Absolute load - the actual weight on the bar, not just percentage or proximity to failure, is vitally important when it comes to programming and adaptation.
Another good read, Michael. Seems like common sense after going through it a couple of times. I appreciate the nuances and different points of view you layout.
Michael, I can see your angle but I am having a hard time reconciling how you came to the conclusion that 65% of 1RM will have a these separate effects on the lifters? What if both lifters have 8 years under their belts? Will the 65% still provide "no adaptive stimulus" for the person that has a 1RM of 165lbs? Does absolute load still matter in this case? Thanks!
Empirical observation - which I've never heard anyone who actually pays attention to their lifters (as opposed to just programming the way they're going to anyway regardless of how the lifter actually does, many such cases) have a different experience with.
But you bring up an interesting point as well. I think it's both - training 'age' (Novice/Intermediate/Advanced) plays a role but the weaker you are, the less neuromuscularly efficient you are, the more the load needs to be heavier relative to your capacity to make a difference.
I think about Matt Reynolds who used to talk about training an ~80 year old woman, Sybil I think was her name. He got her up to a deadlift around 140 or so, after coaching her for YEARS (starting in her 70s) and he noticed that any work they did below something like 115-120 made no difference in her ability to continue progressing.
I may be misremembering the numbers a bit, but those are ballpark.
So even though she was 'advanced' in terms of her time lifting, because she was 1) 80 years old, 2) A female, and 3) lifting very light absolute loads - she still needed to work close to her max capacity to get an adaptive stimulus.
Whereas for a strong 30 year old man who squats 600 as a 1RM, 82-85% (say 500) is a near max of five that you'd only do once in a while or else you'd be buried by fatigue, for Sybil, it was the floor of what she needed to do to see any further progress.
Another good read, Michael. Seems like common sense after going through it a couple of times. I appreciate the nuances and different points of view you layout.
Michael, I can see your angle but I am having a hard time reconciling how you came to the conclusion that 65% of 1RM will have a these separate effects on the lifters? What if both lifters have 8 years under their belts? Will the 65% still provide "no adaptive stimulus" for the person that has a 1RM of 165lbs? Does absolute load still matter in this case? Thanks!
Empirical observation - which I've never heard anyone who actually pays attention to their lifters (as opposed to just programming the way they're going to anyway regardless of how the lifter actually does, many such cases) have a different experience with.
But you bring up an interesting point as well. I think it's both - training 'age' (Novice/Intermediate/Advanced) plays a role but the weaker you are, the less neuromuscularly efficient you are, the more the load needs to be heavier relative to your capacity to make a difference.
I think about Matt Reynolds who used to talk about training an ~80 year old woman, Sybil I think was her name. He got her up to a deadlift around 140 or so, after coaching her for YEARS (starting in her 70s) and he noticed that any work they did below something like 115-120 made no difference in her ability to continue progressing.
I may be misremembering the numbers a bit, but those are ballpark.
So even though she was 'advanced' in terms of her time lifting, because she was 1) 80 years old, 2) A female, and 3) lifting very light absolute loads - she still needed to work close to her max capacity to get an adaptive stimulus.
Whereas for a strong 30 year old man who squats 600 as a 1RM, 82-85% (say 500) is a near max of five that you'd only do once in a while or else you'd be buried by fatigue, for Sybil, it was the floor of what she needed to do to see any further progress.