Why Do Reps Even Matter?

Written by: Kevin Cann

 

This is a question I have been asking myself a bit lately.  This article is just going to be some thoughts, an inside to my thinking process if you will.

 

My guess is that this started around the 1970s when there was this obsession about the Russian’s training secrets.  This was the birth of our periodization models here in America.  These periodization models broke training up into specific phases.

 

These phases tend to be a preparatory phase, a competitive phase, and a transition phase.  The preparatory phase recommendations are for lots of non-specific high repetition work.  In some sources they recommend around 12 to 20 reps.  The competition cycle would be more specific work and between 2 to 8 reps, and the transition phase would be time off after competition.  Perhaps the lifter does some different activities here.

 

Over time this got adapted more.  There became hypertrophy, strength, and power phases.  Even those these phases had different names it was the same exact model repackaged in a different way.

 

So, back to my original question, “Why do reps matter?”  The idea between higher rep sets is to increase the size of the muscle within the lifter.  Theoretically a larger muscle has the ability to lift more weight.  When we look into the literature this narrative just does not hold true.

 

Muscle mass can be obtained from various loading schemes.  However, strength tends to be higher in the groups lifting heavier. This makes sense as the heavier loads are more specific to the sport.

 

There is some correlation to larger muscles moving more weight, and if you are a coach or lifter that performs high rep sets for this, and you enjoy doing them, by all means keep doing it.  I am just not convinced by the available evidence that this is worth the time, which is also a constraint on lifters, in the gym.  There is a Boston’s Strongcast episode with researcher, Dr. Loenneke, that discusses these topics in further details.

 

If we analyze the sport of powerlifting this may help to give us our answers.  It is a sport where the lifter takes 3 attempts of a single repetition of the squat, bench press, and deadlift.  Each attempt gets heavier from the first attempt to the third attempt of each lift.

 

The third attempt should be a maximal lift for the lifter.  A maximal lift may take anywhere from a couple seconds, and I have seen upwards of 11 seconds.  Looking at this information, I would say that reps matter up to the maximal amount of time the lifter will be lifting a maximal attempt for.  For the information I have, 11 seconds (that was on a deadlift, squat was 8 seconds, and bench was a little less than squat).

 

This is the equivalent to a set of 3 repetitions.  A hard set of 3 reps is probably taking a bit longer as well.  The research has shown that to get stronger, you need to lift larger loads.  Well, what is a larger load?  The research suggests that loads greater than 85% of 1RM are ideal.

 

Research also suggests that the internal loads, not the external loads, are the drivers of physiological adaptation.  The most common way to measure internal loads is with RPE.  From practical experience I have found that an RPE 8+ is pretty sufficient for strength increases.

 

The closer to maximal we get the better here.  My guess is it is due to psychological factors.  The heavier weights peak arousal from the lifter.  This forces them to handle their emotions.  As Keith Davids says, “Training should have consequences.”  There are a large number of lifters that undershoot this RPE, so I make our hard sets a range from 8.5 to 9.5.  I would rather them overshoot here than undershoot because of the number of sets we are performing.  Usually starting out at 1 to 2.

 

The dogmatic argument to this is that you can’t lift heavy every day like that because of overtraining. The idea of overtraining comes from Hans Selye who shocked rats in the 1930s.  This literally has nothing to do with lifters taking a handful of hard sets 3-4 days per week.

 

Research struggles to induce overtraining symptoms from intensity alone, and they do things that are far removed and much crazier than the real world would.  There needs to be an endurance component to this.  Higher volume programs have an endurance component, perhaps this is where that fear came from?  I do not know.

 

The argument then is always “But volume matters!  You’re dumb! (insert appropriate emoji here).”  Not all volume is created equal.  Seems there needs to be a higher intensity to it, and a duration of no more than about 11 seconds.

 

We typically start at 5 repetitions.  My argument is that this gives the lifter greater exposures to new variations to figure it out.  It is hard to load it up for a heavier triple right away.  When I go back and analyze the 5s, I saw some interesting things.

 

Reps 1 and 2 are definitely not intense enough to be included in the volume that matters. Reps 4 and 5 were mostly effective reps, and rep 3 was sometimes effective.  Keep in mind the majority of the sets are taken at around an RPE 9.5. The days of the 8.5s is usually when the lifter is feeling a little tired and banged up.  This puts that 3rdrep around an 8.

 

On sets of 3 the first rep is probably outside of the range of intensity to be counted as an effective rep. However, the 3rdrep is important for the timing component of the sport.  We need to learn how to lift for upwards of 11 seconds.

 

In terms of volume, we need to define how we use volume.  Most use total tonnage and average intensity.  I use “number of hard sets.”  I don’t care whether it was a set of 5 or a set of 1 it gets the same score, 1 volume unit.  The reason for that is with the effective reps for one.

 

Also, there is a lot of uncertainty with using volume to predict progress.  Tetlock showed in a long running study that experts with more information tended to make worse predictions.  I choose to keep it simple and to give me an idea about how hard the lifter is working.  If progress seems to be stalling, we can add more hard sets.  This is pretty simple.

 

I think reps are important for practice.  However, we want them to be more deliberate for the sport that we are competing in. A set of 10 at 70% is not practice for powerlifting in my opinion.  The weight is too light to create technique issues, it is too light to create an emotional response, it lasts longer than 11 seconds, and its reasoning is based off of Russian folklore from the 1970s and before.

 

I view volume as measuring practice time within the sport itself.  Wouldn’t I want to know how many sets the lifter is performing that is actually going to yield benefits?  Wouldn’t this help me see the training process better and give me the necessary information to make the decisions for that lifter to increase progress?  I think so.  Of course, we can’t forget about manipulating other factors such as exercise selection.  That is usually my go to.  You will be surprised at how often adding more volume is not the answer.

Advertisements

From Sheiko to Where We Are Now

Written by: Kevin Cann

 

This article is going to go with a solo podcast I just recorded.  I discussed how I started and how we ended up doing things the way that we do them now.  This is going to be a quick addition as I believe that people think we do so many things different than we did before.

 

When we were mimicking a Sheiko program before we were using a specific number of lifts and average intensity based off of lifter classification.  We used percentages for these numbers.  Technique was the primary driver of exercise selection and those other factors.

 

We would squat 2 times per week, deadlift 2 times per week, and bench 3-4 times per week.  There would be high, medium, and low stress training days sprinkled throughout the block.  We would even do the dreaded double lift days.

 

Currently, I do not write sets, just exercise and suggested top weight.  There are no percentages and the top sets are just a range of RPEs from 8.5 to 9.5.  The frequencies of lifts shift around as well.  The rest of the information is lifter dependent.

 

The lifter chooses the number of sets based off of how the day is going and how they feel they need to warmup.  They have rules governing the top sets.  They are to get 1-2 at RPE 8.5-9.5.  I give a suggested weight, but they can adjust accordingly.  Sometimes it does not work well at first, but then they drop the weight and work back up and hit it.  Sometimes they don’t work back up.

 

If they do not work back up, that is a lighter or medium stress day.  They still have those; they just self-organize into them.  We get so hellbent on general principles being true that we think we can predict when the lifter will need a break and we think we can predict performance.  None of this is true.

 

The human body is pretty amazing.  There are all kinds of feedback loops that can dictate this process if we just listen. If fatigue is going to affect performance, we will see it by the top set being less than we anticipated.  Sometimes the lifter feels tired and still exceeds that number.

 

We need to embrace uncertainty and understand that we are not smarter than the human body.  I will vary frequencies based off of performance for the lifters.  Sometimes 3 days a week where we squat twice, bench 2-3 times, and deadlift once is better. Sometimes we need more.  It often will look exactly like it used to with 4 days per week.  Squats and deadlifts twice and bench 3-4 times.

 

We still use double lift days as I see appropriate.  I still use variations to attack the technical inefficiencies.  These variations make up the majority of the volume just like they did before.  I vary more now, where before everything was in comp stance or grip.  Now I move the lifters around in a bunch of different positions.

 

Instead of getting lots of sets for practice, I choose to have a more targeted approach where our practice will be more specific.  We will get the 1-2 sets at a very challenging weight.  Effort at the end might be the same, I just choose to use a heavier weight as I feel it is a different skill and has an emotional response from the lifter.

 

This is a constraints-led approach.  We get more deliberate practice, so we don’t need as much.  There was the old 10,000-hour rule that was believed to be true, but research suggests that it comes down more to the quality of training than the quantity.  How much each person needs are dependent on that person.  Everyone learns at a different rate.

 

Everyone has different stuff going on outside of the gym.  We do not know how this stuff can affect performance, but sometimes it may be best to just do 3 days as trying to get that 4thday in just becomes a stressor to them.  Sometimes performance stalls and we got to suck it up and get that 4thday in.

 

There are no answers. As a coach I feel we need to guide the process with the general principles in the back of our minds.  I learned the general principles from Sheiko, and you can still see how heavily our programs are influenced by him.  I choose to use 1 to 2 hard sets for the number of lifts and average intensity now, but technique is still first.  The structure changes throughout as I see fit, but much of it is still influenced from the structure I used under him.  It may seem very different, but it is not so different at all.

My Conversation with Vince Anello

 

Written by Kevin Cann

 

I was fortunate enough today to have a talk with a legend of the sport.  I shared some stuff with our team, but I want to get it all down on paper and I think all of the people reading this will benefit from the information.

 

Vince Anello was the first person under 200lbs to deadlift 800lbs.  He deadlifted 820lbs at 198lbs bodyweight in 1982.  The timeframe here was important.  There wasn’t a lot of information out there for the sport at the time, so these guys had to figure it out.  He told me that they used phonebooks for boards on the bench!

 

The majority of coaches and athletes involved in powerlifting, have been involved in this sport for less than 5 years.  The lessons that these legends can teach has got lost in an egocentric world filled with 20 somethings that think they know everything.

 

The conversation started with Mr. Anello telling me that every program works.  However, it only works if the mental approach of the lifter is on point.  He told me that we need to be open minded about all aspects of strength training as we don’t know anything.

 

Right there I was sold. This is literally something that I say all of the time.  I use the phrase of “embrace uncertainty.”  He even said that we need to be comfortable with uncertainty.  The conversation only got better from here.

 

He went on to explain the process of training.  He said to allow the process to happen and don’t force it.  He said to let go and let guide and the movement patterns and the process will take care of itself.  This has literally been my coaching philosophy since October.  Sounds a lot like self-organizing to me.

 

The internet jumped on me when I showed week 1 of a program and how bare it looks.  They called me lazy and a shitty coach.  They told me that I am ripping people off for this coaching as well.

 

I give them a starting point, we observe how things are working, and we adjust as we see fit. The lifter fills in all of the other blank spaces in the program.  They decide the sets based off feel and the accessories based off their identification of their needs and what they like to do.  I supervise this process and teach them when there are teachable moments.  This is the process building itself. We do this together as a team.  We help each other and the decisions are made with both me and the lifter.

 

In light of all of the criticism I have received for my coaching it was nice to hear this from him. I care more about the opinion of someone that has been in this sport as long as he has and someone that has achieved so much.  I have a podcast with Dr. Loeneke that will be out next week that explains a lot of the science behind the reasoning for us lifting heavy more often instead of higher volumes.

Lots of these legends of the sport trained each lift one day per week.  Vince Anello was no different.  They got after it each week and basically maxed out for the reps of that given day.  Seems most started with 5 reps and worked up to singles (from what I could find).  They found exercises that attacked weaknesses and lifted them heavy.

I theorize that volume became more popular in strength training as our ability to track it became more pronounced.  The 70s seems to be when the hypertrophy contributes to strength training paradigm shifted without substantial evidence.  During this time Russian training systems were all of the rage, and shortly after the computer came onto the scene.  As the computer became more common in households, more coaches began to have access to Excel.  We can’t track conversations objectively, but we can track many of the external load data points in this sport.  Technology was the death of intuitive coaching.  I think it led to many coaches disregarding the words of past legends as well because it did not fit their limited knowledge base.  I can say this because it was me a couple years ago.

This is a sport without role models.  Raw lifting blew up onto the scene and the giants of the past were forgotten.  I feel if we learned more about where the sport started and where it came from there would be less negative commentary on the internet about different training styles.  This is a different conversation and I am going to save myself the frustration.

He made a very interesting comment that really resonated with me.  He said not to analyze your lifts.  That analyzing deters from performance.  This was really amazing to me.  I spoke about perfectionism and how it deters from performance on the Clinical Athlete podcast, episode 33.  We discuss a current paper on the topic.  He figured this out 20 years before there was even research on the subject matter.

We also discussed the mental aspects of training.  I am going to save the specifics for our group, but he truly believes the mental aspects are the most important aspects to train.  You can’t handle big weights physically if you are not mentally prepared. This is something we are really going to focus on as a group, no matter how weird people think that it is.

I am very excited to start utilizing some of this mental training that he suggested.  I think it will pay huge dividends for the entire group.  We have had some great conversations about the mental side of training as a group lately and this has already payed dividends.

It also brings us closer as a group and helps to drive further progress.  I encourage everyone to be open minded and skeptical of everything.  Just as Mr. Anello said, we don’t know anything.  Once I adopted this attitude our group started to have more fun and we have seen an explosion of totals.

Hierarchies and Hypertrophy

Written by: Kevin Cann

 

Mike Amato shared a term with me the other day that I think is very important to this article.  That term was “shared ontology.”  Shared ontology is basically something that has been conceptualized from generation to generation without ever being questioned.

 

An example of a shared ontology is religion.  There are some gospels in the strength world that have been passed down without any questioning.  The scientific foundation that these claims rest on were studies done on rats in the 1930s. We have come quite a bit further from this period of time.

 

We need to be skeptical and open minded to the ideas that we don’t know shit.  We are still in the infancy of trying to understand the complexities of the human mind and body.  Due to being in this infancy, we tend to utilize a reductionist view of things to attempt to make them make sense.

 

This assumes that the sum of the parts equals the whole.  This is not true in an open complex system.  I think that there is little disagreement that the human is an open complex system.  Things are not as logical or simple as they may seem.

 

If there is little disagreement that the human is an open complex system, why does no one question the reductionist viewpoints we have?  This does not make sense to me.  I posted a research article that suggests that hypertrophy may not be a contributor to strength improvements and the internet blew up.

 

The article suggested that the evidence is merely correlation at best and there are too many inconsistencies to say absolutely that hypertrophy contributes to increases in strength.  The argument for the other side is that a bigger muscle, theoretically has greater potential for contraction.

 

Therefore, you perform a hypertrophy block to build muscle and then a strength block to recognize the potential of that muscle.  This seems extremely logical and makes sense.  However, the research does not support this.

 

Even though there is no solid evidence to support this standing, no one questions it.  When someone does question it, like myself, I am blasted all over the internet.  I never said hypertrophy does not matter.  I said that focusing on it exclusively, or any excess work outside of typical training, is unnecessary.

 

We put on muscle from training.  It is an adaptation to the stress applied in the gym.  Our bodies are smarter than we are with this stuff.  It knows what it needs to accomplish a task.  Strength is specific to the task.

 

I may not have a huge total in powerlifting.  There are many lifters with much higher totals than me.  However, if they got on a wrestling mat with me, I bet I am a lot stronger than they are.  I bet the power of my punches and kicks are far superior to theirs.  Lifting, just like other sports is a skill.

 

I have been punched and kicked by guys that would not have good totals and it felt like a bag of bricks hitting me.  I am pretty positive that lifting more in the gym would not have made them stronger in their sport.

 

I don’t think we do much in the gym for athletes as strength and conditioning coaches.  We build some confidence and possibly some tissue resiliency. Problem with the second part is, it does not seem like we are decreasing injuries in sport no matter what we do. This is a conversation for another time.

 

You get better in a sport by practicing that sport.  This does not mean that we just take heavy competition singles every single time in the gym.  It means that we do drills to get better.  This is similar to all of the wrestling and striking drills that I performed over the years.

 

This means the coach needs to understand what the most efficient positions are for each lift and guide the lifter to self-organize to them.  I utilize a constraints-led approach here.  I put them in positions that punish the inefficient technique and only leave a few options to complete the task.  These options are what I deem as more efficient.  We measure objective performance to be sure it is working.

 

If I am unsure if something is going to contribute to increases in strength, I am not focusing on it. I never felt that running gave me an aerobic base for doing rounds in mma.  Doing rounds in mma gave me that endurance and that base.  This is how I feel about high rep sets of the lifts.

 

I think the benefit that people get from high rep sets is due to the novelty of the stimulus. There are many ways we can get that novelty.  We can change positions, TUT, use pauses, bands and chains, blocks and deficits, I use 5 and 4 reps to get used to an exercise and then 3/2/1 to load it up, so the changing of reps is novelty.  This allows the sport of lifting heavier weights to still be practiced.

 

I view accessory work as the powerlifter’s strength and conditioning.  We can build some tissue resiliency and instead of confidence, as that is derived in the sport itself, I can build self-efficacy.  They choose the accessories based off of where they think they need some extra work.

 

The strength is gained from the buy in and the self-efficacy.  Not necessarily the strengthening the weak muscles. Semantics I know, but it is important for the coach’s framework and decision making.

 

If hypertrophy is not a contributor to strength than what biological purpose does it serve?  For one, it allows us to accomplish the task.  It is an adaptation to the stress of training. A byproduct if you will.

 

It seems that perceptual and active inference are gaining a lot of steam in a number of fields.  We are learning that perception drives action and there is a hierarchical process to how we experience the world.

 

Higher levels within this hierarchy feed information down to the lower levels.  The passing on of the information is dependent upon the lateral levels assessing them for error and noise.  My best guess is that strength at specific angles and individual muscle strength are lower level attributes.

 

These lower level attributes are dependent upon the higher levels.  These higher levels involve expectations, experiences, and beliefs.  These priors are what we are attempting to update as a coach.  We need to create enough feedback for the lateral levels to accept it as error and allow the message to be passed through all of the levels.

 

When this happens, we see an increase in strength.  With this increase in strength there may be an increase in hypertrophy.  Other times we see an increase in strength with no increase in hypertrophy.

 

The fact that hypertrophy alone, without specific training, does not yield increased strength outcomes for the sport should speak volumes.  I can’t just leg press my way to a bigger squat.  This would support the idea that hypertrophy is a lower level attribute, dependent on the higher levels.

 

If I want hypertrophic increases that are beneficial to the sport, I need to focus on the higher levels. The lower levels do not pass information upstream to the higher levels.  There is no direct evidence in the literature to support this idea.

 

However, there is a lot of information on this Bayesian inference and allostatic and homeostatic regulation.  These are the arguments used in classical periodization models that are based off of the Selye 1930s rat studies.  The stress requires us to raise set points through the idea of the General Adaptation Syndrome.  These Bayesian models seem like a much more appropriate explanation in light of the last 90 years of research.

Long Term Skill Acquisition in Powerlifting

Written by: Kevin Cann

 

I have had this conversation quite a few times in the last week and I think it makes a very interesting topic.  I view strength as a skill. Not just the technique of the lifts, but the actual physiological adaptation.

 

The definition of a skill is “the ability to do something well, expertise” and “A particular ability.” If we are really good at something, we even identify it as a strength.  Developing a skill is also a dynamic process.

 

In skill development there are progressions, regressions, skips, and jumps.  This is the same as in strength training.  Developing strength is also a dynamic process.  It is a dynamic process that the coach needs to understand both short term and long-term pieces of.

 

In most sports there are long term skill development plans.  I played soccer growing up so I will use that as an example.  At 5 years old the ball was smaller, the field was smaller, the goals were small without goaltenders, and the number of kids on the field was far less than 11.

 

The reasons for all of this go far beyond what many understand.  The ball being smaller allowed the kids to develop appropriate skills for kicking the ball.  If they used the larger adult sized ball this would alter mechanics to move the heavier ball and have an impact in the long term on kicking skills.  The goal is for the kids to self-organize into appropriate kicking technique within a game.

 

The field was smaller because the kids are smaller.  A larger field would not be appropriate for the speed and size of the current players. It would be a very different game with in game skill development being something that would not carry over as much.

 

The goals were smaller without a goaltender to encourage kids to shoot and aim for a target.  If a goalie was in the net there may be hesitation from the kid to shoot.  There may also be a focus developed on the goalie instead of the target.  The goal being smaller allows them to self-organize to a technique that allows them to put the ball in a smaller space.

 

The smaller sided games are actually to avoid swarming to the ball.  This helps to teach appropriate spacing on the field that will carry over to later on.  All of these pieces serve a purpose.

 

In powerlifting I think many forget this.  They want everything right now.  I understand this modern day thinking with the internet being a highlight reel of people hitting big weights.  Athletes need to understand where they are in their journey and how to appropriately set themselves up for the long term.

 

Most lifters start powerlifting later in life.  This isn’t a sport that many start at a young age here in America.  There are a few and they just happen to be the best coaches around now.  We need to understand this part in the beginning.  It isn’t about starting them at lower volumes and building them up.

 

These lifters have developed strengths and weaknesses based off of their experiences.  At this stage in their life their perceptions, beliefs, and sociocultural surroundings have molded them into the human in front of us. This means education is a big part of our job in the beginning.

 

As a coach we want to develop the whole athlete.  Many of the current world champions come from a bodybuilding background and the Eastern Europeans have about 10 years of GPP work before their training becomes specific. This builds a great foundation to build the lifter.

 

This is not usually the case here.  Most programs will call for high volumes of competition lifts.  This can yield fast progress off of the bat, but it can hinder the athlete later on.  This is one reason why I believe lifters see progress for the first couple of years and then there is a drop-off in total or a sustained plateau.

 

Kerry had asked/yelled at me the other day “Why hasn’t my deadlift moved in years!?”  This is one reason why I believe it has been stuck. I wasn’t attempting to build the complete athlete.  I was only attempting to strengthen her comp stance deadlift.

 

Kerry competes in a medium stance sumo where her knees will straighten and back will round under heavier weights.  This can’t be fixed from this position and to build a resilient athlete as well as strengthen weaknesses we need to alter angles.  This shifts emphasis to different muscles that have been ignored and punishes less efficient positions by disallowing the lifter to complete the task.

 

For Kerry this means a lot of wide stance sumo deadlifts.  This will strengthen her hips to take some pressure off of her back to pull. If the hips and legs catch up to her back strength, there is a huge pull to be had there.  However, I kind of fucked up there and it is going to take time.

 

She trained with that less efficient position for 4 years.  This isn’t as simple as putting a variation in for a block and everything is ok. She competed with a wide stance deadlift at the Arnold and we have continued to build it from there.  She has already doubled a weight that didn’t budge a month ago.  There is still a lot of work to be done here to get it where we need it to be.

 

I hindered Kerry’s long-term progress by not being a good enough coach.  Thanks Kerry for sticking with me through all of this.  I remember Sheiko saying that a world class lifter needs a world class coach.  Kerry had an elite deadlift when she started, I was not ready at the time to handle that.

 

Luckily, she was not elite in the other 2 lifts and we have had increases in total each year due to those continually growing.

 

I asked Sheiko how I get to that level.  He said that I must think about powerlifting 20 hours a day.  The rest of the time is spent training.  I think there was about an hour break per day where I could think of something else.  Reasonable.

 

I have literally done that since that day.  It has brought me down some fun rabbit holes and has gotten me to this point.  Without Kerry’s deadlift we are probably not seeing the results we are today as a group.

 

Some will argue that that is just how she pulls.  Yes technically it is, but it is definitely inefficient and will have a lower ceiling than if we correct those issues.  Those issues cannot be corrected with lighter weights.

 

I would sit there and give her a lot of feedback on each repetition in training.  This is not usually my style, but I think my frustration coming out as trying to do too much and fix it with words.  This feedback is not appropriate.

 

Our jobs as coaches is to guide discovery for more efficient positions.  I was having a good conversation about this with Alyssa. Alyssa is a PhD candidate for educational leadership.  She is doing some research on this topic and how it applies to learning.

 

Even though it is intended for the classroom, the same principles apply to skill acquisition.  The research shows a lot of support for guided discovery groups performing much better than groups receiving a lot of feedback.

 

Basically, these studies are usually setup where one group receives a lot of instruction from an administrator while another group will be given the same task except with constraints placed upon it to help them discover the appropriate behavior.

 

Oftentimes the instructional group will perform better in the earlier tests.  However, upon coming back and being forced to recall the information they tend to score much lower than the guided discovery groups.

 

This means that the feedback you give a lifter today may make the lift look better, but in the long run, or under higher stress, the ability to recall it will be lower.  This is why I follow a constraints-led approach.

 

A constraints-led approach allows me to alter the task in a way that punishes less efficient positions by disallowing the athlete to complete the task.  It also allows me to place the athlete into all kinds of various positions to see where their strengths and weaknesses are.

 

From there we get a good glimpse of the whole athlete.  We can then build a complete lifter that is strong at all angles.  This builds resiliency as well as an increased skill of strength.  These changes in angles are the feedback for the lifter.

 

Instead of focusing on my words they are focused on completing the task at these different angles. Different angles that are usually punishing their positions that they tend to fallback too.  The sensory input that they receive is their feedback. Feedback that will have higher recall rates under higher stress conditions, like heavier weights or a competition.  We also load these positions up with heavy weights respectfully.

 

Every athlete predicts movements before they occur.  Every repetition they perform gives feedback that gets put into this predictive process. Over time we have a higher level of skill because this is more subconscious than conscious attention.  A coach’s words are conscious attention.

 

When our lifters are surfing Instagram, these perceptual processes are also being updated.  This is why education is so important.  This is why it is also important to be adaptable as a coach.  It is not as easy as this variation will fix this problem.

 

Each athlete is different in how they learn.  Tweaks to these exercises will need to be made.  The human is also dynamic.  They are constantly changing initial conditions that the coach needs to be aware of and make the appropriate decisions.

 

My understanding of this has made me change how I write the programs quite a bit.  I no longer write number of sets.  I let each athlete decide that based off of how each day goes. I will write the exercise, reps, and suggested top weight.  They adjust accordingly.

 

Through this process we have a lot of conversations.  These conversations help educate each lifter on making appropriate decisions.  I feel this is the best way to address all of the things that we know can positively and negatively affect training.