[quote]ab_power wrote:
Adding 5lbs onto lifts like bench, deadlift, shrugs, squat, etc is very doable every 1-2 weeks. Especially if you have smaller weights like 1.25lbs.[/quote]
I’d like to add that this only applies if you are a beginner. If it were easy to add 5 pounds to a bench press every week or second week, after a year, most trainees would be benching 100-200 pounds more than they did the year before. This simply does not happen.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
By no means am I saying the following is so in your case – I quite doubt that it is so in your case – but this general approach is one that has a common outcome of producing a guy that insists he’s “gaining all the time” and has been doing so for years, yet somehow his lifts and physique are quite hard to tell from where they were 3 years ago. Somehow, gaining 5 lb per week every week winds up adding to nothing over the year.
By dropping an exercise and switching to another, it becomes possible to completely hide the fact that strength is in fact not being gained. Just start the next exercise at what in fact is only 90% performance, but since it hasn’t been done for a while it feels like near 100% so it’s not consciously obvious what is happening, and it can “gain all the time” till it quits gaining; then switch to the next execise and “gain all the time” on it too but in fact not gain anything.
This is what happens “all the time,” not those who follow this approach gaining all the time at anything remotely like the rates they think they are.
You personally I’m sure are doing better, but as a prescription for others, I see the above-described problems with it.
In contrast, the type of programs I described above, it’s an objective fact that performance is increasing.
This is also true of the simplest approach to the general question of microloading, of using fractional plates to increase the weight very slightly while reps are aimed at staying the same, in the same manner of performance.
I just wanted to provide other methods of achieving extremely small but importantly, doable, percentage increases per week, as I was pretty sure that adding the microplates was already known to the OP.
[/quote]
Hmm, how familiar are you with DC?
The Op’s now stated that he’s been training for a long time, so I apologize to him for assuming differently.
A little bit that may help: I’ve been on the 2-way version of DC for years now but was, a few months ago, forced back to regular training due to my old gym closing and other gyms in the are lacking the equipment necessary for my exercise rotation + alternatives for when I stall.
Well, I gotta say that training normally is the horror… My strength gains are so slow it makes me wonder why I’m even going to the gym…
Sure, at some point that has to come anyway, but I was gaining WAY faster on DC… So OP, if you are an advanced lifter and have tried most or any other ways of getting bigger/stronger, maybe give DC a try… That’s what it’s there for. We have 2 main threads about it here, in the regular bb forum and in the t-cell.
By the way, while this isn’t exactly what the original question was asking, it’s in the same vein and is related to a number of answers that have been given, so it seems as good a place as any for it:
While adding a rep to a best-performance set requires a quite substantial strength increase such as ordinarily 2-5%, it seems that it is easier to add reps to declined-performance sets.
I don’t know of where this may have been demonstrated in exercise science, but it seems to me to be the case.
For this reason, advocating as some already have doing a progression such as:
This week: sets of 5,5,5,4,3 reps
Next week: sets of 5,5,5,4,4 reps
After that: sets of 5,5,5,5,4 reps
Then: 5 sets of 5
is more reasonable – doesn’t require a necessarily non-doable rate of improvement – than simply adding a rep each week to the best-performance set.
That already has been discussed.
I have a method which seems to me to be more doable yet for whatever reason. Again, not proven to be so, it just seems so.
Namely, let’s say that giving the best performance one can on each set with given weight and rest periods, the results are:
5,5,4,3,2 reps
What one does in this plan is to flip that.
The first week is then:
2,3,4,5,5 reps
Next, aim for 2,3,5,5,5
Then 2,4,5,5,5
Then 2,5,5,5,5
Then 3,5,5,5,5
Then 4,5,5,5,5
Then 5 sets of 5
I don’t know why this ought to be easier to accomplish than the ordinary approach, but for me at least it seems to be.
Again, I appreciate all the responses the thread produced. I will look into all the options available. Thanks again everyone.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
By the way, while this isn’t exactly what the original question was asking, it’s in the same vein and is related to a number of answers that have been given, so it seems as good a place as any for it:
While adding a rep to a best-performance set requires a quite substantial strength increase such as ordinarily 2-5%, it seems that it is easier to add reps to declined-performance sets.
I don’t know of where this may have been demonstrated in exercise science, but it seems to me to be the case.
For this reason, advocating as some already have doing a progression such as:
This week: sets of 5,5,5,4,3 reps
Next week: sets of 5,5,5,4,4 reps
After that: sets of 5,5,5,5,4 reps
Then: 5 sets of 5
is more reasonable – doesn’t require a necessarily non-doable rate of improvement – than simply adding a rep each week to the best-performance set.
That already has been discussed.
I have a method which seems to me to be more doable yet for whatever reason. Again, not proven to be so, it just seems so.
Namely, let’s say that giving the best performance one can on each set with given weight and rest periods, the results are:
5,5,4,3,2 reps
What one does in this plan is to flip that.
The first week is then:
2,3,4,5,5 reps
Next, aim for 2,3,5,5,5
Then 2,4,5,5,5
Then 2,5,5,5,5
Then 3,5,5,5,5
Then 4,5,5,5,5
Then 5 sets of 5
I don’t know why this ought to be easier to accomplish than the ordinary approach, but for me at least it seems to be.
[/quote]
That is a novel idea or at least novel to me. I can see the swap idea working to reduce the fatigue at the beginning from accumulating thus allowing you to produce more reps. An interesting notion worth trying I think. I will start a new 5X5 in January. I may just do this once I fail a 5X5 to see it for myself. Thanks for the neat idea.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
By the way, while this isn’t exactly what the original question was asking, it’s in the same vein and is related to a number of answers that have been given, so it seems as good a place as any for it:
While adding a rep to a best-performance set requires a quite substantial strength increase such as ordinarily 2-5%, it seems that it is easier to add reps to declined-performance sets.
I don’t know of where this may have been demonstrated in exercise science, but it seems to me to be the case.
For this reason, advocating as some already have doing a progression such as:
This week: sets of 5,5,5,4,3 reps
Next week: sets of 5,5,5,4,4 reps
After that: sets of 5,5,5,5,4 reps
Then: 5 sets of 5
is more reasonable – doesn’t require a necessarily non-doable rate of improvement – than simply adding a rep each week to the best-performance set.
That already has been discussed.
I have a method which seems to me to be more doable yet for whatever reason. Again, not proven to be so, it just seems so.
Namely, let’s say that giving the best performance one can on each set with given weight and rest periods, the results are:
5,5,4,3,2 reps
What one does in this plan is to flip that.
The first week is then:
2,3,4,5,5 reps
Next, aim for 2,3,5,5,5
Then 2,4,5,5,5
Then 2,5,5,5,5
Then 3,5,5,5,5
Then 4,5,5,5,5
Then 5 sets of 5
I don’t know why this ought to be easier to accomplish than the ordinary approach, but for me at least it seems to be.
[/quote]
Hepburn’s programs are based on rep progressions like this, and very effective because of it.
The loading is one thing, but the force generated is another. Over the long haul you can add more weight or more reps, but the amount of force that you lift a weight with matters too. That is why it is pointless to get too anal about what exact weight to increase, because using the same load, but if you are able to generate more force for the same reps, or ideally a more reps, you’ve progressed. That’s why I cringe when I see tempo’s. To think that someone is doing exactly 4 down and 2 up. Not 3.2158 down and 2.015 up…
Lift more, lift explode harder, (don’t worry, with sufficient load what you think your exploding with is barely crawling) also, with static holds that some programs use, simple holding uses less then pumping out 100% force against an immovable load.
i dont what youre talking about, adding at least one rep per session is completely doable and i usually end up adding around 2-5 total.
its not cause i started with a significantly low weight either. i started with 90 pound dumb bells on bench press and somewhere in the upper 300’s for deadlift, i think 365
ive just been plugging in reps and when i hit the goal total for each set i stop and that gives me a little extra juice to take to the next one.
every time you hit the gym you should be making progress and if you arent you need to switch your movements.
[quote]Cprimero wrote:
Namely, let’s say that giving the best performance one can on each set with given weight and rest periods, the results are:
5,5,4,3,2 reps
What one does in this plan is to flip that.
The first week is then:
2,3,4,5,5 reps
Next, aim for 2,3,5,5,5
Then 2,4,5,5,5
Then 2,5,5,5,5
Then 3,5,5,5,5
Then 4,5,5,5,5
Then 5 sets of 5
Hepburn’s programs are based on rep progressions like this, and very effective because of it.[/quote]
Almost nothing in weight training is really new, so I hadn’t expected this method was though I had not heard of it.
I had not known of Hepburn doing it where the rep performance was deliberately inverted so that the final sets used the same reps as possible in early sets and vice-versa – e.g. doing only 2 reps in the first set and 3 in the second when doing 5 in the final sets because performance capability was allowing only 3 and 2 reps in the final sets when the early ones had 5 reps – and then improving from there.
But I’m sure he did lots of things beyond what is usually mentioned about his systems that I’m not aware of, too.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
i dont what youre talking about, adding at least one rep per session is completely doable and i usually end up adding around 2-5 total.
its not cause i started with a significantly low weight either. i started with 90 pound dumb bells on bench press and somewhere in the upper 300’s for deadlift, i think 365
ive just been plugging in reps and when i hit the goal total for each set i stop and that gives me a little extra juice to take to the next one.
every time you hit the gym you should be making progress and if you arent you need to switch your movements. [/quote]
I think you need to go back and read all of Mr. Roberts posts again. I don’t think you are getting what he is trying to explain to you. We all fool ourselves into thinking we are making progress by switching exercises and making gains that we already made in the past. The real gains in an experienced lifter who has not taken a layoff recently has less frequent gains then he thinks he has.
[quote]DJS wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
i dont what youre talking about, adding at least one rep per session is completely doable and i usually end up adding around 2-5 total.
its not cause i started with a significantly low weight either. i started with 90 pound dumb bells on bench press and somewhere in the upper 300’s for deadlift, i think 365
ive just been plugging in reps and when i hit the goal total for each set i stop and that gives me a little extra juice to take to the next one.
every time you hit the gym you should be making progress and if you arent you need to switch your movements.
I think you need to go back and read all of Mr. Roberts posts again. I don’t think you are getting what he is trying to explain to you. We all fool ourselves into thinking we are making progress by switching exercises and making gains that we already made in the past.
The real gains in an experienced lifter who has not taken a layoff recently has less frequent gains then he thinks he has. [/quote]
Are you trying to tell me that going from a low incline smith press of 280 lbs * 16RP to 340 * 16Rp, stalling, then switching that exercise out for HS Incline, progressing, stalling, switching back to low incline smith and going from 32016RP(in case you want to take it easy at first) to 37516RP (and so on) is somehow no or only little progress?
If someone jumps from program to program or exercise to exercise and never keeps a logbook, doesn’t eat enough and doesn’t beat his previous bests then that’s his problem (and I dare say that those are the people Bill was talking about).
That does not make the method of taking lifts to the limit, switching, switching back and taking them past that previous limit a bad method.
Curiously enough, the guys using that method properly seem to be rather successful. One of them recently won the 202 Olympia.
But clearly Dave Henry was just fooling himself into thinking that he had made progress.
ill say this, when you go back to an exercise you havent done for a while you will definately be weaker at it than you left off, BUT youll most likely surpass whatever that point was where you stalled out last time before you stall out again.
example, today i was doing arms and ive been doing Smith Reverse Bench for triceps, but the last time i did them i got less reps on my 2nd set than i did the week before.
i figured it was a fluke so i went to do em again today and i got less reps on my FIRST set than i did on my first set the week before. so i said to hell with it, i tell people to switch out their exercises when they stall so thats what im doing.
then i went to do some CG Benching and holy shit, it felt WEIRD. like it felt lighter than what i was expecting when i unracked it (since i was only hitting 5-6 last time i did em) but wow i had to drop the weight to 185 from 225 to get reps of 6-8.
ill jump it up to 190 next time and see how i do, but i definately think ill be surpassing 225x8 before i need to switch it out, 240x8 for 3 sets would actually be nice.
point being that when you go back to old exercises you definately gotta shake the cob webs out a little bit.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Curiously enough, the guys using that method properly seem to be rather successful. One of them recently won the 202 Olympia.
But clearly Dave Henry was just fooling himself into thinking that he had made progress.
[/quote]
its amazing how your body fools you by getting bigger and lifting heavier weights for more reps. im probaly no stronger today than i was when i first started, right?
You can also get platemates and fractional plates - I have some olympic plates going down as low as 0.25lb - obviously these can’t be used on dumbells so I use the platemates on dumbells - magnetic weights that just sit on the side of a dumbell.
[quote]wannbeBIG wrote:
You can also get platemates and fractional plates - I have some olympic plates going down as low as 0.25lb - obviously these can’t be used on dumbells so I use the platemates on dumbells - magnetic weights that just sit on the side of a dumbell.[/quote]
you could probaly weigh a collar and just use those too. what are they like 1/4 of a pound? imagine the looks youll get with 4 collars a side on the BB
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
DJS wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
i dont what youre talking about, adding at least one rep per session is completely doable and i usually end up adding around 2-5 total.
its not cause i started with a significantly low weight either. i started with 90 pound dumb bells on bench press and somewhere in the upper 300’s for deadlift, i think 365
ive just been plugging in reps and when i hit the goal total for each set i stop and that gives me a little extra juice to take to the next one.
every time you hit the gym you should be making progress and if you arent you need to switch your movements.
I think you need to go back and read all of Mr. Roberts posts again. I don’t think you are getting what he is trying to explain to you. We all fool ourselves into thinking we are making progress by switching exercises and making gains that we already made in the past.
The real gains in an experienced lifter who has not taken a layoff recently has less frequent gains then he thinks he has.
Are you trying to tell me that going from a low incline smith press of 280 lbs * 16RP to 340 * 16Rp, stalling, then switching that exercise out for HS Incline, progressing, stalling, switching back to low incline smith and going from 32016RP(in case you want to take it easy at first) to 37516RP (and so on) is somehow no or only little progress?
If someone jumps from program to program or exercise to exercise and never keeps a logbook, doesn’t eat enough and doesn’t beat his previous bests then that’s his problem (and I dare say that those are the people Bill was talking about).
That does not make the method of taking lifts to the limit, switching, switching back and taking them past that previous limit a bad method.
Curiously enough, the guys using that method properly seem to be rather successful. One of them recently won the 202 Olympia.
But clearly Dave Henry was just fooling himself into thinking that he had made progress.
[/quote]
No I am not saying that at all. I do the same thing. All I was trying to highlight is all that switching back and forth takes time. Many weeks/months go by before you get back to the first excercise and surpass it.
So even though you are adding 5 lbs every week in the end it took two months to actually get 10 lbs stronger in the original lift for example. So even though it feels like you are always progressing, the real progression takes time for intermediate lifters.
I think that was the point Bill was trying to make. Of course Bill is an expert and I may be off base here, but that is the way I took it. Here is a crude example.
flat barbell bench 10,8,6,4
week 1 190, 200, 210, 220
week 2 195, 205, 215, 225
week 3 200, 210, 220, 230 (getting harder)
week 4 200, 210, 225, 235
week 5 200, 215, 225, 235
week 6 205, 215, 225, 235 x 5
week 7 205, 215, 225, 240
week 8 205, 215, 230, 240
week 9 205, 220, 230, 240
week 10 210, 220, 230, 240
week 11 210, 220, 230, 245
week 12 same (no change)
week 13 same (no change)
Change up workout
flat DB bench 5x5
week 1 120, 130, 140, 150, 160
week 2 130, 140, 150, 160, 170
week 3 140 150, 160, 170, 180
week 4 150, 160, 170, 180, 190
week 5 160, 170, 180, 190, 190
week 6 170, 180, 190, 190, 190
week 7 180, 190, 190, 190, 200
week 8 190, 190, 190, 190, 200
week 9 190, 190, 190, 200, 200
week 10 190, 200, 200, 200, 210
week 11 200, 200, 200, 210, 210
week 12 200, 200, 210, 210, 210
week 13 210, 210, 210, 210, 210
week 14 same ( no change)
week 15 same ( no change)
Lets say you go right back to flat barbell bench with the same rep range even though you would probably do something different first which would make the time period even longer
flat barbell bench 10, 8, 6, 4
week 1 200, 210, 220, 230
week 2 205, 215, 225, 235
week 3 210, 220, 225, 240
week 4 210, 220, 225, 245
week 5 210, 220, 230, 245
week 6 210, 220, 235, 245
week 7 215, 225, 235, 245
week 8 215, 230, 240, 250 Surpassed past best for 4 reps in last set.
I just made that up quickly to make the point. I’m sure its not perfect numbers wise but in this example the person made consistant progress from week to week but it took him 25 weeks do surpass his pervious best in the flat bench using a 10, 8, 6, 4 rep progression. So even though his numbers were always going up, real progress takes time.
I know that many will not appreciate this but I think there is an interesting psychological issue going on in many cases (certainly not all) that has some relevance.
Now sometimes there will be a real reason to not maintain a given “big lift” on an ongoing basis. For example, let’s say that from experience one knows that a steady diet of standard flat bench pressing, even if only a couple of sets per week, gives one problems, but having the exercise in there from time to time for modest periods works OK.
In that case, sure, don’t keep that exercise in there all the time! Regardless that many consider it a true standard marker of strength.
But quite likely perhaps the close-grip bench press, the incline press, or the decline press present no such problems.
Or while many may view the DL, whether traditional or sumo, as a standard major lift of importance, some don’t consider deadlifting the best way to train for the deadlift and don’t incorporate that much of it, preferring other lifts.
If so then why should this person keep the deadlift in there all the time, as they have this opinion of it. But there will be some other lift, perhaps the Romanian deadlift, that also is a very legit marker of strength and one they find a good staple.
All that above was to say that there may be quite good reason for any specific lift to, depending on the individual case, do it only at some times and not others.
But I don’t believe there’s one person in the world that EVERY major compound lift, it just doesn’t work for them to be at all regular with it.
Let’s say we grant that. That even if for example overall you want to MOSTLY do other chest exercises in a given time frame, it ain’t gonna kill you to consistently keep in there 1 or 2 sets of close-grip bench press.
It ain’t gonna kill you to consistenly keep in, at least every couple of weeks let’s say, some consistent version of the squat for 1 or 2 sets. Etc.
It ain’t gonna take away from your training.
So if you know quite well what you can do in say some sort of the bench press for several rep or sets and reps schemes that you might want to train under, why not since you’re “gaining all the time” at least maintain the performance you already achieved on your benchmark exercise while doing most of your work with other exercises?
And if you’re REALLY getting stronger, really gaining 2-5% strength every week like you think you are – what with gaining a rep every week meaning about that much strength increase – my goodness then the benchmark exercise ought to be going up too.
Wait a sec, that’s why this isn’t done!
Because the illusion of making rapid gains, from the new exercise actually increasing a rep every week, will be shattered and destroyed by the benchmark exercise proving you’re really not getting stronger at anything like that pace.
And why do I say you’re not really getting stronger at anything like that pace?
Because 2% per week would result in more than doubling strength in one year. And if you’re reasonably well advanced already, that won’t happen.
So heavens no: can’t keep the benchmark exercise in there. Got to stay away from it.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I know that many will not appreciate this but I think there is an interesting psychological issue going on in many cases (certainly not all) that has some relevance.
Now sometimes there will be a real reason to not maintain a given “big lift” on an ongoing basis. For example, let’s say that from experience one knows that a steady diet of standard flat bench pressing, even if only a couple of sets per week, gives one problems, but having the exercise in there from time to time for modest periods works OK.
In that case, sure, don’t keep that exercise in there all the time! Regardless that many consider it a true standard marker of strength.
But quite likely perhaps the close-grip bench press, the incline press, or the decline press present no such problems.
Or while many may view the DL, whether traditional or sumo, as a standard major lift of importance, some don’t consider deadlifting the best way to train for the deadlift and don’t incorporate that much of it, preferring other lifts.
If so then why should this person keep the deadlift in there all the time, as they have this opinion of it. But there will be some other lift, perhaps the Romanian deadlift, that also is a very legit marker of strength and one they find a good staple.
All that above was to say that there may be quite good reason for any specific lift to, depending on the individual case, do it only at some times and not others.
But I don’t believe there’s one person in the world that EVERY major compound lift, it just doesn’t work for them to be at all regular with it.
Let’s say we grant that. That even if for example overall you want to MOSTLY do other chest exercises in a given time frame, it ain’t gonna kill you to consistently keep in there 1 or 2 sets of close-grip bench press.
It ain’t gonna kill you to consistenly keep in, at least every couple of weeks let’s say, some consistent version of the squat for 1 or 2 sets. Etc.
It ain’t gonna take away from your training.
So if you know quite well what you can do in say some sort of the bench press for several rep or sets and reps schemes that you might want to train under, why not since you’re “gaining all the time” at least maintain the performance you already achieved on your benchmark exercise while doing most of your work with other exercises?
And if you’re REALLY getting stronger, really gaining 2-5% strength every week like you think you are – what with gaining a rep every week meaning about that much strength increase – my goodness then the benchmark exercise ought to be going up too.
Wait a sec, that’s why this isn’t done!
Because the illusion of making rapid gains, from the new exercise actually increasing a rep every week, will be shattered and destroyed by the benchmark exercise proving you’re really not getting stronger at anything like that pace.
And why do I say you’re not really getting stronger at anything like that pace?
Because 2% per week would result in more than doubling strength in one year. And if you’re reasonably well advanced already, that won’t happen.
So heavens no: can’t keep the benchmark exercise in there. Got to stay away from it.
[/quote]
Hmm, ok, so that there is no more misunderstanding:
On the DC 2-way, I use a triple rotation on a 2-way split. I train 3 days a week. So I train my whole body one and a half times each week.
The split goes like:
Ah yeah, we do extreme stretches too after every bodypart trained… Helps recovery and has other benefits.
Of each wokrout (1 and 2) there are 3 versions (hence me talking about a rotation).
That would look like this:
Week1
Mon - 1a
Tue
Wed - 2a
Thu
Fri - 1b
Sat
Sun
Week2
Mon -2b
Tue
Wed -1c
Thu
Fri -2c
Sat
Sun
Repeat Cycle
What this means is that I hit each exercise again after 2 weeks.
This keeps me from stalling out quickly as I would if I were to hit every exercise once or even more often than once a week.
At the same time I have a higher training frequency… Just that I do 3 different exercises per muscle over those 2 weeks and then restart the whole thing.
We usually use movements that are easy to progress on, so you won’t find too many DCers use pushdowns or laterals. Instead it’s Smith RGB’s, CGP’s, PJR’s or (for delts) stuff like Militaries, Machine militaries, V-Squat/Powersquat overhead presses (work quite well if you’re not overly tall).
The goal is to add weight every time you hit an exercise again (quite possible especially due to the fast strength gain you get from DC RP… I’m talkign 10-20 lbs easy while beating reps, especially during your first 3-5 blasts and some people manage more than that), or keep the weight the same but add at least 2 reps.
Of course, smaller movements like Curls will stall sooner than bigger stuff (I’ve managed to keep rack-pulls in the rotation for over a year at one time). If you stall, you switch out a movement for an alternative. Stall on Hammer curls? Switch to Pinwheels. Quite similar, but different enough to keep progressing.
You also can’t keep training that way forever, you’ll need a break (guys on assistance need a break way sooner than naturals).
So we have blast and cruise periods.
Blasts are when you go all-out in both the kitchen and gym, beat the logbook every time you train, and all that. Mine last anywhere from 6 to 12 weeks. Mostly around 10 weeks. Guys on gear would blast for 4 weeks with bigger strength increases than I would manage in that time, or maybe they can go up to 6 or even 8 weeks, depends.
Cruises are for recovery, you can drop your food intake somewhat, regroup, either take time off the gym or keep going but only use one straight set per exercise and stay shy of failure… No increasing of poundages, but you can try out new exercises to include in the next blast or so. They last for 2 weeks, normally.
So this way we can keep training year round and making increases in strength at a very fast rate (look at Hanley in the T-cell who tried DC out, or check IM’s Doggpound…) compared to regular bb training.
Ok, explaining DC in one post is kinda idiotic, it’s much simpler than it sounds (though I haven’t touched on all subjects) and you get extremely long threads about it on just about every serious bb forum…
Dante’s managed quite a lot of miracles with the guys he trains online or personally, but I don’t want to hijack the thread here or make this a DC discussion.
Suffice to say that we are making strength gains, Bill, no worries.
And advanced trainee won’t be making the kind of strength gains we make without a rotation and RP… You stall too fast (I know first hand, after all I’m currently forced to train normally due to my gym situation).
ScottM or Sento are better at explaining this than I am…
For the record: I don’t usually lose much if any strength off exercises that I ditched for others.
Stuff like Squats even goes up without me training them due to all the “assistance” work I get from backthickness and other quad and ham exercises. When I add in squats again as one of my quad movements, I usually end up starting a tad higher than where I left off (though not always… But here’s the thing: Even if I start at 95 percent of my previous best, I easily get up to 140 or whatever percent before switching movements again. And a less advanced trainee will gain far more than that. Again, rather look at the living proof of guys at IM, MM and other boards).
In the end, it doesn’t matter if I am not making progress on a certain movement for half a year at a time if within the next half year I make more progress on that movement than other people make in 2 years of gaining a rep here and there and adding a tiny bit of weight every equinox.
#Edit: I wanted to discuss training/progression methods with you a little more in-depth via pm, but I don’t get the option to pm you 
I’m not sure of why there would be trouble PM’ing.
Anyway, if there are experienced lifters – meaning it’s been several years that they’ve been experienced rather than just arriving – who do make these rapid gains, such as 1% per week, all the time and therefore were at 265 bench last year, 400 this year, and will be 600 next year and 900 the year after that, then I am wrong in stating that those who believe they have sustained gains at such a rate, or that others can be properly advised that they can expect it on an ongoing basis if only the follow some given way, are in error in their beliefs.
(As a minor note: the above is arithmetically oversimplified. Actually because of the properties of exponentials, a 1% per week gain, when referenced to the previous week as would be relevant in this discussion, works out to not a 50% increase per year, but 67.8% if 52 weeks per year. Which would turn the example into yearly progression of an already-experienced lifter going from 238 bench or other lift last year to 400 this year to 671 next year and 1126 the year after that, all raw and strict of course, rather than to “only” 900. Of course, neither is the case in practice.
So to keep the round 50% value for yearly progression at a 1% per week rate, let’s assume 41 weeks per year of progress, allowing 11 weeks – nearly 3 months – of no progress. It’s a very minor thing that does not change the overall point, but to be complete I shouldn’t simply leave the arithmetic part oversimplified.)