(upbeat music)
-: So now let's take what we've looked at
in terms of the principle and start to look at
this more of how we would use it on the gym floor,
because you're probably not going to limit yourself
to only being able to do one type of progression
or to progress in a linear fashion.
So you might do a combination of sets and reps
and load progressions across workout,
you might use asymmetrical loading
or asymmetrical reps, increasing load, decreasing reps,
adding sets and decreasing load, or reps, etc,
tons of different things that you can do.
And so the goal here would be to kind of help you
see kind of how we're using these calculations,
so that you could then apply that.
We're working on building a tool like this
for you guys as well.
So let's dig right into the application side of this.
So this is just like adding load.
So if we're looking at adding five pounds linearly
across the board, we see the percentage increase
that we're getting here.
But you could, so this is four sets of six at 180 pounds,
we go to 185 pounds,
and that gives us that based off of the way
that we're calculating this right now,
which is including the tempo.
So if I take the tempo out,
it'll make this progression number seem bigger.
But what this number is like,
the actual number is not that important.
It's more so understanding which things change the number
to a greater degree, so that you can understand
what's a small progression, big progression.
Because this 2.8% is just an ambiguous of like, well,
I don't know what 2.8% is,
cause it's a factor now of all of these things together,
is that it's not trying to be at 2.8%.
It's trying to understand that
that's that, but this is this.
So whoops, so if I were to go
to add a rep versus add weight,
I can see that adding a rep is a larger increase,
than going up in weight at this particular thing
comparing to going up and five pounds.
But it might be less than whatever going up
to 200 pounds or more whatever it may be.
So again, the whole thing is just understanding
where do these things kind of work out.
So this is, we'll say, an imperfect system
in terms of the exact calculations
as I have destroyed all of my numbers clicking
on the wrong chart here.
But the principle is what we're trying to demonstrate.
So the next thing I wanna show you guys then,
is how we could essentially make a progression,
but we could do it in a nonlinear loading fashion.
So say that, one of the things you want to do
was increase the intensity of some of these sets,
but that you know the only way to be able to do that
is to decrease the volume of some of these early sets.
So you could use an ascending load,
meaning the load is going up
so that you're reaching more of a peak set,
if you will.
So the RPR will be going up or RAR would be going down
as you go through the sets.
Maybe this is the one that you're taking them to failure,
versus trying to make me maintain a similar
or slower climbing RPE over the course of these.
We'll get into those deeper
once we actually add RPE to this formula.
But basically, what we can see is we can get
the same increase here by using 170 climbing
to 200 pounds for the same amount of reps
that we did by just adding five pounds across
and keeping the reps exactly the same.
So adding load, different ways to do it.
And when we look at this stuff,
that's the important thing to look at is that
you can accomplish your goal in multiple fashions
and so that may be what you want.
This is actually like me personally,
I load like this, almost all the time.
I almost never do this.
I almost am always working up to some sort of
top set in some sort of fashion or whatever,
or at least working up to some of this.
Because there's, I think, as you get to the point
where you're more advanced trainee, there is a longer climb
between maybe a warm up weight
and a high intensity load for you,
especially at certain especially at lower rep ranges.
As you get higher up into rep ranges, then maybe,
you choose more of a linear approach,
because you don't necessarily need to prepare for that load.
So it could be the movement,
the complexity of that movement,
how much load you're using, etc,
that makes you use you to opt for
one loading pattern or another.
The big thing is understanding
that you could essentially say,
maybe I just wanted to keep this at 180,
this at 180.
And then I wanted to go, let's see,
want to do something like this instead
Yeah, that's what I was trying to do.
Something like that where I'm instead of going 185
across the two, or across all four,
I wanna go 180, 180, 190, 190.
Again, that's a viable option,
it's still a progression,
how much of a progression and stimulus
we will get more into that later
when we add in the RPE and we cover kind of
the mechanical tension, in fact a rep stuff
so that you guys can understand
how that would be applied.
So now let's look into the whole adding a rep scenario.
So same process here,
we could go from sixes to then adding reps
so this is a larger progression based off
of the way our for most currently working right now
then adding the five pounds was but here I have 777 whatever
but I could if I wanted to,
like I could do a descending rep protocol
ascending load or whatever.
So could I potentially say, I wanted to do like, Okay,
I'm gonna push that earlier set further,
but then my loads are gonna look something like this,
or my reps are gonna look something like this
at still a progression.
So all you're doing is essentially pushing earlier
to maybe a higher RPE, or IR or whatever it may be,
but you start fatiguing.
So this is the common approach
that I see a lot of people use right now
that are using an RPE or scale,
is they will choose a target
and so that they're getting their highest reps,
their highest we'll say total tonnage sets earlier
and then they're getting less at the end.
And again, it comes down to well,
what just because this is less tonnage,
does that mean it's less stimulus?
We have to get into the effective rep scheme theory
to kind of decide that which we will at the end.
But at this point, we can at least say that while doing this
is still a progression.
So if this was something that you decided to do,
and let's say you did this,
but you ended up doing this,
and that's what you netted,
you could be like maybe that wasn't such a good idea.
Or maybe my rest intervals weren't right or something,
or would it like, I should have done something different
likely cause that was somewhat of a regression.
And so I would have to look at that
in the context of based off of stimulus and stuff,
is it okay that that tonnage dropped down a little bit?
That my volume dropped down?
It was a little bit of a regression and volume,
but maybe was it just as good of a statement or whatever.
This is why having both the subjective
and the tangible data is important.
Is that it really helps us out right now.
Notice these two things have always been the same,
there's average progression and net progression.
And basically this is just an average of the above.
So we're just comparing the same number of sets across,
we can use average progression.
But the second that there's more as we progress in sets,
this will no longer become a useful calculation.
And we will have to focus on just the the net progression.
So that's where this next one comes in,
is I could add a set and as you can see,
of what we've done so far,
adding five pounds adding a rep or adding a set,
the set is the largest progression based off
of the way the formula's currently working.
Again, that's subject to change.
And we'll talk about more about the tweaks
in the math and stuff like this,
as we kind of demonstrate how you could do this
on your own.
But so essentially,
this removes the average because there's nothing
to compare here cause I didn't do a fifth set this week.
But week two, I did this so I can't judge
a direct comparison of this compared
to what a hypothetical set would have been there.
But what I can say is that the progression
if we incorporate this tonnage and time,
compared to the tonnage in time of this week one workout,
or whatever happens to be the main,
this is a Monday session or Wednesday session,
but it was, is that that was definitely a big progression.
And this is where also understanding that
I could have done one rep here.
Still, that counts as a progression on tonnage.
But I don't think anybody would say that,
there would be an increase in stimulus
is coming back and doing one more Rep.
So this is why we need these numbers.
And we're going to need the tangible
or the subjective stuff,
which is going to be the proximity to failure,
understanding the effective reps,
mechanical tension based stuff,
so that we can understand
cause what would be the RPE of a one rep
out of something that you could do four sets of six
with probably very minimal this likely
it's not gonna contribute to any growth.
So there's gonna be a point of diminishing returns
of maybe if I got five, that's still pretty good.
That's still a good progression right there.
And then you can start adding on to this stuff
maybe I did, six at 185, 185,
but then I dropped it back down to 180
cause I wanted to get the volume that I wanted.
Maybe I decided, I'm gonna do this ascending load thing
that Catherine says that he likes to do.
But I'm gonna go here, and I'm also gonna add a set
to increase it, but maybe what happens is I end up
with something like this or whatever,
and I still got a pretty significant progression there
and I was able to work up to a higher intensity loading,
if that was my goal.
That may be something that suits you.
So, we're looking at adding a set and adding load.
We see that that just magnifies the progression.
This is a I think 125% progression
when this was still 180 pounds,
but if I progressed and sets and load quite a bit
of a change there, if we look at,
average intensity across the sets,
we have load as one marker of intensity
cause some people look as the intensity
as a percentage of one RM.
But when I say intensity in these cases,
we're usually talking about, that RPE ,that proximity
to failure is one thing you have to consider is that,
as you get stronger, as you get those adaptations,
you're not like your intensity at the same loads
and stuff is going to drop down.
So, you either have the option of I have to go up in load
or I have to do more work that is going to,
bring up that proximity to failure via fatigue
or some combination of both.
So if we go to, if we were to say
we wanted a smaller progression of this,
we were gonna take the pier,
let's just add volume approach.
And we were gonna say we're gonna just do less load.
But we're gonna try and get more overall work done.
So even though these are a regression
on a set by set basis, by adding a set,
this gives me the opportunity to then say, Well,
this is a progression.
Now, the thing to consider would be is did I lose?
Is this not enough,
we'll say significant reps or effective reps or whatever
to make it it's still a jump
in stimulus by bringing the weight down
and adding the volume up?
So these are the questions I want you
to be thinking about when we add in the RPE.
So the other thing that we could do is we could say, well,
I wanted to stick With this 185 pound mark,
I wanted to progress in load.
But I also want to add a set.
But this is simply just too much of a progression
is that, again, we can manipulate these things
to be like, alright,
I got accomplished on what I wanted to do.
But I use reps to manipulate that so that
it wasn't quite as big of a progression
and then maybe this becomes more manageable.
And then maybe then next week,
I get this, and then maybe I jump in load again
or whatever it may be like multiple different ways
that you can continue to progress this stuff.
So hopefully you guys just seeing
that you have a lot of different options.
And the important thing is to understand
that you can manipulate multiple variables to increase
or decrease a relative progression so that you can progress
in the direction that you wanted to.
So for instance, in this case here,
where I wanna increase in load and volume,
I'm gonna need to sacrifice reps.
And the previous case where I've said
I wanna progress in volume,
but just doing that is too much,
I decrease the load on these 265 pounds.
And that then enabled me to accomplish the increase
in volume, but I sacrificed the intensity of load.
As you're sacrificing amount of load,
but I kept the reps I could have lowered the reps
and kept the load in that in that scenario, either.
So depending on what your goal is,
and where you're trying to push to,
it's like alright, what am I really trying to bring up?
Am I trying to bring up reps? Am I trying to bring up sets?
Am I trying to bring up weight?
Am I trying to just focus on either a small,
medium or large progression?
How can I start using all these things
to get the progression that I want?
So now if we combine rep and load changes,
here's just an example of a progression I threw in
with some stuff where we got eight at 40,
five at 225, etc, whatever,
in this case scenario, so what's the change?
What's the progression?
So now I can say I wanna progress more
towards a descending rep method.
But in order to do that,
to be able to start with higher and lower,
then I worked my weights around so that I could be making
a relative similar progression across the board
on all of those.
So just another example where I've combined things because
this may be again would be a great scenario
for somebody where this was a relative high load in terms
of their strength and what they needed to do in terms
of a neurological complexity for that lift.
Like, jumping right into the 200 pound mark
is going to be a challenge.
They're gonna need a little bit more potential to get there.
They want the knees whatever it may be,
they may prefer this learning method.
This may be a bit better preparation for them.
Or maybe you just wanna have a little bit broader stimulus
in terms of like, but I wanna have a little bit
of a higher rep, lower weight, and I want to work up to this
now there's gonna be a point of diminishing returns,
where you can't do things that are two different
and still get a lot of benefit from them.
The stuff we talked about in the long program design course,
but as long as you're keeping these things relatively tight,
you can still kind of use these things.
So you can have an inverse, rapid weight climb,
where reps are going down and weight is going up.
And you can accomplish so you take this set,
like all the way to failure,
and maybe you take this one too,
maybe this ends up being like a an eight or nine,
and then this is like, a seven and this is like a six,
maybe that ends up being quite a bit
of significant reps for your effective reps or,
it's the same amount of stimulus
or more than what you would get in this,
if these were all say seven to eight across the board.
Again, we'll get into more detail with that
once we start qualifying failure,
and RPE a little bit deeper.
So again, this is just an example
of comparing nonlinear loading.
Just another example here.
I guess, although I'm sorry, in this one,
it was matching that load.
So just you guys can see the comparison between sort
of a progression but just like
what the equivalency would be.
Forgot I threw that one in here, bonus.
All right, and then let's talk about the tempo,
because that's definitely a variable
that we can throw in here.
So this would be like taking this and then if, for instance,
if this is a squat, we decided we want
to add a pause at the bottom and
so now you're doing a one here versus a zero here.
Right now we're looking at that and saying,
that is a pretty significant increase.
Cause I mean, we're adding 25% time
in the most difficult portion of the lift,
while keeping everything else the same.
Yeah, it's gonna be a pretty big progression jump.
It's almost the same progression jump, or it's,
I think it's exactly the same by these calculations
as adding another set.
So, depending on the exercise,
and depending on where you put that pause,
it may be a big jump,
or it may be a small jump, but etc,
depending on how you how you wanna wait tempo.
In this context, I would say right now in this equation,
when I'm using just time under tension instead
of time under significant tension on this one is
that the tempo I would say
is probably a little overrated.
Just anecdotally, or or what I would think.
And then essentially the main thing so let's do this.
Let's zoom out.
And now let's look at this in the context
of a workout and what we can see
is we can take now an exercise one, an exercise two
and an exercise three.
And because these are in percentages,
I can now get a total workout progression.
So that means if I were to take this guy up here
and say let's just say for some reason I went balls
to the walls, got nine reps on that,
I get an increase in that,
and then I get a smaller increase
in my total workout progression.
So because these are percentages,
I can weigh the difference between that and saying,
what if I instead went balls out on
this exercise down here.
And so what I've done is I've kind of made an exercise
where we're doing lower reps,
a little bit heavier weights to simulate,
whatever typical barbell exercise probably
and then something that would maybe be similar,
maybe a machine based exercise,
and then something down here,
where it would be something like a leg press
or something where I could do a ton of weight.
But if you see, like this is relatively close,
so I went from 12 here, to 15 reps.
And that jumped me to 117%.
But if I take that down and said, I could take this guy,
and I move him up to nine, or whatever,
even though these are two different exercises
and two different loads or whatever,
I'm still able to get a relative similar increase
in the percentage of work done
in terms of percentage progression.
But if I was calculating by pounds,
because this is a heavy ass exercise,
the tonnage increase would be huge.
It would be huge.
Cause look at this is, this is again,
it's at 43,000 pounds scenario versus
this is only a 6400 pound scenario or whatever.
So being able to qualify these things down
to the percentages means that I can progress
an individual exercise, an individual set
in a variety of ways and then still be able
to calculate that out into a workout progression.
And so when this is all said and done,
we'll kind of walk through the really boring,
math and stuff or whatever that's going on.
But basically, this is basically working
on a some progression of that gross tonnage and time
that we are calculating in here.
I don't know for sure,
let me see if this is waiting tempo or not,
I can't remember.
Yes, it is waiting tempo.
So these are incorporating all of the variables
and just giving you an idea.
We will walk through this in more detail
when we add a new variable which will be the RPE
and proximity to failure.
(upbeat music)