Progression

gbglifter

gbglifter

Member
This thread is regarding my choice of shoulder exercises for my A and B split. Ill be doing military press and seated machine press(plate loaded). I´ll be zigzaging a bit when going from split A and B. Ie: tuesday military 50kg then friday seated press 60kg. Im aware the military is working a whole other set of muscles, as well as delts. Should I just do this or does anyone have any better ideas? I was considering lateral raises but I feel presses give me more in the long run.

My concern is that once I do the B split the next military at, for ex, 55kg isnt enough to continue stimulation as its lighter than the previous press at ,for ex, 60kg.

Excuse my grammar/prose. My first language hasnt been English for over a decade! :p
 
It shouldn't matter. As long as the load is progressing, a small zigzag won't matter, plus they are different anyway, you are overthinking things. If it is really that much of a concern, just do one of them the whole cycle and don't alternate. But really, it doesn't matter much.
 
Last edited:
Yeah you don't count variations in loads between totally different exercises as zig zag. They both have totally different progressions, so don't pay attention to one exercises load compared to another. It doesn't matter. The machine shoulder press isn't really comparable to military press, as you get a lever advantage and don't have to stabilize, so you are able to lift much higher loads. In effect, you are likely getting less tension from the machine than from the actual shoulder press, so it won't be interfering with military press.

In essence, just keep doing what you are doing. In fact, those two exercises are the same I'll be using.
 
Bryan himself offers a set of exercises alternating between squats/leg press, dips/bench etc. with very dissimilar weights. The effort required to lift the weight is what matters here, so once you figure out your real 10RM for both exercises, work down in 5% steps (or whatever) alternating between them along the way, and you'll be all set.

p.s.: bear in mind that if you're used to doing one of those exercises 3 times a week, and now move to alternating it with another, your strength progression on it along the cycle WILL suffer. So don't be surprised if your new 10RM turns out to be what once was 90-95% of it. This is the beuaty of doing an exercises 3 times a week: as you train more frequently, you keep up your functional capacity to lift more. Switch to doing it 3 times in a 2 week time (the usual alternation), and you train less, and you get to lift less.
 
Last edited:
If you change to alternating and you keep the same two week period for a specific rep range, then you probably want to work backwards to find your starting weights in 10% decrements instead of the usual 5% since you will be doing each exercise only 3 times in two weeks instead of 6 times when you are not alternating.
 
O&G, what I meant was 5% step in intensity each workout. So having Military Press 50kg, Seated Press 60kg, one would go:

Day 1: MP 37.5kg (75%)
Day 2: SP 48kg (80%)
Day 3: MP 42.5kg (85%)
Day 4: SP 54kg (90%)
Day 5: MP 47.5kg (95%)
Day 6: SP 60kg (100%)
 
A mini cycle will now take three weeks as Im doing 4 sessions per week. 2 upper and 2 lower. As a result volume is increasing dramatically in my case.

I understand what you mean though. However, if they are two totally different exercises then it shouldnt really matter. Ill start at ca 80 then 90 then 100 for each of them individually. That seemed to be what totz was saying.
 
Me too, but you have to hit the minimum effective volume per bout for the muscles to grow, which tends to increase as your training age increases. If you don't do that you will only grow stronger, not necessarily increase muscle CSA.
 
Im giving this a go to see how it feels. 3x3 per week is far too much for every exercise for me. My workouts would take far too long. I was only doing 1 set per exercise on the 12s and 8s previously. Im also able to dedicate 2 whole sessions per week to legs. Im at the gym more often but not too much more total time. However, Im doing more sets totally. On the 8s I was doing 3 sets per exercise/Muscle per week. Now Ill be doing 6. Im still able to keep workout lengths to a minimum.

Thats my theory. It may work out differently irl. If thats the case Ill revert back. Im confident this is going to be good for me though. Im only on my first Week still. Third session in än hours time.
 
HST_Rihad said:
Me too, but you have to hit the minimum effective volume per bout for the muscles to grow, which tends to increase as your training age increases. If you don't do that you will only grow stronger, not necessarily increase muscle CSA.
Click to expand...

I agree with the first statement but also believe training smarter can help lower the minimum thresh hold. Knowing how to train smarter comes (sometimes) with training age.

The second statement is one that has been difficult to reach a conclusion on:


Cross-sectional area and muscular strength: a brief review.
Jones EJ, Bishop PA, Woods AK, Green JM.
Source
Department of Kinesiology and Health Science, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas 75962-3015, USA. jonesej@sfasu.edu
Abstract
A brief review is provided on the relationship of strength to muscle cross-sectional area (CSA). It is commonly believed that maximal force and CSA are strongly related. Studies examining varying levels of training status display discordant data suggesting complex relationships between training status, CSA and peak force. It has been reported that trained participants had a significantly larger force to CSA ratio (F/CSA) than untrained males and females. Therefore, it is difficult to attribute all force changes due to training to CSA changes. In general, studies of CSA and strength suggest that sex differences may exist. For example, recreationally trained female weightlifters produced higher F/CSA than males at lower velocities of contraction. Definitive conclusions regarding sex differences, force production and CSA are difficult because of limited studies and equivocal results among these studies. Some studies have also examined the impact of aging on F/CSA. These studies seem to follow the same pattern as studies on sex differences and training status, with data suggesting that F/CSA varies unpredictably across ages and that differences may be attributed to factors other than age alone. In the papers reviewed, the relationship between force and CSA is neither consistent nor simple. Although some of the discrepancies between studies could be attributed to methodological variations, this does not seem likely to explain all differences. The F/CSA relationship seems complex, and future studies are required to elucidate the relationships among key factors in the expression of strength.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's what Bryan actually writes in HST FAQ:
I would suggest that you try to do 2 sets during the 5s if you don't "feel" much from doing only
1 set. I do 2 sets on the basic movements and then I might throw in another exercise of 1 or 2
sets (depending on the muscle group) just to top things off.
Click to expand...
So if 2 sets on some muscle groups, and 3-4 sets on others were good enough for him after more than a decade of training, they may well be good enough for the rest of us.
 
HST_Rihad said:
Here's what Bryan actually writes in HST FAQ:

So if 2 sets on some muscle groups, and 3-4 sets on others were good enough for him after more than a decade of training, they may well be good enough for the rest of us.
Click to expand...

This method isnt really different from what I plan doing anyway.

ps. Ive been training for well over a decade too ;)
 
I suspect the increase in volume that many people incorporate after a certain # of years is due to a lack of threshold load, and possibly due to years of sub-optimal training.

There's certainly reasons to incorporate more volume, such as optimising form, technique etc (especially relevant for 'dynamic' lifts such as Olympic lifts and things like high pulls, squats would be another one). But generally speaking, the volume most people use is far too high IMO, and the load too low.

SD will accommodate load reduction to a point, but you won't be making particularly (time) efficient gains if you keep needing to SD in order to move on forward using unnecessarily (relatively) light weights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top