progressive overload

[dteller1]

is progressive overload partly myth? this isnt saying that you dont eventually start having to lift heavier weights to get stronger and bigger, you obviously do, people with big muscles are in general stronger, but in terms of the mentality of "every week i must beat last week"

this is an interesting page citing a study

Intensity & Training to Failure [Muscle Gain] • AmpedTraining.com • Matthew Perryman, CSCS

they have found that if you lift to fail with your 90% rm vs your 30% rm that after 24 hours the 30% rm has a bigger influence on protein synthesis. so clearly volume plays a massive role in protein synthesis.

so if one week i lift 3 sets of my 80% rm to fail and the following session for the same lift i lift 60% rm to fail the second session i will be lifting lighter weights, but BOTH will still result in significant protein synthesis, rather than the mentality ive had whilst ive been training that every single week i must beat last week with heavier weight

 

[Gazhole]

Size does not necessarily equal strength. There is a lot to be said about myofibrillar hypertrophy contributing to overall strength, though, you're right. More filaments = more potential to generate force, but theres a lot more going on in terms of strength gains than increased muscle size. Hypertrophy isn't 100% essential by any means.

You've got increasing efficiency of movement patterns via improved technique, neural efficiency of maximal motor unit recruitment during those movement patterns, adaptation of specific energy systems like ATP/P-Cr, not to mention adaptation of surrounding structures like bones/tendons/ligaments that all contribute to pushing heavy weights.

If you're in the mentality of "gotta beat last week" then you just need to step back and look at the bigger picture. You're not always going to be able to do that. Everybody has good days and bad days. Keeping a training log is absolutely mandatory for this reason - just because the last session, or even the last three sessions, have seen you either staying the same or going backwards, the overall trend over the last few months may be going upwards.

Nothing to do with training is linear - there are peaks and troughs. As one biometer or exercise improves you can bet your ass one is going the other way. This is natural, and i'd say completely necessary. Everything can't keep consistently go up in a straight line all the time - especially if you've been training for any appreciable length of time.

This is where well-periodized programs really come into their own. Scheduled deloads or rest weeks, scheduled ramping up and backing off of training variables, but all with an overall upward slant. Get a program that allows you to account for this. Reduce your training maxes. Reduce the weights you're using and do some intensive technique or ROM work for a few weeks. At the most basic level - "change it up".

So yeah, your idea for an 80% and 30% shift during your training program probably will work if its drastically different from your regular training. One thing i would drop asap is about 90% of your failure sets. This is a sure fire way to teach your body to protect itself and not LET you get stronger.

Variation and overload are the key. If you go to failure every time how is this stimulus any different even when you change the load? The failure state is the same, it will still elicit the same genetic responses. Your body doesn't know or care what weight caused the failure.

 

[gtbmed]

I don't see how this study debunks the idea of progressive overload.

The main point is that hypertrophy is work-dependent, meaning you need some volume to stimulate the most protein synthesis. That doesn't mean that you don't need to increase loading over time.

But the intensities they chose are a bit ridiculous. Training to failure at 90% of your 1RM means the participants probably achieved 3-4 repetitions. I don't think many people claim that loads of 90% 1RM are ideal for stimulating hypertrophy.

I would like to see a follow-up with a smaller range in intensities and perhaps more groups. Let's see the comparison of loads of 80% to 70% to 60%, etc. Though overall it was a good read.