Prilepin Chart Analysis

[Deleted]

I've been doing my research tonight, specifically looking into prilepin's chart as I saw a claim that Sheiko training was based off the numbers, for those unfamiliar, have a look here:

www.texaspowerscene.com/articles/powerlifting/prilephin.html

Now I understand that Sheiko works across mutliple intensity ranges but, at class 1 or higher, specifically in the mastery groups, you're going to have some trouble sticking to this if you want to make your volume quota.

Lets say you are a class 1 and need to hit 1000 fundamentals this month.

Assuming we train squat 8 sessions, bench 12 and deadlift 4 in the month (standard Sheiko template), that gets us a total of 24 fundamental sessions. We need to hit 41 lifts per fundamental session on average to hit our quota. Now, there's no place for 41 lifts anywhere near Prilepin... at our average of 69% for a typical cycle, we should be hitting 24 reps per slot according to his system if we are to train optimaly. If we take it over 70%, our optimal is 18. If we averaged this we'd get 432 fundamental lifts in the month on prilepins guidance. Nothing like Sheiko's...

If we cross the boundary into CMS or MS classes and talk about upping the average intensity, the problem is further magnified even given the extra sessions.

I also understand that it was intended for olympic weight lifters where speed and technique are much more important, could this be good evidence/argument that it wasn't found to be optimal for powerlifters under the Russian system? I'm not into being bookish for the sake of it, I'm interested in how the principles may apply to programming for the powerlifter and the debate on whether its useful for us or whether to disgard it.

My current view is that since Prilipen derived his data from high level olympic lifters, he was likely regarding one session as one of 12 or so that took place that week. Given this training frequency, its easy to see how the lifters would make up the volume on these "optimal" figures. However, a modern day powerlifters training looks a lot different and therefore requires different guidlines. However, I'm happy to be shown I'm wrong if I am.

[joeldibattista]

Jul 1, 2009 17:10:51 GMT -5 @markrobinson said:

Now I understand that Sheiko works across mutliple intensity ranges but, at class 1 or higher, specifically in the mastery groups, you're going to have some trouble sticking to this if you want to make your volume quota.

Lets say you are a class 1 and need to hit 1000 fundamentals this month.

Assuming we train squat 8 sessions, bench 12 and deadlift 4 in the month (standard Sheiko template), that gets us a total of 24 fundamental sessions. We need to hit 41 lifts per fundamental session on average to hit our quota. Now, there's no place for 41 lifts anywhere near Prilepin... at our average of 69% for a typical cycle, we should be hitting 24 reps per slot according to his system if we are to train optimaly. If we take it over 70%, our optimal is 18. If we averaged this we'd get 432 fundamental lifts in the month on prilepins guidance. Nothing like Sheiko's...

Hence the double squat/bench/deadlift sessions.

[Deleted]

I thought about that but doesn't that still count as one session? Unless you split it up at the start/end of the day? Even given this, its still not going to work, we'd need 51 fundamental sessions in the month to get our 1000 in with prilepins guides, Sheiko doesn't account for that. Like I said before, this will get worse as you up the intensity and volume further up the ranks.

[Deleted]

Hi! I'm new to this forum and Sheiko Style!
I found this link about Prilepin table that might be usefoul and interesting.
zenprimer.blogspot.com/2006/05/how-to-design-strength-training.html

P.S. Sorry for my english!

[Deleted]

I agree that there may not be a perfect translation for PL since it was originally created for the olympic lifts, which just seems to stress the body differently (in my experience). While Sheiko falls outside the rep range, it's true to the suggested reps per set. I like that because in the past when I strayed from those parameters, I've paid for it.

I also know that Prilepin planned 50-60 lifts with 90% and above for the snatch alone within a month (frequent training sessions). That load was approximately 25% of all of the lifts with fundamental weights. That is a lot of lifts with 90+ percent for one movement in a month's time. I’m not sure if that is a factor or not, but seems to me that if you spend most of your time working around 70% for a lift and take very few attempts above 85%, you could handle a much higher volume for that lift. Just my hypothesizing.

Also, welcome Marco...

[benburgess]

I havn't read this enough to get into the clever bits but I would point this out -

Oly lifts are a LOT more skill based than Powerlifts. As I understand it, if you dont hit the groove perfectly, it wont go up. This isnt the same with PL...you can grind and muscle things up generally, even if it'll be easier if your form is perfect.

Its hard to explain what I mean, but lets say for example that performing a sucessful Oly lift is maybe 60% Skill 40% Physical Strength, and performing a sucessful Powerlift is maybe 20% Skill 80% Physical Strength...

It stands to reason that:

a) Performing say 10 powerlifts @90% is more physically draining than performing 10 oly lifts @90%

b) Oly lifts take more drilling than the powerlifts as they are much more complex, therefore it makes sense that you'd need more reps (i.e. skill practice) at OL than PL

[Deleted]

Mark your analysis is correct but, let me say, "overthinked".

Prelipin chart IS a base on wich Sheiko designe is training program, but you have not to go so deep when looking at this data.
First
NBL is a quantity that only by chance correspond from Medvedyev to Sheiko. Because one count from +60% lift, the other every lift from 50%.
Secondo
Weightlifting has so many Special exercise that had the same biomechanical structure of contest exercise (exemple: snatch and snatch from hang). So every thing change. It is impossibile to compare this to so different structure.
So