|
|
Post by erictalmant on Mar 20, 2009 8:05:18 GMT -5
I have to say that what Dave is now working on very well could be the holy grail for yearly programming. I am very excited, and now that I may have some "free" time I am going to throw myself into the project.
Stay tuned!
You will hear it first here on the BMF Sheiko Forum!
Eric
|
|
|
|
Post by Phillip Wylie on Mar 20, 2009 9:05:55 GMT -5
That sounds cool, I look forward to seeing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by erictalmant on Mar 20, 2009 13:06:09 GMT -5
I was reading about it and the gears were turning between every set today in training.
Roughly, Dave may have found a way to predict how much work it will take (minimally) to build strength and how much is too much.
Sort of like me saying that the destination is "X". Now we are determining the different variable to get to "X". Of course some will be more efficient than others. The more folks that we have to work with us, the quicker he can probably figure it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by benburgess on Mar 20, 2009 13:23:08 GMT -5
I was reading about it and the gears were turning between every set today in training. Roughly, Dave may have found a way to predict how much work it will take (minimally) to build strength and how much is too much. Sort of like me saying that the destination is "X". Now we are determining the different variable to get to "X". Of course some will be more efficient than others. The more folks that we have to work with us, the quicker he can probably figure it out. This sounds really interesting Eric/Dave. I'd be totally up for working with an experimental program after my current cycle. |
|
|
|
Post by erictalmant on Mar 20, 2009 17:34:03 GMT -5
I was reading about it and the gears were turning between every set today in training. Roughly, Dave may have found a way to predict how much work it will take (minimally) to build strength and how much is too much. Sort of like me saying that the destination is "X". Now we are determining the different variable to get to "X". Of course some will be more efficient than others. The more folks that we have to work with us, the quicker he can probably figure it out. This sounds really interesting Eric/Dave. I'd be totally up for working with an experimental program after my current cycle. This goes well beyond a program  This is giving you tools for programming your training all year long and how exactly to go about it. It involves a little math, but most should be able to do it. In addition, it will show you how to shift the odds in your favor of building strength and what is needed to "in theory" program a cycle that will elicit a strength gain or what may be too much. |
|
|
|
Post by benburgess on Mar 21, 2009 6:18:29 GMT -5
This sounds really interesting Eric/Dave. I'd be totally up for working with an experimental program after my current cycle. This goes well beyond a program This is giving you tools for programming your training all year long and how exactly to go about it. It involves a little math, but most should be able to do it. In addition, it will show you how to shift the odds in your favor of building strength and what is needed to "in theory" program a cycle that will elicit a strength gain or what may be too much. Sweet, that sounds even better. The old maths eh? Well that should satisfy the nerds like me and Battista! |
|
spsfw
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by spsfw on Mar 21, 2009 20:15:00 GMT -5
sounds great- I'll get Joel to explain the maths side of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by robwhite on Mar 23, 2009 12:37:12 GMT -5
This sounds really interesting. The intricacies of periodisation have always thrown me. Its a shame i've still got a number of weeks of the 13 week beginner program to do, otherwise i would definately be a 'guinea pig' for this.
|
|
|
|
Post by erictalmant on Mar 26, 2009 16:40:06 GMT -5
This sounds really interesting. The intricacies of periodisation have always thrown me. Its a shame i've still got a number of weeks of the 13 week beginner program to do, otherwise i would definately be a 'guinea pig' for this. Yep, stay to your current plan for now. Everything we do is based upon you all's results and feedback. On paper, the latest cycles look really good and reflect the latest research. However, we never know how it will translate in the real world. We are really getting a handle on the best ways to program one's training for the yearly cycle and not so much piecemeal as we have been doing. The more continued input we receive, the better the research will be for all of us. |
|
|
|
Post by mccaulleyg on Apr 2, 2009 20:58:35 GMT -5
any update on when this may be finished and ready for testing?
I will be ready to try out a new method April 26th.
I will have a new set of maxes at that time.
Grant
|
|
|
|
Post by erictalmant on Apr 9, 2009 12:57:44 GMT -5
any update on when this may be finished and ready for testing? I will be ready to try out a new method April 26th. I will have a new set of maxes at that time. Grant Dave is already working it into his new cycles that he is programming. In a nutshell, we believe we better understand how to program yearly instead of piecemeal as we pretty much have been doing. Conversely, this means that you-the athlete-will need to know your competitions or testing days in advance to best take advantage of this. There is something called coefficient of intensity which basically helps us understand how much work is too much and how much work is too little to build strength. In addition, just as everyone has a fingerprint that is specific to them; everyone will also have a coefficient of intensity where they do the best when it comes to building strength. This is something that will take years to develop and uncover; but trust that the new cycles that Dave is programming will all take into account the minimum coefficient of intensity (18) with the maximum coefficient of intensity (22). Take your most recent total and divide into it your average working weight. If the total is between .18 and .22 then your programming is probably going to produce positive results-all other things considered equal. The average working weight is a culmination of all 3 disciplines. This will take a lot of math, but you Excel wizards can help the others. For example, I believe my average working weight for all 3 disciplines in the preparatory period was around 320 pounds to produce a 1445 pound total. So, 320 divided by 1445 = .221 X 100 = 22. That falls within the range (maybe a tad high-we will see) . |
|
|
|
Post by benburgess on Apr 9, 2009 14:05:27 GMT -5
Does that work with equipment?
The recent total would be an equipped total.
In an equipped prep cycle, some of the work is raw, and some is equipped.
It seems to me that averaging poundadges over all work (raw and eqp) would skew the average weight so that it looked very low compared to the total.
|
|
|
|
Post by erictalmant on Apr 10, 2009 8:26:24 GMT -5
Does that work with equipment? The recent total would be an equipped total. In an equipped prep cycle, some of the work is raw, and some is equipped. It seems to me that averaging poundadges over all work (raw and eqp) would skew the average weight so that it looked very low compared to the total. Based on the documents we have and based on what we have translated, it not only works with equipment but was used with equipped lifters. Interesting, huh? Yes, some of the work is raw and some is equipped. We are trying to gather more and more data. Start plugging in some numbers and you might be surprised at what you arrive at, though. This is the absolute latest thing we have been working on, so it is *New* and will take some time before we know more. However, I am pretty sure that Dave is factoring in coefficient of intensity into the new programs to reflect what we understand right now. So, when some of the folks that are are doing these programs finish up and test or compete then we will have more data. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2009 13:15:10 GMT -5
I'm very interested in this, I'm going to gather some thoughts and shoot you and Dave an e-mail.
|
|
|
|
Post by erictalmant on Apr 24, 2009 15:42:54 GMT -5
I'm very interested in this, I'm going to gather some thoughts and shoot you and Dave an e-mail. Sure thing, Mark. If possible, perhaps we can share it here on the forum. We have got some pretty smart cookies here, and the more information the merrier! |
|
|
|
Post by mccaulleyg on Apr 25, 2009 12:49:57 GMT -5
Hey dave, I lost my email today. Can you follow up any powerlifting correspondance at mccaulleyg@genesishealth.com. We look forward to advice you may have for our programing.
Thanks
Grant
|
|
|
|
Post by davebates on Apr 28, 2009 13:45:43 GMT -5
just send me a pm when you get your email working
|
|
|
|
Post by mccaulleyg on Apr 29, 2009 11:15:48 GMT -5
Dave
Just e-mail me at mccaulleyg@yahoo.com
Thanks Grant
|
|
|
|
Post by robwhite on Apr 30, 2009 8:04:24 GMT -5
Does that work with equipment? The recent total would be an equipped total. In an equipped prep cycle, some of the work is raw, and some is equipped. Would be great to get a programme that incorporates both raw and equipped training, as i've never really figured out how to cycle the use of suits, wraps, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by benburgess on May 1, 2009 11:34:40 GMT -5
Does that work with equipment? The recent total would be an equipped total. In an equipped prep cycle, some of the work is raw, and some is equipped. Would be great to get a programme that incorporates both raw and equipped training, as i've never really figured out how to cycle the use of suits, wraps, etc. Check out Daves 13wk beginner cycle Rob, that has a rotation built into it. You always sq at least twice so, one raw, one eqp. You always bench at least 3 times so make one eqp... Theres some discusson here too: bmfsports.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=sheiko&action=display&thread=401&page=5 |
|
