An Adaptive Framework for Block Periodization in Strength Sport - Part 2

Integrating Block Periodization Concepts with a Bottom-Up Framework

Some of the main criticisms of traditional periodization methods, including block periodization, is that they operate on too many assumptions, are not as predictable as we want them to be, and that if you are always changing things from week to week then how do you truly know what you think you know.  I would agree with these criticisms, especially with the idea that when coaches write training plans they do so with assumptions about how a certain exercise, load, rep scheme, or stimulus, might impact a given individual.  From there, coaches try to impress an internal locus of control on to an individual’s adaptation, something very outside of our control, no matter how perfectly we write a program.  Godfather Mike T’s answer to this conundrum was straight forward, just don’t change anything, or at least put better systems in place to keep stimuli as similar as possible from microcycle to microcycle. 

The best method of achieving this is to try to anchor most loading on RPE.  If the athlete is effective at using RPE as a training tool, then this assumes they will put the right weight on the bar for the right number of reps, at the right RPE, achieving the coach’s desired stimulus.  This can cause problems right off the jump, as we all know not everyone is that great at using RPE. Even when athletes are good at using RPE, egos get in the way and people make poor training decisions.  The other option is to use some kind of fixed load progression at a given %1RM, but then there are limits on autoregulation, and on how to accurately measure progress or performance.  A blend of both training tools is probably appropriate, as that will allow for more control over the loading throughout the week, or on lower priority exercises, allowing performance to express itself in the training that is anchored on RPE. 

I still think you can follow Block periodization concepts while applying a bottom-up framework. 

Volume Landmarks and Block Style

I am going to assume you have some general understanding of Dr. Mike’s volume landmarks, Minimum Effective Volume (MEV), Maximum Adaptive Volume (MAV), and Maximum Recoverable Volume.  What is the least amount of training stimulus you can do in a given time frame and still get better (MEV)?  What is the amount of training stimulus that brings you the best gainz (MAV)?  What is the highest amount of training stimulus you can recover from and still train just as hard the following session or microcycle (MRV)? Our first block of training with an individual should somehow work to find where one or some of these landmarks exist for a given individual.  Mike T has developed cool methods like the RTS Stress Index to quantify these concepts, while some people use things like Volume Tonnage, or Intensity per Number of Lifts. I personally try to find these landmarks looking at number of hard enough sets per movement pattern per week.  I use a lot of submaximal sets in my programming to facilitate a lot of good practice, especially with SBD variations, so I try to count everything at RPE 6 and above as a hard enough set.  There are flaws in all these methods, counting NOS equates a set at RPE 6 and RPE 9 as the same thing, which it probably isn’t, so there will be some RPE gaming needed to account for this.  In the same way, a set of 3 at RPE 9 is not the same as a set of 10 at RPE 9, this is one of the problems the RTS Stress Index attempts to combat.    My strategy for navigating this is to start finding a workload that an athlete can handle that is more sub maximal, then operating on the assumption that if I increase average RPE, or add RPE to all sets, then I will need to lower total number of sets. 

Example: If athlete A has a session MAV of 5 sets at RPE 6-7, they might only be able to handle 4 sets at RPE 7-8, 3 sets at RPE 8-9, and only 1 or 2 sets at RPE 9+.  This idea can help inform how we might program workloads using our block model.  Ideally you would have an idea of where MEV, MAV, and MRV, are at each intensity or RPE range, but this information takes time to decipher.  During an accumulation period you can really push total number of sets and lifts while keeping RPE down, while during an intensification period you will bring total number of sets down but push the RPEs a bit higher. 

Preparatory

If we have a rough idea of an individual’s volume landmarks per movement pattern, this can inform how we set up training for an individual depending on what type of Block they are in.  The general rule for a Preparation block being that we want to prepare an athlete for the work that is to come later in the training program.  We can probably initiate workloads at their MEV, looking to build workloads up slowly until we have them training somewhere around their MAV again, or building until we are getting signals that we have reached our MRV or more.  Technically this change in workload over the block might not follow an Emerging Strategies rule.  You could probably make it work, perhaps with a fixed load progression and a fixed number of sets, starting at a dumb low RPE, adding reps as the block goes on, and letting the RPE climb. 

I am not sure that this would constitute an Emerging strategies framework, but it does allow us to hold number of sets and absolute load constant.  A traditional Preparation strategy would add submaximal back off sets every microcycle until reaching MRV for the last microcycle of the training block, before washing out and transitioning to a new strategy.  If you are working with a new client, this can be a trial period where you add sets every week or two until performance is no longer improving, the individual is not recovering, or you reach your personal governor on number of hard sets per week.  Hopefully this exploratory time will give you a general idea as to where their MRV is, and roughly how long they can use a certain program before needing some kind of transition and/or reduction in training load. 

Accumulation

So, if you had a rough idea where an individual’s MRV is, you would use that to inform set counts during an accumulation block.  A traditional Block style might have an individual add workload until someone is potentially training at above MRV or a short period, but I don’t really recommend that anymore.  If I think I know roughly where MRV is, I will try to set workloads below that number, but because it is an accumulation block, I will try to keep the workload above MAV to some degree.  Keep in mind that this is conceptual, these landmarks are moving targets, and having pinpoint accuracy is not as easy as it may seem.

The goal of this period is still to accumulate a lot of good work and good rep practice.  If a slightly higher set count blunts adaptation and performance rates for a short period that is okay because we are trying to build during this period so that we can be more robust to the forces of our sport when the time comes to perform with higher loads.  My go to strategy here is to program a lot of sets at RPE 6-7, attempting to have a client execute a bunch of repeat sprint efforts.  An example might be if an RPE chart says that 8 reps at an RPE of 6 is roughly 68% of an individual 1 RM or E1RM, I will program anywhere from 3-5 sets of 6 reps at 68%, again trying to keep movement quality and bar speed high, while racking up large volumes.  These could be backdown sets or straight sets, depending on the goal of the training day.    While no individual set would be that terribly taxing, the total workload will be, especially if you like to have fun by pushing rest periods during a protocol like that.  For variations or non-specific work, I like to use fixed load progressions where we simply try to add reps at a given load until the reps get so high that load progression is needed or it is time to change the stimulus of the block. 

Intensification

Since the goal of the Intensification period is to lift the heaviest weights of the entire macrocycle, knowing an individual’s MAV is very valuable.  Ideally, we will lower total workload from slightly below MRV to hopefully spot on a person’s MAV.  If you were going to miss MAV, I am not sure if I would rather someone have slightly too much or slightly too little workload.  The ageing lifter in me tells me that slightly less is probably the more conservative and risk averse approach, but training slightly above MAV leaves more room to adjust and taper as needed heading into competition.  Obviously, these numbers are fluid anyway, and will change from day to day, month to month, and cycle to cycle as lifestyle factors fluctuate. 

While total workload might get slightly lowered, in theory a higher percentage of that workload would use a higher specificity.  More comp movements or sets, lower reps, heavier weights, all to maximize adaptations and dial things in heading into competition day.  This will exist on a spectrum, and what this means for different people will mean different things.  Some individuals will still have variations  like SSB Tempo Squat, high rep close grip bench, or Sumo Deadlift sets of 6-8, if those are the movements and doses that drive someone’s performance. 

Realization (Taper)

When using an Emerging Strategies model, the goal would be to have training so well timed up and dialed in that there is very little taper needed, training right into the meet knowing when their best performance should occur.  While that is all good in theory, I still find a lot of value in a good taper, especially if an individual is reporting high levels of fatigue relative to their training history as they head into a meet, or their performance is simply not where it should be based on recent training history.  For simplicity we will say that it is valuable to lower all workloads down to an individual’s minimum effective volume, and intensity for that matter, so that in theory the training is still enough stimulus to create some kind of adaptation, while lowering fatigue.  For a lot of people this can be as short and simple as one microcycle where one session has them ramping up to their opener weights, or even less, keeping accessories in the plan but lowering volumes to 1 set per movement.  The next session would be similar, but you would only go up to some minimum threshold of intensity for strength in an attempt to maintain sharpness, say 75% or so, for very low reps and set counts, again keeping accessory movements in, but only for one set and perhaps with a lower RPE.  Then perhaps you remove one session heading into the competition.  So if people are competing on Saturday and normally train Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, you would drop the Friday session completely. If nothing else a lot of people will respond very well to an extra day of rest if they are training appropriately hard 4-5x/week all the way up to the week before the competition.  Knowing an individual’s suggested block and volume landmarks can be helpful in determining how the Realization period should be formatted to hopefully maximize performance on competition day. 

Transitioning between blocks

Washouts, Pivots, Transitions, or whatever you want to call these periods can use Preparatory Block rules.  You would probably bring things down to MEV, reduce specificity, reduce absolute loading, possibly reduce or adjust frequency or split, and try to train the qualities that don’t get trained during accumulation or intensification periods.  For powerlifters this might mean changing bars or implements, using more reps, shorter rest periods, maybe some fun intensification techniques like drop sets or Myo Reps, perhaps lowering SBD frequency, while including more single leg or machine work.     A classic example being a few sets of high bar squat 10s.  There’s nothing like the weight on your back suffocating you as you fight to take in more air so that you can brace appropriately while your entire body is on fire.  Most powerlifters could probably use more under water training.  Transition periods are a great time and place to make people more uncomfortable in their training knowing that it will only last a few weeks. 

A Note on Absolute Loading

An individual’s volume landmarks might change across rep ranges.  Some people can do heavy doubles and triples all day, but if you give them a one set of 8-10, they are absolutely wiped for the whole session.  While other individuals might be able to handle set after set after set of submaximal work at 4-6 reps, but if you give them a single or a double it can create disproportionate levels of fatigue, thereby creating volatilities in their performance and impacting how much more work they can handle.  This type of individual can be tough to figure out as they perform better when they are training less specifically.  In theory, our best performance measure is going to be some kind of heavier lift, usually a single, at an appropriate RPE that we might gauge performance development.  We all know we probably aren’t going to have people max out every week due to the inappropriate risk and fatigue incurred.  Well, for some people this will happen with 1 or 2 reps at RPE 6-7, and their performance will fizzle out even with reps in the tank.

Block Periodization is not Top-Down

Using a block style model or progression does not mean top-down coaching.  It might mean starting from the end point and working backwards to attempt to time things up appropriately, but I would say that is just good planning and coaching, not necessarily strict theoretical top-down programming.  Knowing that you need to perform well at a given date should inform loose planning, but maybe not a certain exercise for x number of reps at y intensity.  It just means that ideally, your last block should be the one that most prepares you for the competition on a given date.  Following the trail of athlete response while keeping in mind the date of competition should still inform training decisions when the time comes.