“Linear” periodization (a.k.a. “Western”) as it relates to powerlifting specifically (not bodybuilding). Plenty of hits in the search, but what are YOUR opinions?
Please state your clear, concise arguments for or against.
Thanks!
Matthew
It works well as you peak for a meet.
Against.
Empirical evidence coupled with well written articles here at T-Nation has convinced me. In a world of minutia, I tend to rely on the school of “what works”, and Linear Periodizaton failed miserably for me and most of the group I train with. (A small, specialized group of about 30 MMA trainees). Is that evidence enough to draw a conclusion? Yes, for our group, but we are not a good population sample, we are specialized and as such have a biased view. Only two of our guys made much progress with Linear, but all of us made progress with Conjugate.
Good question though, looking forward to other responses.
Rolo
[quote]Matthew9v9 wrote:
“Linear” periodization (a.k.a. “Western”) as it relates to powerlifting specifically (not bodybuilding). Plenty of hits in the search, but what are YOUR opinions?
Please state your clear, concise arguments for or against.
Thanks!
Matthew[/quote]
I don’t like the way this term is used, so I would ask you to define what you mean. When most people talk about linear periodization, they mean a LONG cycle starting with sets of 10-15 reps and gradually dropping down over 10-18 weeks to a max single. I DEFINE this not as LINEAR periodization, but simply as VERY LONG cyclic periodization, so on one hand we can talk about what is the optimal length of a cycle.
TRUE linear periodization to me would mean following the same general set/rep scheme every workout but trying to add just a little something each time. For example, 5-4-3-2-1, do 5 reps at 225, 4 at 245, 3 at 265, 2 at 285 and 1 at 300. Next time out try to add 5 pounds to at least one of the sets.
The problem here is that the Russian research shows that rest alone takes a VERY long time to re-set the motor neurons firing rate. The best way to re-set this is not higher reps with lighter weights, but quick sets with lighter weights ie 5 x 3 at 70% versus 2 x 8 at 70%.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
I don’t like the way this term is used, so I would ask you to define what you mean. [/quote]
Come to think of it, I would like an official “T-Nation” definition myself from one of the contributors (or a mod…hint hint 
).
Maybe during Prime Time next week I’ll bring this up.
Matthew,
I would define linear or western periodization as a linear drop in volume and a linear rise in Intensity. Basically a wide and flat X on a graph.
A recipe for failure unless you are on the sauce and a genetic freak.
Read Louie Simmons “Chasing your Tail” at elitefts.com.
jack
Thank you for the definition and tip.
[quote]jackreape wrote:
Matthew,
I would define linear or western periodization as a linear drop in volume and a linear rise in Intensity. Basically a wide and flat X on a graph.
A recipe for failure unless you are on the sauce and a genetic freak.
Read Louie Simmons “Chasing your Tail” at elitefts.com.
jack[/quote]
I’m amazed that there are still people out there who still don’t know how awful linear periodization is compared to other modalities. It’s been proven inferior in the scientific and anecdotal worlds.
Interestingly, the ones still using linear periodization are generally the coaches who don’t lift weights themselves. You can’t train others if you can’t train yourself.
So here’s some evidence and some observations.
-
Russian research shows that lighter loads (70% which might mean 50-60% for slower movements) are REQUIRED to reset the firing rate and synchronicity of the muscle, tendon, nerve apparatus. (Or at least that it resets these MUCH faster than rest alone).
-
Ed Coan, maybe the poster boy for linear periodization did not really use linear periodization 100%. In the final 2 weeks of his training, he added special priming exercises such as heavy walk-outs, heavy bench holds and arched back goodmorinings-in other words, the volume of new exercises went way up.
-
I believe that volume should be cycled 1-2-3-1-2-3, or even
2-3-4-1-1-1, with a gradual accumulation of volume, followed by a sudden and significant cut back, BUT I have found that I will be STRONGEST about 1-2 weeks after I have started to increase my volume.
A sample for a 400 pound squat might be then:
Week 1: 8 x 3 at 345
Week 2: 10 x 3 at 345
Week 3: 12 x 3 at 345
Taper
Week 4: 6 x 2 at 375
Week 5: 6 x 2 at 385
Then a quick “reheightening” week for a max
Week 6: 10 x 3 at 370
Then max
- I think that lifters mix up the reasons why they start a cycle with high reps at low weight. I think its 1 part to let the system recover from the last 2-3 weeks of hard training-which builds mass because it lets you recover. The real problem is that total volume drops so much by the time they are doing say 2 x 3 at 90% that they do get smaller.
I actually caught some heat for making the comment that linear periodization sucks in my “Meet the Press” article. Oh well, you can’t please everyone…
I find it hard to believe that most people (other than beginners or those of very low training age) are seeing serious progress with this training method.
Stay strong
MR
[quote]Eric Cressey wrote:
I’m amazed that there are still people out there who still don’t know how awful linear periodization is compared to other modalities. It’s been proven inferior in the scientific and anecdotal worlds.
Interestingly, the ones still using linear periodization are generally the coaches who don’t lift weights themselves. You can’t train others if you can’t train yourself.[/quote]
Periodization cycle that worked for me:
3 weeks, Comp Bench Press 5x5
3 weeks, " 6x4
3 weeks, " 7x3 (deload by decreasing 1 set per week)
3 weeks, 5x2, 4x2, 3x2
3 weeks of Bench 1RM
I did a tricep exercise after and it was always a close grip board press (different boards of course) (no assistance on the last 3 weeks of 1RM, I alternate with conjugated.
My training history has been conssited of several years of 55 and 33 with occasional singles, and most recently one and half years of conjugate periodization. In addition to improving my strength greatly under CP, I find that my interest in training has gone up greatly. I look forward to every ME session. By rotating ME lifts, I get to make a new personal record most weeks. There’s nothing like taking a weight that you have to fight with. That’s why I really use conjugate periodization.
I guess my primary problems with adopting conjugate stem from, first and formost, a lack of understanding of how it can be applied in my situation. And second, but related, a lack of equipment (bands, chains, etc.). These two are somewhat interconnected in that while I understand how bands, chains, etc. are used in conjugate, since I don’t have any available I don’t know how to apply that method to my training.
CT wrote an article called Continuum Training (6/1/05) that discussed Overcoming Isometrics and Functional Isometrics that has given me some ideas, but I’m still working it all out.
I’m relatively “young” as it relates to strength training, so maybe that’s why I still get good gains out of that 80 day “Conditioning Tips for Powerlifters” routine by Dr. Hatfield. I basically alternate b/w that, ABBH and The Waterbury Method.
Questions? Comments? Rude remarks?
Matthew
Don’t worry about using bands and chains yet, go to the elite fitness site and read up all you can.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
Don’t worry about using bands and chains yet, go to the elite fitness site and read up all you can.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s part of my problem…analysis paralysis. What I need is “Applied Conjugate Periodization 101: How to do it with just a cage, barbell, dumbells, a bench, and a dip belt” or “Applied CP for equipment-challenged dummies.”
Sound like a good article, TC?
Matthew
[quote]Matthew9v9 wrote:
Yeah, that’s part of my problem…analysis paralysis. What I need is “Applied Conjugate Periodization 101: How to do it with just a cage, barbell, dumbells, a bench, and a dip belt” or “Applied CP for equipment-challenged dummies.”
Sound like a good article, TC?
Matthew[/quote]
read the “Eight Keys” series by dave tate on this website. Conjugate periodization has nothing to do with bands and chains, though they can be and are commonly included.