Hey guys, I was reading this article : Programs and Methods Versus Principles: Wave Loading and Interval Training

& 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?

Of course their methods. You can't train with principles. 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).

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.

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?

I expanded the post a bit.

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.

Its going to take some time for me to understand this.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.