rather then overtraining.
I like the idea of your program. Stick to what works best and what is needed to progress. Sweet and simple.
That’s the idea, Jeremy.
Anthony, your use of the 242 method as it pertains to beginners would be interesting. It sounds very similar to my own training philosophy. Appreciate the write up.
As for me, my main exercise, 4 days a week, is planche progressions. Been working them for 20 weeks now thus far; my goal is to have a straddle planche before December. Right now, I’m at advanced tuck/regular tuck planches, so I still have a ways to go, but I think I will hit my goal before the end of November at this rate.
Planche progression is so difficult. Best of luck to you.
Beginner aspect is covered.
Thanks dawg.
Hey Anthony!
Great article man, I really back up what you said about this… how should I say… “tradition” maybe? People get so comforted in these already-made exercises – not that they don’t work – that they end up forgeting that they should see whats good for them instead of the mindset “whats is good for everybody so it must be good for me”.
I would really enjoy this eBook for free, man! I don’t know if I just didn’t read too much but I think it would be cool to enforce the assistance exercises. All this “main-lifts” madness made people forget of others good exercices that can help their “main-lifts” – just like you said in this article. Anyway, maybe making and chapter about isolation exercises, myths and truths… I don’t know, just giving some ideas.
Well… GREAT article, I like a lot what you posted and what you usually posts not giving just a physical point of view but a “thinker” view too!!
Covered some bits on isolation work. Thanks for the reply, Diego, and welcome to the secret underground club that is AnthonyMychal.com. Journey to superhuman.
“Heavy, heavier, even heavier, injury, light…”, the Tough Guy Cycle as it’s referred to here. I’ve got to laugh, that was so me! Mr. (relatively) Tough Guy, tough-as-nails, grinding out hefty reps in a 5X5, ATG back squat session… it (was) going so well. You hit it on the head, Anthony. Fortunately, post-injury, I’m back into the ‘light’ phase; hoping that this time around, I’ll manage to avoid the ‘injury’ portion of the cycle.
Lots of food for thought in this one… nice job, Anthony!
Ah, sad to hear about your injury. Hopefully we can get you reset!
Great article Anthony!
Cant wait so read your 242 method. I am very interested in program planning depending on the sport with the 242 method. Could it work for a bodybuilder the same as for the normal. gym rat
the last sentence should be a question (mobile phone comment writing sucks).
Ah, I understood, Alex. And welcome to AnthonyMychal.com. Nice little secret club I have here, no?
A bodybuilder would ultimately have a different path, and I talk about that. This program is more so for everyday folk.
Ah, the dilemma. Enough freedom to do what you want, but not so much that you paralyze yourself with choices. Finding that balance would be nice.
Collin, hopefully it’s within this book.
I’m interested.
Specifically, I’d be interested to see how I could use the 242 Method so that my main barbell lifts (deadlift, squat, bench, press) keep going up while I get to try some cool new “assistance” exercises (say, Zercher squats, cleans, snatches, shrugs, etc).
Looking forward to seeing what you come up with regardless – I am sure its going to be a unique perspective!
Well, hopefully this book may answer that question for you. Or, at least, part of it. (I hope.)
Quality bro, this is quite interesting since I had doubts on how to have a weightlifting schedule that could be overlapped with different training (i.e. tricks, capoeria, gymnastics).
Cheers! Can’t wait for the site update and the ebook!
Hopefully only having two days can help you out with this one. And thanks for looking forward to the site
I think what is lacking in a alot of progrmming or fitness books is they do not address the training modalities outside their own proramming. For example, when i read a particular program i cant help but to wonder why the writer chooses not to include a cycling method that i have read elsewhere that is supposed to be a commandment in programming. For example, one of the principles set up by charles poliquin is variety. But how do u include variety in ur programming without making it look like hopping?and another example is if a program recommends the back squat as the main lift for the entire 16 weeks of the program but another program rotates front squat, back squat, and box squat throughout 16 weeks, but the end result is that both approaches will build strength and size, why choose one over the other?
So basically my concern when reading a program is the writer would detail on what he is recommending and why he recommends it but i would prefer if the writer would detail on why he chooses his approach and deconceptualize other common commandments. Why not do the common periodization since your method is different from the common one?why not focus on time under tension when everyone is vouching for it?of course to discuss everything that u do not do is kinda impossible but i guess discussing on what your methods contrast to is a good idea.
Man sorry if this confuses u.My opinions are all over the place. i need to work on that.haha.Thanks for always replying comments man.really appreciate it
Well, I don’t think they can because the book would then be infinite. The purpose is to pick a topic and dive into it, not necessarily compare it to the world, else, the book wouldn’t really have a purpose.
There are many methods. Which ones are written about should be explained. But comparing them against others is a different entity.
And you’re welcome. But I thank YOU for being here.
It’s funny you mention stuff like weighted muscle-ups. For several months, I have been progressing steadily in weighted chin-ups, weighted dips, and weighted pistols. I try not to tell anyone about the weighted pistols because all I’ll get back from most is squats, squats, squats.
I’ve been told squats are better than pistols for muscle growth. I don’t disagree with this. They might be right. But believe it or not, I don’t feel like squatting. I’ve tried it and I’ve also hurt myself trying it. Why would I subject myself to an exercise I don’t like when there are so many others and so many other ways to progress?
I decided to move on to the pistol. At the time, it was convenient. Of course, I could barely do one without a lot of assistance, at first. It wasn’t even until a couple of months ago I could FINALLY do one without any support at all. It finally clicked when I began working on the weighted variation. And now my legs have grown. The same goes for the dips and the chin-ups. I sucked equally at both of these exercises. I didn’t even have a structured routine until a year ago. But I still worked at these exercises. I didn’t realize at the time, but every time I got up on those bars, I was progressing, even if my body didn’t immediately show it.
I have to say, I take it for damn granted that I can do multiple chin-ups and dips now when so many people can’t and I myself couldn’t just a few years back!
I may have begun with body weight exercises for the convenience of not going to a gym, but I realized that it was the passion to grow and improve my being at no cost that led me to keep at them. I’m thankful I wanted to train in the comfort of my own home because it opened my eyes to so many unorthodox ways of exercising and progressing. It felt a little odd at the time to just work consistently on three exercises because so many in the fitness industry backed certain standards that glorified exercises like squats, deadlifts, and bench presses as the absolute best for anything.
Right now, I switched the weighted dips for incline presses as I feel that incline presses will better suit my aesthetic needs. I’ll still keep the dips in for fun though.
This summer will be amazing, though. I’m going to be experimenting and running so many things. And the best part is that I don’t expect immediate results anymore, which is such a blessing. Of course, I’ll have highs and lows like anyone else, but I’ll enjoy the process so much more knowing that time and consistency are the key.
I know I say this a lot, but thanks so much. I’m happy that you were there to fight for the validity of things the fitness industry shunned in favor of other exercises. Thanks for helping me realize that time and consistency are what matter. Not the program, but those two things. I’m happy just thinking that my body and my training are where they are now because of this.
Awww, Traindom, you’re bringing tears to my eyes!
I’m glad you let me be such a positive person in your life, and I’m happy you’re happy with what you got going on. Always appreciated man, and keep on trucking. Much much love.
Great timing on this one Anthony. I know I’m a few days late to this article but just tonight I was having a great internal debate about switching a two day program, how I would structure it (would I steal a template from someone else or create on myself – most likely steal), what would I do for assistance, would I need assistance, etc. For me two days a week is perfect. I play basketball once a week and do martial arts twice. Combine that with work, family, pregnant wife, etc, it doesn’t leave a whole lot of time for extras. I would love to get a look at your 242 method. It sounds like it will fit right up my path.
I have done SS and 531 and I think why so many people like 531 is that it is adaptable to their goals. You can train 4,3,2 or even 1 day per week and switch in and out various other training modalities within it. Like you said above though, what happens when you want to change up the “main” exercises? Having said that Jim Wendler makes so much damn sense it’s hard not to like what he does. I think you’re on the same path though. To me you’re a little more philosophical but it’s that same no BS approach that I like. Very much looking forward to the 242.
Cheers.
I think 5/3/1 is a great and adaptable program. But I’m not a fan of the whole, “back squat or you’ll disintegrate” mindset.
Thanks for posting this, I really like this approach, and its one I have been gradually moving towards, without realizing it over the past year. I started lifting in my late twenties, about three years ago, despite having played sports all my life. I started with a version of starting strength, and then discovered 5/3/1, but despite getting stronger and nearly doubling my numbers in some of the big lifts, I have felt less and less agile, mobile and generally good. About a year ago a shoulder injury took me out of my comfort zone, couldn’t bench, squat or overhead press so I had to figure something else out. Since the only “best” movement I could do was chins, I hammered those twice a week, along some other pulls and push-ups and other BW moves. Other days were whatever I feel like – anything from sprints to pilates – and as a result started feeling much, much better and more athletic. As I recover from the shoulder surgery I finally had to get, I’ll be watching this space with interest to see how it develops, but the longer I do this the more I realize there is not right answer and I have to find my own muse (also stolen from Ferriss, though I took some liberties with the context).
Interesting story. What kind of shoulder surgery did you have to get?
I tore my labrum playing rugby and worked around it for about a year, but finally had to get it fixed.
Anthony: As I mentioned, I am new to your blog (a total accidental find) but my continued reading here leaves me with the impression that you have an unusual grasp of the psychological and mechanical workings that underlie what many trainees do and why they do those things.
I also believe you have better insights into the type of training that impel many for improved bodycomp, and you have uncovered more sustainable ways of doing so—the latter being key to any continued progress, and yet it being the factor so commonly compromised.
My own training dates back to direct tutelage under Vince Gironda in his N. Hollywood studio (1980), so permit me to say that I also think that you have made these excellent observations that usually require many years of experimentation while still being a young man, and I find that exceptional. Being the good communicator is a bonus.
I will read your work regularly and with great interest, which reading I must say, jaded as I am, I do quite rarely elsewhere.
Wow, this is awesome, Louis. I really appreciate it. And it’s awesome you got to learn under Vince. Obviously, I never had that pleasure but I love most of his training ideas and think most natural physique enthusiasts need to follow most of them.
Similar to your 242, I often wondered about the concept of a small “core base” of barbell lifts, perhaps 2-3 moves done in one weekly session for maximal recovery from them, but then loading up on “PLP” type movements on most other days in high volumes per unit time expended (a very “Gironda” notion).
The former “core” approach, if needed at all, takes care of certain aspects of theoretical strength base, joy of doing some movements, or fear of not doing them. Whereby the latter (PLP) is likely the path to the hypertrophy and overall bodycomp improvement that are the stated objectives of so many, yet are never realized because of distractions by dogmatic fundamentalist leaders. The cycle, as you point out, repeats with different gurus and books.
An experienced man can train one day per lift on a core lift in a strength-based fashion, since he has ingrained some practice already (say your 2-4 movements only).
What if that Day were combined with 4-5 Days of “PLP” (or equivalent), such that the PLP were done in a dedicated manner. Theoretically, and if one were not hellbent on pure load progression in the core lifts in that dogmatic way, I wonder if the simplicity of the approach, the ease on the joints and tissue, coupled with the profound “overload” of the PLP might not be sending your theoretical *right signals* with enough of a unique stimulus from the barbell work.
Obviously, this is something that appeals to MY preference, and not all would similarly enjoy. But from a practical perspective of a hypertrophy model, what are your views of this?
Honestly, I think it could work amazingly well provided you’re smart with the PLP work. I’d switch out lifts after the 60 days. It would essentially be flowing from block to block of targeted hypertrophy for whatever three PLP lifts you choose.
The core barbell work would be more of a retainer than anything, as you mentioned. But your body gets used to high training volumes.
I think something like this would work best if you found “body friendly” lifts for the PLP though that continually stressed the muscles in a greater capacity. For instance, doing PLP with one arm push-ups rather than bench pressing. Or a harder chin-up variation. Or a pistol squat.
Most body weight movements will naturally be “easier” on the nervous system because there’s no spinal loading. Although it would be interesting to see what doing PLP with say a 50%RM back squat would yield as the volume accumulation over time would certainly be HUGE.
Anthony: I think what makes PLP work (or any volume accumulator like it) is the absence of the great neural killer–spinal loading, as you mention, with the fact most muscles receive stimulation in with 3 moves. Thus, I believe that introducing meaningfully-loaded back (or even front) squats might be a mistake in the volume component, and any success is not sustainable there.
Now, might a much lighter bilateral front squat work, or squatting a “light” sandbag in a bear hug? Maybe but be on guard for the sustainable problems and “spinal creep” that is usually wholly avoided by single-leg work. Still, Bilateral work has less metabolic cost and is performed fast, so if it works it may work well. But I would never Bench Press PLP, and in fact would never Bench Press again because, after too many decades, I find the risk/reward for what benching does simply is not there for non-powerlifters, in my opinion. There is little good for the shoulders in pinning the scapulae unmoved with a pronated press when better alternatives exist. Even the best at this eventually get hurt.
And it took me years to discover that high elevated pushups, with a bottom pause and using handles in semi supination, did more for my pec/shoulder *development* than any bench pressing approach ever did. Where do I go to get those years and pain back? Dogmatism and traditional views have harmed as much as helped, and we are still harmed, as you point out so well.
I do agree with you that switching out the PLP moves work well, say for example going to (or incorporating on alternate days) Dips, Inverted Rows, some other body Squat variation (one legged). Or using rings for difficulty. Or some added device/stressor that is still unconstrained to spare the neural problem.
I agree for the most part. But I also think it’s important to remember it’s highly possible to accumulate a lot of “spinal loading” and still feel fresh. Olympic weightlifters do on the regular.
Agreed. The difference, though, with the olympic guys is that they aren’t going near fatigue the way many HIT guys would, and so also have less risk of injury, in my opinion. They do fewer reps, sparing metabolic fatigue and enabling more “sets”.
But yeah, the trick is really if you can find the way that manages this delimiting factor of the spine and neural burnout.
Plus, unlike the OLY guys, I think many here are about hypertrophy as a primary goal, not load lifted at a certain bodyweight. I think you’ve helped advance that cause.
I’d like to think there’s a mixed crowd. I get a lot of performance questions.
Gymnasts (dynamic and static high volume), ballet dancers, speed cyclists (concentric only HV), and even guys in wheelchairs (concentric only HV) offer empirical evidence that volume builds hypertrophy—even as these guys often shun the “essential” spinally- loaded barbell moves. Of course, you know this. Many observe it. but few realize the potential import. You and a few others seem to get the huge significance. But maybe I’m missing something?!
Here’s question for you: Does it matter the manner in which volume is achieved, with how rest intervals are spaced out? That is, for example, do agonist/antagonist supersets with no rest (and lots of metabolic devastation) vs. non-competing pairings, such at sessions end/or week’s end the same work volume is done for each bodypart? Does the manner of lifting with different approaches that *feels* very different, really have a different effect on hypertrophy? Yet we may hate the one and tolerate the other.
Finally, another thing being a trainer has taught me this. Stretch Reflex with barbells is the silent killer. If one can do a brief pause and avoid stretch reflex, the muscular loading is superior and the chance of injury–chronic or otherwise–gets reduced since one is not bouncing loads off one’s tissues.
In other words, I believe a briefly done DEAD-lift is a better, safer lift–either for pulling (including chins) and certainly most pushing movements. This is the opposite of much “expert” advice (emphasize blasting-off) but many trainers I respect are actually using pauses to advantage and keep the necessary SR for the skill specific activities you do–not the training that is supposed to improve you and not injure you!
Brief pauses also enable one to get more mileage out of simple bodyweight moves or lighter loads. Ever try a pause with each rep all the time? How many fewer reps do you get than otherwise, how much more “attack”? What might this do for a PLP approach? Like to hear your views.
I think those questions are interesting to ask but tough to answer. And I’m not sure we will ever know for sure. I’d like to think that the general process in which the way the body adapts would make rest periods moot, but I’d just be assuming. Who knows though.
As for the pause, it’s just a way to challenge the muscles. And it’s particularly useful in body weight movements as they aren’t easy to scale. At some point, a regular push-up or chin-up is going to be “too easy” and you have to find a way to do “more.”
You can do “more” by accumulating volume, changing the tempo, or adding in these other things. The pause just means the muscles have to work harder via the absence of the stretch reflex.
Perhaps the biggest advantage I see in removing the stretch reflex is injury prevention; the loading advantages come along for the ride. When you think about it, the SR is a cheat move–using a rebound off one’s own tissues– that overloads the joints and connective tissues at the *weakest* part of the range of motion. Do that for years with sufficient poundage, and shoulders and knees get blasted in their weakest positions. Nevermind it is likely an inferior training approach for most stated objectives. (Again, this is in contrast to sportive activities where one must use SR to practice the skill.)
Thanks again for a great site with good thoughts. You’ve helped me clarify and shape a direction for my future training that I had already begun. And you are likely to save many souls along the way.
I have already incorporated my one day of “Marriage Lifts,” (this includes all 4 lifts of Front Squat, Deadlift, Press, and some sort of different Pullup–like neutral grip) to be followed around by an additional (4) days of volume accumulation using more a PLP approach. The one big barbell day lets me gain recovery prior to that day and avoids feeling of being recovered just in time to get whacked again, as per the old way.
I wouldn’t say it’s a “cheat” move. It’s inherent and natural to movement — the way our body “wants” to work to preserve energy and make things more efficient. But I agree that if not controlled, it shifts the stress to the connective tissue which can be bad for health.