Alright, this is going to take a little bit of explaining. Probably a lot more after people look it over (it's not the smallest thing I've ever written). My basic idea was to come up with a strength-specific training routine based on general principles of the subject. Here's a few of them: * SAID implies that the best way to optimize performance in a given lift is to practice that lift specifically * More frequent (say, 2-3x weekly) training has been shown to foster comparatively greater strength gains versus infrequent training * Rhea's reviews imply that 3 times a week training is more optimal for a beginner (then again, lighter weights are too, which would screw up logic of a beginner doing SST - just do HST! * Similarly, Rhea's review has twice a week frequency as optimal for this target audience, with ~80% 1 RM (on the light side of our cycles) and possibly 85% 1 RM for "athletes," which might represent those of us with a lot of training years. Either way, we're mostly in the 80-89% of 1 RM range for training, which may be about right-ish. * Prilepin's figures for 80-89% of 1 RM holds that "optimal" reps per session would be around 15, with 2-4 reps per set. I'm thinking default at 3. * Strength is better retained when it occurs alongside a gain in muscle. As per the previous principle, muscle gain is optimized by creating a general environment for hypertrophy via more frequent training (i.e. more frequent elevation of MPS). * The body will accrue resistance over time towards growing more muscular via RBE * There is apparently some research that the 4-6 rep range (5 is the default) may foster better strength gains than 1-3. And it's probably a safer default range. Though I'm now leaning again towards sets of 3 while bumping up the total number of sets (safeness will be the same as the intensity isn't changing). * Comparatively higher frequency of training can be fostered by avoiding excess neural fatigue - i.e. don't often train to failure in any of the movements, ~once every two weeks. * Smaller/conservative increments (from one training session to the next) lend themselves towards strength accrual versus comparatively larger increments. Now, here's a few anecdotal principles based on other successful systems: * Cycling of "max effort" exercises * Optional inclusion of speed work * Attempts to address weak points over time * Occasional "peaking" in which new 1 (or optionally 3) RM's are established in the competition lifts. Considering adding more extended cycles of 3 at some point, not sure how to implement that. * Periodic deconditioning so you don't explode. Note that with 2 week blocks, the first week will represent a "mini-deconditioning" with the second approaching all out effort by the end. * Always use good form, which can be reinforced by cycling intensities (so there's always periods of time when you can focus more on technique than max strength) * 2 weeks seems to be "enough" time to yield some measurable strength gain if you're playing your cards right, depending on what you're doing. Consider that HST, Westside and DC training all average out to having ~2 week cycles to establish new RM's, albeit in different rep ranges from each other. Anecdotally, I've noticed people that are training hard/smart can add a bit of iron to the bar on average every couple of weeks. So, all of this spells SST. The general premise is to use the basic format of 2 week blocks of intensity (%RM) cycling for "max effort" movements, which can be the competition lifts (squats/deadlifts and bench) or similar movements that work the same muscle groups ala Westside (ie good mornings and the like). The rep range chosen as default for these 2 week blocks is 5 reps. However, after reconsideration, assuming Prilepin's guidelines have any value, sets of 3 with the last day of the cycle aiming for one max set of 5 seems possibly more appropriate. I've also included an assistance movement for each max effort lift, meant to address the weak point (which could, optionally, be speed work for that movement), as well as specific work for the core, posterior chain and triceps. This "assistance" work can be cycled using a variety of rep ranges, will probably depend on a lot of factors, including exercise selection. Note that I do NOT have a separate deadlift day, as I couldn't think of any way to address both squats and deadlifts all the time, other than it being an option to use deadlifts as one of the ME movements for lower body. I originally tried to think of a format that would be thrice weekly, but realized quickly that the number of exercises involved might be a bit prohibitive for some people. Also, I doubt people lifting generally heavier stuff (i.e. the more advanced people) could get away with lifting comparatively high loads thrice a week by default, which is why I originally created the twice a week format for that target audience. It's actually probably easiest to pull off thrice weekly if you can train twice a day, which not many can. However, I imagine strength noobs could adopt a simplified version of a 3 day a week system and probably benefit greatly due to the increased motor learning. Others may prefer the twice weekly approach in general, probably depends on a lot of factors (i.e. some people do very well strength-wise with HST, others not well, this may have a lot to do with it). Further consideration leads me to conclude that the four day, twice a week frequency version should probably be the default way to go. Otherwise, there's not much left other than to post what I've written up. I've included "filler" information that is totally subject to change, so don't consider much of anything written in stone. For example, the size of increments is HUGELY dependent on your current level of strength. The values here are general guesstimates relative to my own strength. This may be total garbage - I dunno. I'd appreciate feedback either way, though.