Re: Sequenced Unidirectional vs Complex

[Guest guest]

Well one thing that has to be considered is that there are only so

many means available....only so many exercises....like this kid wrote

this leg program and he had something like back squats, front squats,

leg press etc....I was thinking to myself ... " hmm, you didnt leave

yourself any exercises to go to after you adapt to those 3. "

But I understand what you are saying....for example, you'd like to see a study

where 2 sequenced unidirectional cycles were compared to

2 " complex " cycles...but again the main point would end up being the

need for a proper sequence of " most intense last " in order for the

training effect to be cumulatve and also to peak for the competition

etc.

For example, in that study in question, it seems obvious that if they

followed that first complex 3 month period with another complex that

didn't feature depth jumps, then the training effect would decrease

anyway (going from more intense to less intense).

Also IMO basically any practical cycle we are going to do is going to

be " complex " in some fashion or another....so I guess it is more of a

question of greater " emphasis " being placed on certain areas...for

example if on your main powerlifting exercise you do sets of 1-3 with

a high % then it is working absolute strength...but then your

assistance work is 6-8 reps so that is working a slightly different

function/ability....sort of hard to avoid.

Some interesting comments from the Verkho " Programming " book:

" Methodical recommendations emphasize that unidirectional loading is

only effective if one uses a diverse complex of means of a single

primary emphasis, along with a variety of methods. "

and

" Considerable research has revealed that the primary utlization of

unidirectional training influences for prolonged (from 4-12 weeks)

stages of training is very effective. Use of a variety of means and

cheifly, a gradual increase in the strength of their influence, has

been shown to be appropriate. "

This is one area where I think 'Westside' could be improved....they

just tend to use bands " whenever " throughout the year....with the

guideline of " use them for 3-4 weeks then take a break since they are

hard on the delts " etc.....but wouldn't it be better to save them for

a pre competition period since they are about the most intense

practical method? I know Louie has that " circa maximal " phase which

is sort of a pre-comp phase with heavy band usage...but I wonder if

it would be more effective if the bands were not used UNTIL that

phase...as opposed to using them year round.

Anyway, I'd like to see a practical routine for powerlifting using

sequences of the various means etc....but how would one go about it?

Would you group absolute strength first followed by speed

strength/power? The problem there is that powerlifting is more of

an absolute strength sport than a power sport. But of course one

could still group the exercises themselves in the proper

order....some sequence of straight weight full range in the 4-6 rep

range, straight weight full range in the 1-3 rep range, partials

(boards, rack work), chains, bands, negatives.

Anybody want to take a shot at the proper order?? lol

I am just finishing a phase where I waited until the peaking phase to

do some negatives (only a couple actually) and partials (again only a

few)....but I am also planning my training for the first half of next

year so I will be doing a lot of thinking along these lines....

Already I have basically decided on 3 main " periods: "

1) mass training phase(s)...so I suppose this would be going slightly

over into strength endurance since some of it will be going into 8-10

reps.

2) modified Sheiko prep phase(s)...high volume straight weight with

an average intensity being around 68-70%, lots of sets in the 4-5

range (usually 80% is highest intensity used with an occasional set

with 85%...but id like to work in a very few 90% sets, maybe on the

second prep phase but keeping the average intensity around 68-70ish%)

3) modified Sheiko Comp phase...lower vol/higher inensity peaking

phase.

In general that last phase is 3-4 weeks long with the last week being

a taper week......so if I am trying to use a proper sequence of:

straight weight, partials, bands, negatives....where would I start to

work in the partials etc?

Perhaps I would do that first prep phase with straight weight full

range...then on the second prep phase start working in the

partials....then in the comp phase possibly use bands and the

negatives?

Or should I use the negatives in on that second prep phase and then

on the comp phase put in some speed/power work? (since all that heavy

strength loading negatively affects speed etc)

any ideas?

Randy

Danville, Va

>

> ,

>

> Thanks for the response. The first study referenced

> looks like the one I was talking about.

>

> I am still not entirely convinced the right conclusion

> is necessarily being drawn from the studies. Some of

> the studies vary the order of sequencing different

> means and seem to show that it can make a difference

> what order you use (e.g.,depth jumps versus other

> jumps). However, when complexes are compared to any

> form of sequence, it appears that the complex is kept

> the same throughout the period studied, but the single

> means are changed. I think to completely study the

> effect of complexes versus sequencing of single means,

> you would need to sequence the complexes as well.

> Otherwise it seems as though the only conclusion you

> can be sure of is that doing anything for too long (a

> single means or a complex) will yield diminishing

> results over time.

>

> It appears that in all cases complexes outperform

> sequenced programs in the short run of up to 3 months

> and that provided the proper order is used in the

> sequenced program and the complex is never changed,

> sequenced programs of single means outpeform complexes

> in training blocks lasting at least 6 months. What I

> would conclude from this (and I may very well be

> wrong), is not that sequenced programs of single means

> will outperform complexes in the long run, but that

> complexes outpeform single means in periods of up to 3

> months and that if the complexes are not thereafter

> varied or sequenced, the single means will in the next

> 3 months and longer outperform the complex provided

> the single means are sequenced in the proper order.

> To me this suggests that one should look for ways to

> properly sequence various permutations of complexes

> (including complete breaks from training or possbily

> alternating complex blocks with single means blocks)

> rather than concluding that properly sequencing single

> means is necessarily the way to go.

>

> Jon Haddan

> Irvine, CA

>

>

> >

>

> __________________________________________________

>