Strength building: optimal training versus adaptability

[Violent Volume]

On one hand we have adaptability and the bone crushing frequency and intensity of John Broz and Chaos and Pain and on the other we have Prilepin and Louie Simmons and optimal training.

Optimal Training

Prilepin’s 1974 research was based on numerous world, European, and Olympic competitors. He calculated minimal, maximal, and of course optimal numbers of sets and reps at certain intensity zones. His work provided us with the maximum number of reps after which the lifts would slow down and thus become less effective.

This makes for a damn good discussion as these systems seem to be saying opposite things unless I'm missing something.

[Fazc]

The more I come into contact with new routines and methods the more they start to look the same, maybe a combination of senility or that they're not actually that different. I'm sure there's a bit of both in there.

You train 3 times a week for 5x5 long enough (arbitrary routine) and you'll grow to be strong enough to handle that. Which is fine if that's what you want. If you want more eventually you will need to do more.

More Volume seems to be the key, that volume has to come from somewhere either the lift itself or something else.

[Violent Volume]

There was a quote by Dave Tate (might have been Wendler but I think it was Tate) in which he said that most of the injuries he's seen over the course of his life came from lifters doing more than 4 reps over 90%. Could this be unique to lifting in gear?

[Fazc]

I think that was Tate, I seem to recall it was in a piece I saw on youtube to do with HIT. I think it was anyway.

Btb and I have been doing a lot of single, doubles and triples in the 90%+ range lately, I can see where he's coming from. 90%+ for more than 3 reps is pretty touch work, form breakdown and ensuing injury is probably more likely.

[Violent Volume]

Always learning. Thanks man.