Take a look at IronMind's website for a better view of it. They are difficult to make but it would not be impossible. You'll never get the same level of difficulty as the true thing without quite a bit of work. If you can't get one and HAVE to make it then take a look in Pity's journal, I think there is some discussion in there about making one.

Yes there is a discussion in there. Pity made a hardware store version and I think it's a working model. Honestly, unless you're "welder" is a TRUE fabricator (more of an engineer) it's probably not worth the cost for something that would not be any better than something put together from stuff you buy at the hardware store. I'm sure Joe would agree.

Okay, I'll look into it. This is going to take some time.

Of course. It's not something you can just figure out over-night.

Ok, Its flying a bit over my head, but I think I understand what you mean there.

Don't over-think it, just let it cook.

What I'd recommend is that you do some independent research on the concept or principles, theories, etc. in science, especially as it applies to something like physics. Then think about how that can be connected to something like training for physical performance and how it can't be connected. And remember, don't go too crazy with the words. The word principle, here has its importance in how it differs from methods.

Okay, I'll look into it. This is going to take some time.

A more concrete physiological principle might be something about energy systems and how exercise intensity relates to the primary fuel system used.

Ok, Its flying a bit over my head, but I think I understand what you mean there.

Thanks Eric.

A more concrete physiological principle might be something about energy systems and how exercise intensity relates to the primary fuel system used.

Yes, that is a rolling thunder in the video. Take a look at IronMind's website for a better view of it. They are difficult to make but it would not be impossible. You'll never get the same level of difficulty as the true thing without quite a bit of work. If you can't get one and HAVE to make it then take a look in Pity's journal, I think there is some discussion in there about making one.

I know a welder and a fabricator who can help me with this. There is only one issue I am having in the design: building the rotating knob on the weight stack. Otherwise I don't seen an issue but I'm going to take this idea my guy later.

You can do whatever you like, I usually have my arms bent 90 degrees. The main thing is your hands are clear of your body.

Okay. One more question: I have to bring the weight up and then back down as well, right?

other concrete principles based on a known physiological response, for instance.

What would be an example of this?

No principle is a golden rule. It's just an underpinning (when it comes to strength training).

So a principle isn't necessarily set in stone?

But at how people are always harping about recovery. Well, lets say you pull off adding 15 lbs to that 4 x 6. Are you more fit, or are you more 'recovered'? In other words, have you gained new ability that could be seen as meaning new maximal ability, or, have you simply uncovered existing ability? This is why we don't measure progress, in terms of maximal strength, over one, or even two workouts and why something like SDT (and the Single Scene) is meant to cause progress over a cycle of workouts, SDT being open-ended and SS being set.

Ok, I see, that why, we focus on the big picture, the sustained progress in the long run.

This personal stuff needs to stay out of the forum and don't tell me this isn't crap from the gym.

If it seems like gym/personal things, then I'm sorry but its possible that your seeing only one side of this. I haven't been in the gym in the past month, I did meet Ativ, when I had come to pick up some stuff from the gym. I just renewed my membership today. Plus, I've not been in touch with any of these guys, cause I've been bogged down with major work + illness.

With the wrist roller, do I have to have my hands out front? Or can I stand on a bench and have my arms in a more comfortable position?

You can do whatever you like, I usually have my arms bent 90 degrees. The main thing is your hands are clear of your body.

It seems to me like a number of people have a problem with a number of other people, Dev. I see aggression here. "Deal with me" is a challenge, not an invitation to a dialogue. Please cool your jets.

What seems like aggression to you, is actually my frustration. People say one things here & something else in person. Hence, I'm not challenging anyone, its isn't 'deal with me' as much as it is be 'frank with me' in person.

All this gym GUS crew crap has gotten out of hand because it seems that people want to be seen as associated with GUS without answering to me.

I'm always been answerable. Besides, I don't think there is GUS crew around here as much as a bunch of members.

Well, it doesn't work that way. People want to be seen as representing me, which is not my wish, they will damn sure behave, in that capacity, as I say they should. I am sick of all this and it is going to stop. Those GUS t-shirts were promotional, not an invitation for people to strut their stuff and get their heads all up in their own ass.

Well, I'm happy if given the oppurtunity to wear a GUS Tshirt. If I have made any mistakes, then I hold my self accountable.

What are you trying to say?

This is an example. He's not TRYING to say anything. He's saying it. There is not conspiracy at work. You misapplied and misunderstood SDT. That's fine because you progressed very well anyway.

I asked him what he meant by that because I NEVER denied making a mistake with SDT (Nevermind the fact that while I was doing it, it was not pointed out to me as wrong.till I saw a post of yours & asked whether what I was doing on it made sense or not.) or any other part of my training, when it is pointed out to me or when I show my training & ask whether I'm making a mistake.

But you made a mistake and taught it wrong to people. Or at least one person. You can be honest and live up to you mistake, or can't you? Don't try to hide because I am aware of it and Ashiem is aware of it yet for some reason you needed to take his comment as a personal affront against you..well, he doesn't screw up SDT.

I have taught it wrong(nevermind whether they progressed or not) & thats what I feel bad about, I want to teach it the right way. However, I asked what he meant by bringing that up, since the post was concerning Ativ's frequent plan changes. Since, whenever I considered a change to my own plan & ran it by Asheim, whether it was shot down positively (with an explanation) or negatively( with his 'are you retarded' statement) I've continued wiht it out of respect for his knowledge, experience & the fact that he was choosing to help me & I did not throw a hissy fit & stomp around like an impetuous child, which is why when I commented to Ativ, I didn't understand why Asheim gave me the SDT mistake response.

You are coming off as if you are someone who has been doing this for 20 years.

I'm sorry if it seems that way, but it was never my intention.

I am looking for 0.5 kgs plates now and ask a person to check for me. If he gets them then it is superb or else I have got some hold on 0.5 kgs weights used in weighing scales in grocery store. I will put them in a plastic bag and tie them up to the rod.

SET FOR QVT AND MAXES NOW….

You can do whichever you like, as long as you have the equipment for it of course, but I usually like to pair 2 different types of gripping (i.e., open and closed, crushing and pinching, maximal and supporting). Since it's 1x per week I would always do grippers first and then pick a different type of grip training to do every week or every few weeks, or even pick 3 things to do per session.

Okay cool :-)

Its basically a round piece of pipe with a string and a clasp (so you can attach weight to it). It is very similar to these.

Oh I confused that with the Rolling Thunder. I have a Wrist Roller. So what is a Rolling Thunder? Can I build it?

Just one. Make it count. :)

Okay! :-)

I don't know what you're currently doing. It reads like a cluster set to me (because of the '+'s). By quality singles I mean treat it as you would a deadlift. Do singles with decent rest periods and good quality (i.e. good attempts, closes or near closes, but not half closes or anything like that). Good quality will be subjective but the main idea is to consistently close or consistently close to roughly the same distance.

I just put the "+" because it's my way of saying different sets. It's not a cluster. LOL..I can't even do 1 rep I would not venture into Cluster-land. I will do them as Quality Singles as on Deadlifts.

If you have questions about any of the other exercises ask away.

1. What is a rolling thunder?

2. With the wrist roller, do I have to have my hands out front? Or can I stand on a bench and have my arms in a more comfortable position?

But based on your template I would personally do grip work Saturday. Again, this could potentially impact your deadlifting and I remember from before that you didn't want this.

I can't do that, I'm sorry. I would not be able to fit it in and such on that day. I will try to do it on Tuesday though because that day is totally open. I'm also not doing any other Grip Training on any other day.

Now we'll see if I can remember not to just type the - -, but use @@ instead. And I just noticed that the double dash turns into an m dash—it's only when you use 2 of them in the same paragraph that you get strikethroughs! Life is hard, and then you die.

I think you should let go of the m dash and embrace the triple period…it rules!

About the three pressing movements: press, because I don't want to completely detrain it.

Oh! Well assuming you just want to maintain maximal ability, throw it in right before your bench variant on the last day. Warm up properly and work up to a heavy triple, double, or single. Then do your bench variant. Since that is a "volume" day you'll simply be maintaining and getting more volume on "press" as a whole and it will be more efficient. You don't even have to do the press maintenance every single week. That's what I would do.

The last thing is to go back to the question of what sort of progression to move to next on DL. Straight SDT? Or something else?

I actually had thought we had worked this out. My usual approach, from what you are doing, would be for you to simply bridge the "honeymoonish" thing into a base volume, from witch you do a little SDT. So what you'd want to do is take those sets that should be right now tending to 3 or less, and start tending toward three or more. Then, you should settle on a base volume by working up to sets of say, 4 to 5, that you can do for around 3 sets. This should simply "fall out" of your training as you will quickly find that weight where you can do this consistently.

Ok, this time around I'll move press to d3, add DB press to d4, and try to pay attention to the effects of the additional volume. If it's a problem, I'll back off.

About the three pressing movements: press, because I don't want to completely detrain it. At some point in the future I want to give it higher priority again, but I know that there are some related issues that I'll have to work on then, and I don't feel I have time for them right now. So I want to keep it active, but more maintenance. Two bench presses, because, well, ya know, bro, a man's just gotta bench. Ya gotta keep the young guys in their place. I have a 22 year old son who lifts. I have a poorly-suppressed competitive side, and there's a guy here who is a year younger than me, with an almost-equal bench, and what I view as inefficient training practices (benches almost every day, and it's almost the only exercise he does), so I'd like to keep ahead of him while training smarter. I like to bench. Ok, none of those are particularly good reasons, but they are MY reasons! :) I have used a similar schedule (4 "rolling" workouts, training 3 days per week) quite a bit, and I find that I do better benching twice in this time.

Right now, DL is my first priority, and bench and squat and chins are "second tier" lifts, with press on maintenance. Squatting once in the microcycle seems to be plenty for me. Bench and chins seem to work better done twice.

The last thing is to go back to the question of what sort of progression to move to next on DL. Straight SDT? Or something else?

And this misunderstanding came from nothing more than a set of similar numbers. They saw the number 10 associated with single at 90+ percent and assumed the origin of it was the table so no thought was given to the actual things said in the article. This is the table, in case anyone is wondering what Doc is talking about, as I doubt many people here have heard of the thing:

‎

"You Think Big Muscles will Slow you Down"
Not necessarily slow you down but being lighter yet stronger is definitely more advantageous/effective/functional than being big and just as strong(unless you're a bodybuilder), take the following examples:-

Definitely, if you compare two people, with one having a bw of 70kg, yet totally untrained for force and power production, whereas you have a strength athlete of 80 kg, the latter will be able to perform better at the same sport.
But now both have the same amount of strength and power production, only one is 70kg and the other is 80 kg. Playing a sport like my favorite - Football, it's so much easier and more functional to be at a lighter 70kg while having all the same strength/power as the bigger 80 kg who has to lug 10 extra kg more than you on the pitch for 90 minutes. Even harder for a person who wants all his training for better performance in MMA.
This point comes down to what is the intention of the person behind his training, if training simply and purely for strength, then why bother about the mass gain, but when training for improvement of performance in sports, the requirements of the sport need to be given more performance than the accessory training for the sport(in this case strength & power training)

Here is my response:

‎First, I don't know if you are disagreeing with me or not in all of your statements. I will take it from the opening sentence and from your past history with me that the entirety is meant as a refutation of some kind.

What you are talking about is relative strength/power, which is a function of body fat and functional mass. A person that has a low relative strength ratio compared to some other person might have excess body fat and what some people call "non-functional" mass. If so, this would be because of poor training and diet. If you train for performance in a sport that relies on relative strength/power you are training for relative strength/power and this would be assumed in everything you do.

As should be obvious, this article is not aimed toward a relative strength athlete who already has appreciable body mass from training and who already has a specific purpose for engaging in strength training: his or her sport. Such a person certainly would not be thinking that he or she was going to suddenly become over-bulky and slow because of their training. On the other hand, if they were "slow" in terms of relative power, it would be because of faulty training and/or eating, not because they engaged in purposeful strength training. Purposeful strength training does not result in a bunch of non-functional mass. If you have a bunch of non-functional mass, enough to really cause you to have a low relative strength ratio, then somewhere along the line you failed to engage in purposeful strength training and crossed over into purposeful mass building, which is not the same thing.

This point comes down to what is the intention of the person behind his training, if training simply and purely for strength, then why bother about the mass gain, but when training for improvement of performance in sports, the requirements of the sport need to be given more performance than the accessory training for the sport(in this case strength & power training)

I'm not sure if this agreeing with me or refuting me either, but I think I just said the same thing in the article.

Stick to strength training and you can have your speed and eat it..I mean you can have your speed and your muscular strength. Obviously, those training for speed should have most of their training dedicated to that skill.

You may have missed that this entire site is about training for maximal strength regardless of mass. Not training to avoid mass and not training to get mass but only training to gain maximum strength.

Let's be clear. This article is about goals and motivations for doing resistance training, and specifically resistance training that fits the definition of strength training. If it not aimed at some hypothetical relative strength athlete and such a person would NEVER think that they were going to "accidently" get over-bulky and "slow". If they were over-bulky and slow, I already explained why that would have happened. This post is aimed at non-trained people who are interested in starting strength training but are being told, by many different sources, that they should train in a way that STOPS THEM FROM GAINING MASS, because this would automatically slow them down and make them over-bulky. Strength training to get strong but avoid mass is as silly as strength training to gain mass, which is a side effect.

Some of this fear comes from an irrational belief that there is a direct and finite cutoff between strength training and bodybuilding and if you cross this line even a little bit you will swell up like a bloated bb'r in his speedos and will barely be able to beat a guy in a wheelchair. This is not how it works and it takes a whole lot of dedicated work within those bodybuilding parameters to get bulky and slow, which, yes, certainly can happen.

It's a big trend these days for everyone to bring up athletes this and that. Most people doing strength training are not athletes, except in the recreational sense. If this article were aimed at athletes, it would be a very bad article. Instead, I am talking to people who simply want to get stronger, but are concerned about irrational things. This does not assume that they don't have other physical interests, but I am certainly not writing for relative strength athletes.

In case I haven't made myself clear, this is where you ran afoul:

Not necessarily slow you down but being lighter yet stronger is definitely more advantageous/effective/functional than being big and just as strong(unless you're a bodybuilder),

If you were big and just as strong, would that mean you were bulky? Or fat? The working defintion of 'bulky' in this article is 'muscle bulk', not fat and muscle and anyone who was trying to assume it was not would be willfully ignoring the context of the article as nobody in their write mind would read "bulky" in this context and think it referred to excess fat.

If all that extra weight were functional lean mass, then you would theoretically be stronger, not "just as strong" as the lighter person. If all that extra weight were fat, you would have been engaging in excess eating, not excess strength training. If all that extra mass were non-functional muscle mass (which is a misnomer in some ways) you would have been engaging in bodybuilding, not strength training. It is almost impossible to have a perfect relative strength ratio, for anybody. But a person who is a lot bigger than someone else but has the same strength? No, that is not a function of training for strength. Furthermore, it does not even prove that the bigger person has engaged in less efficient strength training, as he may simply have a larger frame, which could be an advantage in some sports/positions and a disadvantage in other sports/positions.

With hypothetical senarios, we could go on and on forever. If you're 50 lbs heavier than another person your same height, but have the same strength, you'd most likely be either much "thicker framed" than the other person, or much fatter, and the lighter person would have a better relative strength, obviously, but not because you engaged in strength training, and he did something else, so there was no point in the things you said in those regards.

However, you may be overestimating the affect of extra body weight when you extend it too far. You mentioned MMA. Just because you take two guys of the same relative strength and one is 10 kilos lighter, you cannot automatically assume the lighter has the advantage. You can't even assume that the heavier person will gas out quicker. The heavier guy can bring more leverage and the extra body weight could be an advantage in grappling, etc.

People make much to big a thing about this all the time. They see one guy who is all cut up and muscular and one who is muscular but doughy looking and assume the cut up guy is "lighter and faster." Not necessarily true at all. And it is easier to take the concept for relative strength too far, as it is a ratio that becomes quite meaningless when it does not consider body proportions.

Well, I have been trying to figure out what options I have, can you please help me? Which events can I do?

You can do whichever you like, as long as you have the equipment for it of course, but I usually like to pair 2 different types of gripping (i.e., open and closed, crushing and pinching, maximal and supporting). Since it's 1x per week I would always do grippers first and then pick a different type of grip training to do every week or every few weeks, or even pick 3 things to do per session.

Wrist Rolling (I have to build this and I have no idea what this is - is this from from your DYI blog post?)

Its basically a round piece of pipe with a string and a clasp (so you can attach weight to it). It is very similar to these.

You wrote 1.5 - 1 close/attempt: does that mean just one attempt or 1-3 attempts?

Just one. Make it count. :)

You wrote 1.0 - Quality Singles: does this mean I do what I am doing right now?

I don't know what you're currently doing. It reads like a cluster set to me (because of the '+'s). By quality singles I mean treat it as you would a deadlift. Do singles with decent rest periods and good quality (i.e. good attempts, closes or near closes, but not half closes or anything like that). Good quality will be subjective but the main idea is to consistently close or consistently close to roughly the same distance.

If you have questions about any of the other exercises ask away. But based on your template I would personally do grip work Saturday. Again, this could potentially impact your deadlifting and I remember from before that you didn't want this.

you have to remember that you're not prioritizing grip training (this is not necessarily a bad thing).

But I want to work up to this. Right now we're just doing Deadlifts.

Training grip on a separate day should not be a big task but from what you're saying it sounds like you want to do ALL your grip training on one day.

Correct. I thought I could squeeze it all in.

I typically train 2 "events" per grip session, sometimes 3 but rarely. So I'll do grippers and rolling thunder or rolling thunder and crosswise brick or grippers and wrist rolling (tube with a weighted string :)).

Well, I have been trying to figure out what options I have, can you please help me? Which events can I do?

1. Grippers
2. Rolling Thunder (I have questions on this btw)
3. Crosswise Brick
4. Wrist Rolling (I have to build this and I have no idea what this is - is this from from your DYI blog post?)

So what you're suggesting is, lets try to work with my template:

Sunday = DL
Monday = SQ
Wednesday = Rows
Thursday = Left OVer fun stuff

Right now I have Grippers on Tuesday.

What can I do?

Looking at your last 2 sessions I would say it makes more sense to focus on singles with the No.1 and No.1.5, focusing on owning the 1 and working to close the 1.5 consistently. So for the next workout I would do something like this:

Warmup
1.5 - 1 close/attempt
1.0 - Quality singles
Hand extensions

Basically forget about the volume at the end and forget about the No 2 for right now. Once you're able to consistently close the 1.5 we can think about adding in the 2 again. Sound good?

1. You wrote 1.5 - 1 close/attempt: does that mean just one attempt or 1-3 attempts?
2. You wrote 1.0 - Quality Singles: does this mean I do what I am doing right now?

:-)

Thank you!

Training grip on a separate day should not be a big task but from what you're saying it sounds like you want to do ALL your grip training on one day. That may be a bit tougher. I typically train 2 "events" per grip session, sometimes 3 but rarely. So I'll do grippers and rolling thunder or rolling thunder and crosswise brick or grippers and wrist rolling (tube with a weighted string :)).

Looking at your last 2 sessions I would say it makes more sense to focus on singles with the No.1 and No.1.5, focusing on owning the 1 and working to close the 1.5 consistently. So for the next workout I would do something like this:

Warmup
1.5 - 1 close/attempt
1.0 - Quality singles
Hand extensions

Basically forget about the volume at the end and forget about the No 2 for right now. Once you're able to consistently close the 1.5 we can think about adding in the 2 again. Sound good?

Aside from your 2 month layoff, how would you say your gripper training has progressed? Any particular reason for the reduced volume on the right hand?

Have you noticed any carryover to anything else (aside from shaking hands lol)?

Thanks for asking, Joe. I actually wanted your help on this but I was waiting to see if I can get better a little on my own first; get the ball rolling in a way.

Well, before, at the height of my grip training where I was training it 2x a week, I WAS seeing problems: the No. 1.0 did not close with my left - EVER. It was always just a few millimeters away but it never closed. The thing is, right now, I'm still stuck at that same spot. I don't know why but my Grip really sucks and it's been frustrating me and instead of training it with dedication, I ran away from it. I was discouraged and skipping one workout lead to skipping two workouts…and you know the drill.

So right now I've gotten back into the swing of things. I think that training my grip 1x a week is good and fine because I am afraid I should've listened to your advice earlier and not religiously stuck to training my grip 2x a week. Well, right now, as I was saying, I am training my grip 1x a week. I've been doing more work with my left than my right because with my right I AM able to close properly. With my left, I think this is how I had to even approach pistol squats: do more work with the weak side for long enough, and it catches up to the strong side (and in the case of Pistol squats my left leg is now stronger even).

I have no method to this madness at the moment. I took your advice and I'm basically working the No. 1.0 for singles and then doing some attempts with No. 2.0.

For the record, I have a 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0. And some HG 150's and HG 250's. And the cheap walmart gripper which I use for my warm-ups.

I actually want to dedicate a whole day to grip training but I don't want to ask Eric to help revise my entire training template right now. I want to see if I can continue to be passionate about Gripper Training over the next few months and if I can, and I am getting better, I want to make changes (though I don't know what or how I would train Grip exclusively on a separate day).

What should I do, Joe? I'm thinking of continually trying to close the No. 1.0 till it finally happens. And I have accepted that my grip really IS weak.

Well, in a way. It's when people are always looking for that one missing ingredient. The problem is that that is all they are EVER doing, looking for that one key, the thing that brings it all down to it's simplest elements. This is related to reductive thinking and what is known as the 'reductive fallacy'. All that really happens when you constantly search for the fountain of youth is that you drink from a whole lot of different fountains and go around in a big circle.

I got a really funny image when I read this. LOL!!!

Now, remember the other day when I was talking about definitional statements and circular reasoning? What happens when you try invent a fundamental premise that explains how and why strength training progress occurs? Well, you get what amounts to a definitional statement. I.E. saying that it is "all bout this" or "nothing but that" is the same thing as saying that "IT IS THIS".

So now every month, strength training is redefined by some grand new program based on one magical ingredient, only to be defined yet again next month. The effect is that you end up thinking "small" because you hyper-focus on details, but you actually think that you are thinking big because you have such grand designs.

Hmmmm, yes, I can see this happening with Waterbury. At GUS, we just incorporate these things as tools. Someone needs to work on mobility so we throw in OH Squats for some time, once they reach a point it's okay to switch these out and say work a little on being able to do a Pull-ups, blah blah. We don't reinvent the wheel or as you put it: try to find the basic premise of how and why strength training occurs.

he has some good ideas. But, he keeps thinking small and making each idea into it's own routine?

Well, in a way. It's when people are always looking for that one missing ingredient. The problem is that that is all they are EVER doing, looking for that one key, the thing that brings it all down to it's simplest elements. This is related to reductive thinking and what is known as the 'reductive fallacy'. All that really happens when you constantly search for the fountain of youth is that you drink from a whole lot of different fountains and go around in a big circle.

See, people tend to think that if you do not know the exact and one reason that we make progress in strength training, a reason that is easily explainable, then training can never make any sense. It's akin to thinking that the whole concept for increasing physical performance must be absurd if you cannot explain it's essence or origin. This need creates this constant search for magical ingredients and then you can say "hey, it's all about frequency" or "it's all about this".

Now, remember the other day when I was talking about definitional statements and circular reasoning? What happens when you try invent a fundamental premise that explains how and why strength training progress occurs? Well, you get what amounts to a definitional statement. I.E. saying that it is "all bout this" or "nothing but that" is the same thing as saying that "IT IS THIS".

So now every month, strength training is redefined by some grand new program based on one magical ingredient, only to be defined yet again next month. The effect is that you end up thinking "small" because you hyper-focus on details, but you actually think that you are thinking big because you have such grand designs.

Have you noticed any carryover to anything else (aside from shaking hands lol)?

I explained some of the underpinnings of SDT in the past, as an example. One principle, whether right or wrong (I think right!) is that adding volume to an existing number of reps and sets cannot be seen to correspond to some certain increase in your maximal ability. Likewise, and by extension, adding an arbitrary workload to an existing number of reps and sets will not automatically add an appreciable amount to your maximal ability on an ONGOING basis. That is, week in and week out.

No principle is a golden rule. It's just an underpinning (when it comes to strength training). So, for example, it's a given that if you do 200 x 4 x 6 one day and then next time do 215 x 4 x 6 (i know, as if, but it can happen) then you know at least that you can lift 215 pretty damned well. But you expect a certain, corresponding increase in your 1RM. Well, you are not guaranteed one, because of the interplay of fitness, fatigue, and fluctuations in performance, right? So what you do, in terms of workload, over two workouts, does not automatically mean you are set to get a new PR. But, if those two workouts are a further continuation of a buildup that started with a lower volume and much lower weight, and at some point you return to that starting volume and add an appreciable amount of weight, over what you have done before, to it..you are guaranteed to have increased your maximal ability by some significant amount. Of course, what is significant becomes lower and lower as you advance in your training.

All of that is one underpinning, or "principle" behind SDT. The specific principle being that progression can only be measured by relating it to set BENCHMARKS that are established at some point in time. The benchmark in SDT would be the BV and the progression is going back, after adding workload over time with reps, sets, or weight and adding weight to the BV. This is easy to see when people are actually doing maximal lifts. They hold their 1RM or PR as a benchmark (although that is another story) and they progress from there. But they do not extend this to other intensities all the time.

And you have to see that the principle is very important. SDT is floating around and other people are writing their "own" versions of it but being completely unaware of this principle. So you're adding stuff to existing sets and reps, so what? Hardly rocket science.

Now, what I said about fatigue, fitness, and fluctuations in performance I'll qualify a bit because otherwise that will just sound like vague jargon. You know I've written at length about fluctuations in performance so I don't need to go down that road again. But at how people are always harping about recovery. Well, lets say you pull off adding 15 lbs to that 4 x 6. Are you more fit, or are you more 'recovered'? In other words, have you gained new ability that could be seen as meaning new maximal ability, or, have you simply uncovered existing ability? This is why we don't measure progress, in terms of maximal strength, over one, or even two workouts and why something like SDT (and the Single Scene) is meant to cause progress over a cycle of workouts, SDT being open-ended and SS being set.

Everything you do in the gym is a 'method', whether it's a rote program or something based on guidelines (which are based on principles).

A principle is something that is basica, fundamental, and has a good chance of applying a good deal of the time.

Ok, I'm starting to see the picture.

What are principles based on?

See, this is the central problem. Nobody really should have to be asking whether a way of progressing or training is a principle! Of course it is not. A principle is something that is basica, fundamental, and has a good chance of applying a good deal of the time.

Keep in mind, though, that in the article I use the words method and principle in a certain way. Sometimes people use the word principle to mean the same as "guideline" or "rule" but that is not how I was using it there. For instance, I've seen people refer to "SDT pinciples" as way of saying SDT guidelines or SDT progression methods. But those guidelines are based on principles, although some of them are more conceptual then other concrete principles based on a known physiological response, for instance.

Look at this post here.

Notice I say the heavy, medium, light thing was based on the amazing observations that you could not squat, deadlift, or powerclean MAXIMALLY three days a week? That became a principle. You can't squat maximally but, you SHOULD squat, three days a week. See the problem? The method of training, squatting three days a week but using a heavy, medium, light setup became it's OWN PRINCIPLE even though nobody ever really demonstrated well that you need to squat three days a week in the first place. How often you need to squat in order to progress would have to come from some type of more fundamental training principle, right? How much stimulus?

It's impossible to derive such a principle that would fit every single person so they just make widespread assumptions that lead to circular thinking. In reality, you don't know how often EVERYBODY needs to squat and if you don't know, you have to train everybody by reaction to their performance and progression at the time. But these are PROGRAMS. Universal programs have very few FOR SURE principles they can lay themselves UPON so the programs become their own principles. Squatting three times a week is programming, in itself.

& it got me thinking, what about SDT & singles? are they methods or principles?
I think training with singles is a method, with the principal being training with intensities at or above 90% & build work tolerance to work in that range.
So singles training is one method of doing it.

AS for SDT, I had to rack my brains for this & I think its also a method, with the principal being to build work tolerance in the 70 to 90% intensity, as well as build strength endurance & specific physical adaptations (muscular hypertrophy but also strengthening of the joints).

Well thats what I think, what about you guys?

It's like the old Batman TV Show….Here's this month's program, tune in next week for the next month.

LMAO

And I believe, Devraj, you were referring to me with that 'Stronglifts' remark, but let me assure you, no one besides myself seems to have heard of Stronglifts or Mehdi(the creator of the program).

I'm sorry Ketan, but you weren't the only one into stronglifts at teh time. It was really quite trend around the time I made that post.

Remember when we met last you were very skeptical about GUS because you were following StrongLifts 5x5 and you thought that was the bomb? Well….That is why Devraj wrote what he wrote

Well Ketan, wasn't alone in thinking that. BUt hey that is the hallmark of great internet marketing.

Let me put this another way. When I am dealing with somebody and I am being very forthright and blunt with them, it really does not help when everybody else piles on. If I want people to lay off, they better damn sure lay off. This personal stuff needs to stay out of the forum and don't tell me this isn't crap from the gym. All this gym GUS crew crap has gotten out of hand because it seems that people want to be seen as associated with GUS without answering to me. Well, it doesn't work that way. People want to be seen as representing me, which is not my wish, they will damn sure behave, in that capacity, as I say they should. I am sick of all this and it is going to stop. Those GUS t-shirts were promotional, not an invitation for people to strut their stuff and get their heads all up in their own ass.

After doing SDT for over a year and dropping advice to others, Debraj: you still don't know as much as you thought you did about SDT but you were still helped and all your questions were answered, right?

What are you trying to say?

This is an example. He's not TRYING to say anything. He's saying it. There is not conspiracy at work. You misapplied and misunderstood SDT. That's fine because you progressed very well anyway. But you made a mistake and taught it wrong to people. Or at least one person. You can be honest and live up to you mistake, or can't you? Don't try to hide because I am aware of it and Ashiem is aware of it yet for some reason you needed to take his comment as a personal affront against you..well, he doesn't screw up SDT. How many times do I correct him per week and how many times have I brought up examples of mistakes he's made to make a point to him? He doesn't get upset, he accepts it and learns from it. Honesty and openness goes a long way in any relationship.

You are coming off as if you are someone who has been doing this for 20 years.

The thing is, ISSN is a "sports nutrition organizaton" that also has its own journal. This is an important distinction. You would not see regular scientific journals making such "position statements". You might see editorials..but they are editorials. So they are saying, this is our interpretation, where we stand, on the evidence thus far. This no different than the NSCA having a position stand on some training question, which they do as well.

Oh I though they were like a scientific journal ( like Lancet or something similar).

Given that…what you are saying is that, sometimes, there is not enough evidence to take a stand.

Yeah thats exactly what I wanted to say…lol that exactly sums up what I meant.

I don't think this is true. I think he is just impatient and perhaps has some unrealistic expectations plus some misinformation which has been ingrained in him. All that makes for a bad mixed cup.

I suppose so.

But, he is entitled to making mistakes and I do not want this to be seen as "Do everything the GUS way".

Its not about doing things the GUS way. ITs' about doing things that to me seem to be in conflict with the goal of Strength training.

After doing SDT for over a year and dropping advice to others, Debraj: you still don't know as much as you thought you did about SDT but you were still helped and all your questions were answered, right?

What are you trying to say?

Same rules apply to Ativ as well: he can make his mistakes and try and experiment using whatever combination of thoughts he has about training. There is no harm in him doing that and as Eric has also stated: he might just do well using his own approach.Oh my my - I am sorry master - I didn't know I was not allowed to use my own brain.

When have I said this????

Whilst I may not know as much as Ashiem and Eric do - It does not mean that I will not use my own brain - What is the purpose then ? If I wanted to just follow something for the heck of it - I would go do any readymade routine out there.

So if you're going to give me that attitude - which hints strongly of a superiority complex (This is specifically directed to Devraj and no one else)

I think your misunderstanding me, I said go ahead & do the program that your planning. You keep throwing out ideas, why don't you just go do them, wheres the superiority complex in that?

Then I do not need your help my friend.. I won't die without you and just for the record I won't die if no one here helped me - But that DOES NOT mean that I do not appreciate everyone's efforts here.

If you want to help - then do so, If not - then its better you keep your mouth shut instead of speaking so negatively.

I'll help everyone on the site. If you don't want my help in person, then don't ask for my help next time in teh gym.

Yeah, I don't know if any of this is a reaction to what I said or what have you. If it is a reaction to my getting on to Ativ, I want to say, once again, if I start giving somebody "tough love" I don't need everybody else to pile on. Many times, I am simply prodding them.

I'm not piling on to your tough love bandwagon. I just decided to be totally honest in my last post. Those are my views & I stand by them. Although I wasn't comfortable with this statement of Ativ's:

I am thinking / willing to do 4-6 weeks of SDT before embarking upon the below

ATiv, look back at your log since you started at GUS, how many times have you changed your plan & what have you learned from them & what have you got to show for it in terms of performance improvement? How long have you stuck with each before you decided to change again?

I'm trying to understand what not working for you, that you have to constantly keep changing your plan?

Putting a little thought into your training, on an ongoing basis, is one thing. Making new templates every time things aren't quite to your satisfaction, is another. You have to live with something and tweak it a while in order to LEARN. Think of it this way. Say you were learning to play piano and you have this beginning primer for piano. You get through a few pages and someone takes away that book and gives you another, different primer in a different format. You'd be be almost back to square one, no? Well, this is not as extreme, but it is similar.

This is what I was trying to point out as well.

Anyway - I am not going to wash my dirty laundry on your forum - But I hope you understand that I had to make that post.

Again I also have to make this post. ATiv if you have a probelm with me, then so be it. But, that is not going to continue here. You can talk to me in person.

Though I am not sure it is due to improper breathing or due to volume work sometimes.

Yes. This could be.

The answer to your question is yes, it can be used for press. The same thing is happening during the press. What's more, I screwed up big time not mentioning overhead press (military press) in this article as the press creates even more pressure and is even more a source of problems. I had tunnel vision writing this and I absolutely should have thought of and included the OHP in this, I am glad you brought it up. This is why I have comments! Thanks.

Just keep in mind that it's really the same drill. When you press, you'll want to catch your breath in between reps. Then, you'll want to let your breath woosh out just past the sticking point in the press. Now, the modifed valsalva could be used in the press. That is where you use only a partially closed glottis instead of a fully closed one, and let just a little air out at you're performing the lift. However, the press goes so quickly, most of the time it is hard to always know what you're doing with your breath. The best was of controlling it is to grunt or hiss, which is just letting some air escape. See, there is a reason for all that noise! Then, again, if you can, release the air totally once you are through the sticking point. Don't obsess over it, though.

I will include a new paragraph for the overhead press…or people can just see these comments.

Well the difference about methods and principles, and how the principles are being tweaked by people in order to make new methods or programs, but they tend to be less efficient/inefficient than what the principle was based for/around.

Correct, Ketan.

Remember when we met last you were very skeptical about GUS because you were following StrongLifts 5x5 and you thought that was the bomb? Well….That is why Devraj wrote what he wrote.

And I believe, Devraj, you were referring to me with that 'Stronglifts' remark, but let me assure you, no one besides myself seems to have heard of Stronglifts or Mehdi(the creator of the program).

But once again thanks for this article…

Can this drill be utilized (in modified form) and helpful for other exercises like OHP. I tend to hold my breath in OHP, If I dont, I cant rep out my maximum.

Yes, I think so. For OHP you DO need to be able to keep your breath in. Otherwise you lose that thoracic tension and you will just not be able to drive the bar up.

This had me LMAO. You know, some would say that these reactions are an exaggeration, sort of a straw man, if you will. But I would disagree, I think that these comments perfectly sum of the essence of the statements attributed to Waterbury, whose talent does not lie in critical thinking.

This is true.

Waterbury is actually a good trainer: he has some good ideas. But, he keeps thinking small and making each idea into it's own routine?

Want to superset big and small exercises?
Here is next week's Anti Bodybuilding Whatever Training for all you Bodybuilders!!

Pistol Squats are the best. Let's learn that for a month, okay?

Sigh!!! There are many more like this.

It's like the old Batman TV Show….Here's this month's program, tune in next week for the next month.

There's no substitute for chins and dips from rings.

What? How about chins and dips from normal places to do chins and dips? And so everyone who doesn't have access to rings is spinning their wheels doing dips for parallel bars and chins from regular bars?

Pushing an athlete when he wants to be pushed doesn't do any good. You must push him when he's off balance.

Chad's claim to fame is making his trainees fall down when they least expect it. Great.

If I decided to put back on 30 pounds of muscle, I'd have one helluva time getting female clients in this town. That's something I don't want.

So putting on 30 pounds of muscle is that easy? LOL….

This had me LMAO. You know, some would say that these reactions are an exaggeration, sort of a straw man, if you will. But I would disagree, I think that these comments perfectly sum of the essence of the statements attributed to Waterbury, whose talent does not lie in critical thinking.

As of now - I am late for training, over and out .

Anyway - I am not going to wash my dirty laundry on your forum - But I hope you understand that I had to make that post. I will brainstorm a bit and see what my next step is - Your Piano analogy struck me well :)

To be clear I never complained about you making the post. I simply responded to the post in a way you didn't exactly like. I don't always respond in ways people like, but it's not to express anger, although I am as prone to irritation as the next guy…instead it is to prod the person into snapping out of the sense of almost "panic" I see sometimes. So much of this is mental. Much more than you know yet. I'm not saying you were out on a ledge, but you were letting it all get you a bit over-excited. That actually builds on any negative impressions you have about your training. Everybody has to learn to not get too caught up in it all. It's the way your respond to stress…realize that the training is one stress, a physical one, and the cognitive anxiety from all the cross-talk in your head is another. You react to all of it and it all builds up to make things seem more of an emergency than they really are, and when you feel that way you can't think dispassionately and logically about it all. Since I find it to be very patronizing and disrespectful to tell people to "chill" out, I sometimes simply explain things in a way that will provoke them into snapping out of it.

If you haven't read the getting in the zone series yet, I'd recommend it, especially the part about relaxation.

Anyway - I am not going to wash my dirty laundry on your forum - But I hope you understand that I had to make that post. I will brainstorm a bit and see what my next step is - Your Piano analogy struck me well :)

But there may have been a misunderstanding of what I was saying. I never said that Ativ should not think for himself. I basically said that he shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water. Putting a little thought into your training, on an ongoing basis, is one thing. Making new templates every time things aren't quite to your satisfaction, is another. You have to live with something and tweak it a while in order to LEARN. Think of it this way. Say you were learning to play piano and you have this beginning primer for piano. You get through a few pages and someone takes away that book and gives you another, different primer in a different format. You'd be be almost back to square one, no? Well, this is not as extreme, but it is similar.

Your obviously under the impression that you no more about training than all of us combined (you can try denying it but, your actions have been to the contrary).

Oh my my - I am sorry master - I didn't know I was not allowed to use my own brain.

Whilst I may not know as much as Ashiem and Eric do - It does not mean that I will not use my own brain - What is the purpose then ? If I wanted to just follow something for the heck of it - I would go do any readymade routine out there.

So if you're going to give me that attitude - which hints strongly of a superiority complex (This is specifically directed to Devraj and no one else) - Then I do not need your help my friend.. I won't die without you and just for the record I won't die if no one here helped me - But that DOES NOT mean that I do not appreciate everyone's efforts here.

If you want to help - then do so, If not - then its better you keep your mouth shut instead of speaking so negatively.

Same rules apply to Ativ as well: he can make his mistakes and try and experiment using whatever combination of thoughts he has about training. There is no harm in him doing that and as Eric has also stated: he might just do well using his own approach.

Thank you Ashiem.

Can you just clarify - are you saying do 1 single then 1 set of max reps and that's it, or 1 single then 3 sets of max reps?

3 sets.

I will try and thing of some subjects to post on - watch this space.

I mean new independent threads. Could be anything that catches your eye or your want to say. Drop a link, etc. Nothing complicated or fancy. It seems I have to absolutely prod this forum to action ;)

Agreed. But I think what the ISSN position stand is also trying to gloss over this fact, by throwing in statements that still need further research. Of course in nutrition science, what is held as a fact today maybe changed tomorrow with further research, but why throw in things that are relatively more debatable(because they need more research) than stuff which has been more thoroughly researched.

Okay, I catch your drift. The thing is, ISSN is a "sports nutrition organizaton" that also has its own journal. This is an important distinction. You would not see regular scientific journals making such "position statements". You might see editorials..but they are editorials. So they are saying, this is our interpretation, where we stand, on the evidence thus far. This no different than the NSCA having a position stand on some training question, which they do as well. To some extent, we always have to interpret and have the science inform what we do, therefore we have a "stand" on it. It's always good not to get entrenched in such a fashion as this.

Given that…what you are saying is that, sometimes, there is not enough evidence to take a stand. Absolutely, I could not agree more. This is the problem with public declarations from institutions…they can't say "its too soon to draw any conclusions, we don't know enough." Creating institutionalized knowledge is all this is about and I am against it on principle.

Thanks in advance

If you ask us for help, then we'll give you the template your currently doing.

Actually, Debraj, Eric gave Ativ this template.

Your obviously under the impression that you no more about training than all of us combined (you can try denying it but, your actions have been to the contrary).

I don't think this is true. I think he is just impatient and perhaps has some unrealistic expectations plus some misinformation which has been ingrained in him. All that makes for a bad mixed cup.

YOur still not seeing the picture ATiv, you just want weight on the bar & that is a hangover from your previous education. IF that is the case then see it through.

This is true, Debraj, he is not seeing the larger picture. But, he is entitled to making mistakes and I do not want this to be seen as "Do everything the GUS way".

Ativ is allowed to make mistakes and fall and he is also allowed to think on his feet and try to get better.

After doing SDT for over a year and dropping advice to others, Debraj: you still don't know as much as you thought you did about SDT but you were still helped and all your questions were answered, right?

Same rules apply to Ativ as well: he can make his mistakes and try and experiment using whatever combination of thoughts he has about training. There is no harm in him doing that and as Eric has also stated: he might just do well using his own approach.