What's more insulting though is he called you guys my cronies. Spelled it croonies though.

"Gyroscopic precession" though, that is a gem. I really need to work in spinning tops to my articles. And I need to figure out how to fit a workout into a "three dimensional space".

Just because you "mention" a bunch of words does not mean we're having an actual conversation. This is you spouting nonsense and us try to patiently respond to it and doing that makes us look quite foolish.

Do you want to have a discussion based on physics? Because in that case you should know that you're gonna get your ass handed back to you.

What part of your incoherent post is pertinent to SDT Progression? It just seems like another rant from you.

The typical case of torsion is caused by a moment resultant perpendicular to its cross section. In a circular shaft or tube, the resultant moment vector typically acts in line with the centroid of the shaft or tube.

compression and tension to forces which could result in "torsion" also known as moment

Not all moments are torsion. Bending moment would result in comp and tension forces perpendicular to the cross section which the moment is acting on. In a symmetric cross section there would be no torsion due to bending.

I would still like to know how you progress based on torsion though.

9th grade science class explanation of what torque and torsion are like i dont know what the hell im talking about

Which grade level would you prefer?

Firstly, that entire first paragraph in your post: thats just a rant. What am I or anyone here supposed to say to a rant about people's attitudes? We already know this stuff.

NEXT your own examples of your "single double triple progression explaination is in fact geared to bodybuilders. but we'll let it slide.

Not at all. It's a simple means to progress. Don't Powerlifters need to progress too? Hell, even Olympic Lifters need to progress. I guess everybody needs to progress. This SDT is not a program at all. It's a tool to help you reach your goals. It is not a training ritual or program in and of itself…how could that even be? It is a form of progression. Thats all. Anybody who wants to progress could use this. It's a TOOL.

sure his big fat ass can push some iron pound for pound he's not strong lets see him do 20 pull ups he's writing books on strength read em if you wanna look like him im gonna go out on a limb and guess that you dont so much for modern day training advice.

Since when is the definition of strength doing 20 pull-ups? I don't get it….This seems like a rant again. What is your point here? Please please be coherent about it.

so do i take all day to do it do i rest a minute five minutes? Time isnt a factor in the progression? what weird school of strength training did you go to???

You are right: time is an important factor. However in this case it is an assumption that one's rest intervals are approximately the same or within the ball park of where they were before.

We are ALL well aware of what Density means and how one can even progress via increasing the density.

With regards to the SDT progression scheme, we assume that one's rest intervals are about the same workout after workout or they don't change to such a drastic degree.

And that would make sense if we were discussing larger weights. Say I was doing 400x5 and the next week I decided to add in another set. If I do it after 5 minutes of rest, thats fine. If I wait for 12 hours and I do it thats fine as well. Do you know why it is fine? It is fine if I maintain that same rest interval from here on out. Just for the record: I think it would be silly to wait for 12 hours between sets but we're just discussing theories so I guess it can be done…theoretically. I mean, Olympic Lifters train 3 times a day sometimes…and mostly at high intensities. So I guess it can be done.

SDT Progression is a bunch of guidelines and ideas. We have an actual journal section for people to post on for us to tailor it to their individual needs.

I hope this makes sense to you. And please please respond coherently. You're all over the place that is very difficult for someone simple like me to be able to separate the rants from the coherent points. Please make this easier for me.

The whole point of this article is to give ideas on how to keep progressing on a GIVEN EXERCISE. Not a program, or two exercises, a single exercise. This article is not meant to be a bible for strength training or some miracle way of achieving synergism between the bench press and dumbbell flyes.

Time…Time is NOT a factor for absolute strength because we don't care how long the rest period was, only that it was long enough for the next set to be successful. If you start decreasing rest periods and missing reps you're defeating the purpose of training for absolute strength. As soon as you start talking about decreasing rest times you shift to density training or endurance training…Not ABSOLUTE STRENGTH. The title specifically says 'Strength Training'…

Torsion and torque…Just to clarify, torque is a force and a lever arm, torsion is a twisting action. I'm not seeing the connection between strength training and torsion. I actually can't think of many exercises or movements that would actually cause torsion. Can you clarify this for me please?

I am not trying to make fun of you or ridicule you. I can only react with puzzlement to things that genuinely puzzle me. And your insistence on continuing to repeat the things that have already been responded to, without addressing anything that is said about them, puzzles me. None of us could read or understand your postings. We take the time to write sentence, paragraphs and use punctuation and yet you complain about how the forum is run.

Strength training parameters and bodybuilding parameters will cross. You don't know what you are talking about and this is getting us no where. What I see here is a "data dump". The trick is thinking we won't notice what is missing…any coherent or focused idea. That is exactly what I do NOT do in my articles…just throw a truckload of random terminology at people in an effort to confuse and befuddle.

I don't know what "points" you wanted me to address about the old timers. You delivered a rant about bodybuilding magazines versus old timers or something and I could barely follow it. If you want me to address points make coherent points that HAVE a point. Am I supposed to respond to a rant?

Again, I addressed the strongman points in a recent eBook. I can provide that for you but it is completely unrelated to this thread. Again..YOU are deflecting by simply moving the goal post all over the place. I made my points about THIS article and the limited role IT plays. You just decided to disagree and can't take not having me capitulate to things that have no relevance to this article.

You're questioning how I run my forum and yet you yourself are enjoying the benefits of posting without joining the site with absolutely no restrictions to those posts. Do you know how many forums allow that?

For me to ramble on about the old timers and how strength training separated from bodybuilding, etc. and so on would be a very silly way for me to run my forum since I would be derailing the relevant discussions and forcing my members and guests to read through a bunch of irrelevant stuff to see if there is anyting to add to THIS subject…being the ARTICLE. This thread is a article thread and it is to be about THIS article, not the history of strength training.

The rest of what you've said I've answered already. I want stop you from continuing to obsess about this article but I will refer you to the forum policies and the point that some discussion will never be resolved. You are posting as a guest of the forum but to question how a forum is run that you haven't even joined and are allowed to post on is quite frankly, rude. I encourage free and open discussion and ask nothing in return. You have no right to "demand" anything of me. I will continue to be patient but I will not fall into these traps with you. The article stands on it's own merits. It's one article that covers how some trainees may be able to progress some of the time on some exercises. If you'd like to see examples of this check out the forum journals.

Yes it just so happens I do know what density it. I don't think you are really following anything I say. You just keep repeating the same stuff over and over. I addressed the "neuromuscular response time. This, really, is the last time I'm going to say this Rick before this particular discussion is closed. This is not a strength training program. It would be used as part of a strength training program, during the making of, you various concerns would be addressed, except for 'torsion' and other jargonese. If such a trainee were to read this article and would like to know how to encorporate these concepts into a plan we would be here for that trainee.

Paul Anderson is dead. He died in 1994. He's not writing any books. And he WAS strong. He was not only an O-lifter, he was a powerlifter.

NEXT your own examples of your "single double triple progression explaination is in fact geared to bodybuilders. but we'll let it slide.

NEXT..heres a "modern day " example of a strong man" a power lifter Paul Anderson so is he strong? NOPE powerful yes strong no( but i wont go into the symantics and true definitions and measurements of strength and power and stamina and endurance ) sure his big fat ass can push some iron pound for pound he's not strong lets see him do 20 pull ups he's writing books on strength read em if you wanna look like him im gonna go out on a limb and guess that you dont so much for modern day training advice.
NEXT neuro muscular response time lip service? i make a reference to a VALID scientific and medical fact and you blow it off as lip service nice way to try to make me look stupid but anyone involved in strength training worth the weight of sweat on his balls would know what it is. and know its a critical componant as is TIME in the measuremnet of, and the training for strength. so you "dismiss " the time factor…oh were not including time her bla blah well how in the hell do you set the stage for the progression chart examples you use oh session 2 we now go to 132.5 for 2 res and another set ok so do i take all day to do it do i rest a minute five minutes? Time isnt a factor in the progression? what weird school of strength training did you go to???
NEXT no i didnt mean Torque i meant torsion i wont even go into the physics of it so we'll skip it
you mention "density do you know what density is? or did this generation rewrite that too?

NEXT adding an exercise doenst factor in to the progression? its only for a specific exercise ? yeah and time isnt a factor either. why maybe your muscles know your not benching and that you swithed to db flyes but your respitory system does not and your nevous system doenst either oh wait that plays into neuro muscular response lip service yeah like the cat who broke a world swim record that up until a few days before the competion didnt have access to a training pool so he trained with weighs the body didnt know he wasnt in a pool it just knew it was "under load" and the trainee keyed on neuro muscular response time.

stack all the sets and reps you want call it what ever progression you want disregard key variablesdont factor in time duration of load shock loading or recovey time go ahead blow it off let me know when you make it to the top 1% in the nation in a weight lifting competition. make all the fun of me you want

We are not talking about bodybuilding here. We are not talking about bodybuilding mags. This isn't an article about bodybuilding. You are really all over the place, Rick.

Let me just reiterate something I said in the article AGAIN. SDT, or Single, Double, Triple, is just what I call these concepts for something to call them. If you, or anyone else, want to quibble about that, people can call it anything they want.

There is not one professional bodybuilder on the planet that I use as a strength training source.

The rest of it I'd have to write pages and pages explaining the definition of power as opposed to force as opposed to work. I just released a free eBook that covers in depth, some of these concepts. There are also a whole lot of posts in my blog here that talks about these things. I don't want to link them because I don't like over-linking internal pages but my blog is easy to find and the information is contained in there in many posts.

Torsion and compression. We are talking about things we can see and react to. Tension. You mean muscular tension. You mean this…you mean that…man we are all over the map here. I think maybe you mean torque instead of torsion and even then it's a crapshoot to know what's going on here. You don't seem to have a clear idea about what training for maximal strength is at all. I really can't answer any of this. We are talking about things we can react to based on RESULTS. You are talking about physiological and biomechanical components of movement that is just an "is". We cannot measure progress by "torsion" and "compression" Rick. You can't mark that down in your training log. Today I had thus and thus torsion and compression. Look at what you are saying with this jargon.

neuro muscular response time critical for building strength and stamina and developing power and endurance critical form is one way to improve it and limited rest between sets is another. the time factor was asked because the question of quadruple progression was made and time may not be considered as far you are concern let me ask this then if we use you triple progression example for a week of training and then monday morning i throw in a set of db flyes into the chest routine performed right after the last set of benching the flyes performed as a compound set , no rest between the bench and the flyes except for set the bar in the rack and grabbin the dumbells.. would that now be quadruple progression ?

"neuro muscular response time critical for building strength and stamina". You are seriously proving that "lip service" is an art with that nonsense. Again, you have "raised the bar" or "moved the goalpost". I think, although, I can't be sure you are saying anything at all, that you are referring to, just perhaps, rate of force development?

Now, being that you keep switching between bodybuiling, 'strength development', and 'stamina' I cannot be sure how it factors in or if I've got this right. But if it is RFD, which is a neural component you are referring to, then you have missed the point, again, of maximal strength development which means maximal force development. For lifting the heaviest load possible, as opposed to lifting a lighter load as FAST as possible as in the power lifts of Olympic weightlifting, it is TOTAL force development that is most important. Not RFD. And that is as far off the track as I will get.

let me ask this then if we use you triple progression example for a week of training and then monday morning i throw in a set of db flyes into the chest routine performed right after the last set of benching the flyes performed as a compound set , no rest between the bench and the flyes except for set the bar in the rack and grabbin the dumbells.. would that now be quadruple progression ?

No. We are referring to the progression of one exercise not a group of exercises within a workout or within a week, or between weeks. The flyes would represent perhaps more time under tension and it's obviously a secondary exercise. You would have planned for that not "thrown it in" but allowing that this kind of thing happens, it doesn't make it 'quadruple' progression.

Do you guys notice how I am always saying I can't really answer stuff but I go ahead and try to do it anyway? I am the mega geek.

And Rick, easy with the caffeine!

and a very recent "modern publication that i read just to keep up on anything new and exciting ..180 pages on how to increase strength and gain size diet cycle exercise schemes you know the drill and not once is the word water mentioned not once!

this was somewhere around 2005 a book on health and strength uh huh. you would have to take the letter h from a word the number from page 2 and the letter o from a word just to get H2O so much "modern day info.. and pros giving advice on how to swing the dumbell in front of the body before raising it to the side (for momentum )in refence to lateral raises momentum so much for developing strength.

Yes torsion is a good word a very real force in stucture in fix objects like buildings and also in human bodies and yep shock load too and as far as time not being used as a variable well check the formula for measuring power and strength time is a factor both in the performance of the specific exercise as i said previous i can curl a hundred pounds 10 x's in a minute or i can take 5 minutes the tonnage is the same the intensity is not as too the rest period between sets heres one for you… neuro muscular response time

critical for building strength and stamina and developing power and endurance critical form is one way to improve it and limited rest between sets is another. the time factor was asked because the question of quadruple progression was made and time may not be considered as far you are concern let me ask this then if we use you triple progression example for a week of training and then monday morning i throw in a set of db flyes into the chest routine performed right after the last set of benching the flyes performed as a compound set , no rest between the bench and the flyes except for set the bar in the rack and grabbin the dumbells.. would that now be quadruple progression ?

i mean assuming that weve been doing this same workout and now throw the whammy in on the routine with the flyes???. and like i said torsion? is a very real and measurable force tension sound familiar? how bout compression? well they are all related. fatigue

is not just being tired or pooped from your workout some ppl are "fatigued" and their muscles are no where near fatigue limit yet their spent and its not just cardio "the catch phrase" "wind" from the old days relates to muscle stamina more then heart rate and yes i agree some of the old books are propaganda but no where near the extent of the absolute bs they published thru the 80' and 90's and in the mags of today. i referenced legit guys not sunshine up the poop pipe bs artist have you seen hackenschmidt ?

lurie at 78 years old with 18 in guns grimek in better shape at 80 then arnold is today Liederman who predicted in 1924 that tobacco use will be one of the leading causes of heart and lung disease in the future of this country that alcohol abuse will lead to many serious health problems , he published this in 1924 when doctors as late as the 50's we're saying that a few cigarette wont hurt you and are non addicting hmmm these guys did it with NO JUICE sound mechanical principle employing the rules and "math " of nature . and here we are modern day and everyone thinks this pill that stack this ridiculous ppl getting nowhere

for all the shit they do the hours in the gym the money on pills and powders down the shitter . every day.. everyday! sombody comes up to me and ask me " how big are your arms?" how much can you bench press? how OLD are you? then they say how they are doing this or that and these supposed systems such as the "pyramid" system thats been turned into an abortion or "german volume training" another crock of shit … but i digress just trying to impart some "old" knowledge on a new concept a wheel is a wheel it cant be reinvented try as they may but i guess it cant hurt to shine it up. basically seeing the views of single double triple progression as to what it turned into from what it was is nothing more then taking an old phrase or term and applying a modern principle like in music what R&B was and what it is now just an anology i know what works i learned the secret a long time ago i can stop training for up to 12 weeks YES 3 months and not lose an ounce of strength good luck Find the samson factor Thanks

You didn't explain how your idea of progression worked you just put in another complication. It's "moving the goalposts". It's not even a program just thoughts related to progression and you are both demanding impossible perfection while claiming to have the means to perfection in vague terms, while focusing almost entirely on one parameter. We could go on forever this way. We answer the point or rebutal and you demand we answer a further one.

Time is left out of it because we would assume that a trainee would not decrease rest periods and 30 seconds? Give me a break. Rest periods would usually be assumed to remain somewhat constant and reducing rest periods would be a separate goal that would be done to increase strength endurance. This is an article about training for absolute strength. I cannot assume, given that, that a trainee would be reducing rest periods. Therefore, time, as a parameter, is not considered.

Given that, this is not a "program" it is an adaptable way to progress. If a trainee were to reduce rest periods that would impact recovery. Not only during the session but it would impact how the trainee recovered from the workout as a whole. And you scenario is highly unlikely anyway. Triple progression AND a rest reduction. Actual triple progression, as given here, is rare. It is not meant to be portrayed as a common occurence during a cycle. But if such a thing happened the progress on the next workout would be affected, would it not?

its actually a total lack of progress if you arent increasing either poundage repititions sets or "imroving time" within 3 training sessions then there is something wrong with the training program or the trainee.

I clearly stated that this is NOT a program. This is a set of guideline that can be used to help plan training. Again, we are talking about absolute strength and although improving time can help for short term goals it is NOT a primary goal for developing absolute strength. More work in less time results in the ability to do MORE WORK over time not to large increases in absolute load. Small increase in absolute load for the beginner to almost no increase for the advanced..given the same core lift and progress on that lift using that lift.

I don't know why your stuck on time given that the the concept would have someone increasing either weight one the bar, or repetitions, or total volume pretty much every workout. Give some people a mountain and they want a planet I guess.

You have read way more into this than is necessary. Although for a beginner it would be fine as a primary way to progress it would NOT be the primary way to progress for a more advanced trainee. Although at time it could be used for main lifts it would usually be a way to "gather volume" on secondary lifts. Increase that total tonnage you spoke of. Again, it's not a program. Someone who benches 415 would not be increasing reps, load, and sets in the same workout.

i mean we can break it down to the intensity factor , shock load ,. torsion, fatigue on and on .

Oh really? So break it down. Torsion huh? Good word. We have stuff on intensity, fatigue, and so on.

I'm being rhetorical. Don't really break it down. Here you have told us what strength training is "all about". More power to you. This one article DOES NOT tell what strength training is all about. If there is one thing we wouldn't do is expect people to swallow one set of concepts as being what strength training is all about. If you think you know what it is, good for you. We have not claimed that. These are ideas for thought, and maybe for some good planning. You are making this into a manifesto. There are over 600 pages on this site. There is probably a reason for that.

Shock load though? Yeah, I leave you to the shock load. Again, thanks for the comments. I think I can find better ways of spending my research time than digging up training manuals but thanks for the suggestion. You hit the nail on the head though about mail order courses: "how things WERE done". Past tense. I have read a great deal of material from the old time strength giants. Some of it is basic and sound but much of it is 'anecdotal' and full of propoganda.

However I did not say that they don't matter. I said that using very old materials as references does not mean that anything we say different is reinventing the wheel. That wheel was reinvented many times already.

Based on your definitions, if I squat 7 reps on Monday and then add a rep on Saturday is that quadruple progression? (oops Joe already asked). And what's the name for 5 or 6 days? I think 5 is quintuple progression. And yes, it is possible to add a rep after that many days. Sometimes. Sometimes not. Now what you would do with that information is beyond me. Perhaps if you got quintuple progression you should then endevour to get quadruple progression but if that doesn't work maybe you should try for sextuple progression?

The only reasons why it may appear that we are re-inventing the wheel are 1) a lot of the stuff here hasn't been written about in the same depth and 2) a lot of terms are misused and re-defined (just look at 'intensity', depending where you look it is a measure of the sweat on your shirt, the difficulty of a movement, or the amount of weight you are using relative to some %RM).

Exactly. I am quite aware that a large portion of the strength training world scramble around trying to "re-invent" the wheel and "innovate" without actually sensing a need to fulfill. I too would love to see other examples of how we are doing that. Because while I often clear up, build on, and bring concepts together rarely do I just "make shit up".

Your critique concerns your disagreement over what it's called yet says nothing about the actual concepts discussed so I don't consider it too much of a rebuttal. In fact I point out that "SDT" is JUST a name..a convenient thing to call the concepts I'm discussing. If someone else chooses to call it something else or to think that single double and triple progression has something to do with how many days you take in between an exercise that doesn't really concern me or undermine these concepts in any way. I'll take your comment as a knee-jerk reaction therefore.

Furthermore there is more than one way to reinvent the wheel. One would be to simply duplicate basic concepts that other people have already well worked out. I have not done that to my knowledge since these concepts have never been explored fully in this manner, as Joe pointed out. So if I have re-invented the wheel I have done it in another "teaching" sense in that I have deconstructed the wheel and then laid it all out in it's completeness (to the best of my ability) so that people could understand something better that up to this point has usually been nothing more than a paragraph here and there or a list of bullet points. In that way reinventing the wheel is not always bad. Being innovative for the sake of innovation, however, is something I have NOT done. Having said all that I am not trying to suggest than any of this is complicated or advanced.

I do appreciate the comment though. It's nice when people express their opinion even if they disagree.