Workload

[Dan C]

Today's workout:

Single arm high pulls with a 70lb KB
10/10
12/12
14/14
16/16
18/18
20/20
10/10

70lbs x 200 = 14,000lbs total

Absolute smoker! I actually had to lay on the floor after I finished the last set, something that I try not to do. My lower back just did not want to hold me up, and I was breathing too hard to do much other than collapse. I did deadlift 525 yesterday for a couple of singles, and heavy (double) band overhead presses just beforehand, but I don't think that had anything to do with how tough the workout was.

Since I had no partner today, the way I worked it was by timing how long it took me to complete each. However long it took for the set is how much rest I got. Approximately 45 seconds for the 10/10 set, and 90 seconds for the 20/20 set.

I was glad to see that my grip, back and breath were equally tired thoughout the workout. There was no "weak link" holding me back, it broke me down all over. This workout was about as tough as that first one with the 106lb jerks, though this was a different kind of tough; one that I can't quite explain in words just yet.

[FortIron]

Originally Posted by Dan C

Not really, "volume" doesn't take into account the total amount of weight you lifted like "total tonnage" does. If you have heard this done in other ways, do tell, as I'm really not sure if I'm doing it right anyway.

I got the idea from talking with Senior RKC instructor and former powerlifter, Mark Reifkind. At the RKC he lead us through a high pull ladder workout where we did:

53lb single arm high pull
10/10
12/12
14/14
16/16
18/18
20/20
10/10

That's 200 reps totalling 10,600lbs. We did it with a partner "you go, I go" style. I talked to him about later at lunch where he mentioned gauging his powerlifting workouts on this concept of workload (of course he was using doubles and triples). Unfortunately, at that time I hadn't thought about it enough to have formed any questions.

Tonage = Volume

Almost all exercise science text dating back to not only the soviet system but today aswell define volume as:

Sets*Reps*Weight which is also equal to your training tonage.

Things like this is what you need to keep up with. I can have more volume doing 8x3 than I can with 3x8.

This is something the bodybuilding world is just now starting to understand and see after years and years of preaching on it.

You should always calculate or total volume pers session/exercise to determine progress. This is a much better alternative than the 'classica' progressive overload, however its more suited for long-term use and planning.

Kc

[Dan C]

Originally Posted by FortIron

Tonage = Volume

Almost all exercise science text dating back to not only the soviet system but today aswell define volume as:

Sets*Reps*Weight which is also equal to your training tonage.

Things like this is what you need to keep up with. I can have more volume doing 8x3 than I can with 3x8.

This is something the bodybuilding world is just now starting to understand and see after years and years of preaching on it.

You should always calculate or total volume pers session/exercise to determine progress. This is a much better alternative than the 'classica' progressive overload, however its more suited for long-term use and planning.

Kc

Though the volume equation was the same, we total training tonnage was never mentioned in any of my exercise phys. classes.

Nevertheless, why do you feel this is a better alternative than progressive overload? Also, please elaborate on why it's more suited towards long-term use.

Thanks.

So as a bodyweight training person, if I weight 180 lbs. and perform a standard pushup, the press load is approximately 65% of my BW or 117 lbs.

Therefore, if I complete 300 pushups in a 30 minute workout, my training tonnage is 35,100. Am I missing anything here?

Wow, KC came back for a visit? Cool.......

Nice to see you bro.

[FortIron]

Originally Posted by Dan C

Though the volume equation was the same, we total training tonnage was never mentioned in any of my exercise phys. classes.

Nevertheless, why do you feel this is a better alternative than progressive overload? Also, please elaborate on why it's more suited towards long-term use.

Thanks.

Science and Practice of Strength Training, I and II'nd Edition
SuperTraining Mel Siff

Plenty of other research books use that method to determine volume.

It is progressive overload.

Kc

[FortIron]

Originally Posted by Dan C

Why do you feel it's better than the "classical" progressive overload method?

Because with the original version of progressive overload you can only increase loading up to some point. An elite powerlifter cannot increase 5lbs a wk for his whole life.

If you base progression off tonage you can increase the rate of loading faster and also longer.

3x8= 24 reps
8x3= 24 reps

There is a larger total volume with 8x3 than 3x8 due to it being measued in tonage. If you apply the classical version of PO, you eventually come to a halt. By measuring it in tonage you can easily increase the tonage by a multi amount of different ways, rather than just strapping 5lbs on the bar each wk. What the key thing is, starting at a higher amount of tonage on the second phase or second bloc of training cycle.

Kc

[Dan C]

Why do you feel it's better than the "classical" progressive overload method?

[Todd]

Originally Posted by FortIron

Because with the original version of progressive overload you can only increase loading up to some point. An elite powerlifter cannot increase 5lbs a wk for his whole life.

If you base progression off tonage you can increase the rate of loading faster and also longer.

3x8= 24 reps
8x3= 24 reps

There is a larger total volume with 8x3 than 3x8 due to it being measued in tonage. If you apply the classical version of PO, you eventually come to a halt. By measuring it in tonage you can easily increase the tonage by a multi amount of different ways, rather than just strapping 5lbs on the bar each wk. What the key thing is, starting at a higher amount of tonage on the second phase or second bloc of training cycle.

Kc

So what would be (in your opinion) the best method for continuous progression using your above examples?