all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed In praise of autoregulated step loading

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
Bauer

Bauer

Level 8 Valued Member
Since AXE came out (and actually since the newsletter on Peak and Progression from July, 2023), I have started using autoregulated step loading.

I love it! The idea being of repeating a work load that is currently challenging but doable workload until it becomes routine.

In the past, both step loading and autoregulation have been tough for me, mostly mentally, but over time also physically.

When I did S&S, sometimes I tried to rush the clock, condensing rest periods, chasing higher RPE, instead of punching the clock. Or, I did not feel like repeating my current work load. Or, I owned it earlier than 4 weeks, and sometimes 4 weeks weren't enough (due to stress and/or sickness).
When I did Swings à la KBSF, I usually pushed the heavy session hard, and then the next two sessions felt pretty dull, like something I had to get through.
When I tried autoregulated training à la KBSF LCCJs, I went for an overall RPE of 8 all the time, and sometimes ignoring that a part of my body hadn't adapted yet.
When I tried time constraint autoregulated training, I tried to beat my best all the time, leading to too few easier sessions, or being disappointed when I did not improve from session session and week to week.

But autoregulated step loading somehow does the trick for me. It might seem like a small shift, but I enjoy it much more, and training feels better both mentally and physically.
When I feel good, I push my limits a bit. And repeating this load until it becomes routine has several advantages for me, compared to the approaches above:
  • First of all, the step last as long as it lasts... could be faster or shorter, customized to my rate of adaptation.
  • Second, it ensures that I get enough easier sessions below RPE 8, avoiding minor issues or burnout. I might still deload here and there for one or more sessions, but overall, there is less need for it. So far, I seem to get less colds and to have more energy.
  • Third, it ensures that I allow my body and its smaller parts to actually adapt and own a certrain work load (sometimes it's only my feet or my front delts that feel taxed, and it is easy to ignore this for a while, leading to trouble down to road).
  • Fourth, and maybe most importantly, it changes the focus on my sessions: Instead of exploring how far or how fast I can go until I meet a stop sign, I am curious if the same amount of quality work will feel easier today. Will I be able to own it this time? Will my delts feel less fatigued afterwards? How fresh will I feel during my endurance training tomorrow? Somehow this is seems to be the right mindset for AXE/A+A training for me.
    Not looking for records but mastery. Not rushing but exploring.
In sum, it is super safe while still allowing customization, and nudges me toward the "right" mindset.
I enjoy my KBSF LCCJ training a lot more since I have started using autoregulated step loading.
Love it! Thank you @Pavel!
 
This is more or less how I like to train, though I admit I am not always good at sticking to it. I like the idea of owning a movement, skill, or exercise such that I can do it cold, whenever I would like. I think this kind of training really lends itself to that kind of adaptation. It also ensures that the muscles and connective tissues are on par with the nervous system. It's easier to gain strength faster than it is for the actual connective tissues to physically adapt. When I got serious about real, structured training, it was gymnastic bodies that did it for me around 9 years ago. While they are largely responsible for the explosion in gymnastic strength training, one of their big messages got sort of swept under the rug over the years. That was to make sure a movement was more or less "easy" before moving on.

I haven't looked at what their programs look like in years now, but their orignal programs had quite the volume for some of the exercises. The idea was exactly as I wrote above: if you can do some pretty serious volume (and density) for a given exercise, and not be wrecked, you know you can handle the next step up. You probably can even do more than you would expect. An example beginning stage training session format would involve something like working up to 5 sets of 15 strict form pushups with your only rest being the time it takes to do some shoulder mobility exercise between rounds (so you're not really "resting"). Once you could do that without being sore after, doing something like dips was suddenly not as hard (for first-timers).

It's true that you don't necessarily need certain, arbitrary benchmarks to progress to the next level in training, whether it's with weights, kettlebells, bodyweight, whatever. I do believe, however, that it's fairly obvious chasing progression makes the risk of aches, pains, and injuries increase. It's a balance between patience, recovery, and how well one can stick to a program when they start to get bored by it. Funny enough, if your sessions are boring, you might be ready to move up a bit.
 
I think there's some grey area, but I don't know that the step loading being described is the same as Easy Strength. It also depends on what version of ES you're talking about.

I think most people think of the "40 day program," but there is also the 2-3 times per week version. The former consisting of ~10 reps each of the major movement patterns, done something like 40-60% 1RM (IIRC), the latter consisting of 2-3 sets of 2-3 reps of a very high %RM. The first is low intensity (the "easy" part) but with high frequency. The latter is the opposite: it is "easy" in that it is very minimal volume, but the intensity per rep is wayyy higher. While the latter could be considered challenging in that the weight is heavy, it is not challenging in that you are supposed to cut the session once rep speed slows. That could mean doing one set of three, starting a second set, and cutting it short at two reps, then calling it a day for that lift.

I won't put words into @Bauer 's mouth, but the type of loading I described in my post is commonly called "steady state cycling," i.e. you continue the same thing until it's easy and then increase, and then repeat. I suppose it could be done in different ways, but the way I learned it was by doing 2-3 sessions per body part per week. You don't work at a low RPE or %1RM, and you don't necessarily stop when a session gets kind of tough. You just repeat the same session until it gets relatively easy/comfortable. Anecdotally, I have seen a number of "street workout" or calisthenics athletes intuitively do this without using any sort of intricate programming. For example, they just did pushups and dips and handstands until they could do like 1-2 handstand pushups, and then they did handstand pushups until they could do more handstand pushups. The hard part of this style is regulating yourself. It's easy (no pun intended) to add reps or weight when you are having an easier day, but that defeats the purpose of doing the same thing every session.

One could argue that it might not be the most efficient way to gain muscle and strength, but being that it is the least "cerebral," I like that it means you just show up and train consistently, and let time and recovery do their thing.

I don't mean to nitpick semantics, but my understanding of Easy Strength does not necessarily equate to steady state cycling.
 
bluejeff said:
I think there's some grey area, but I don't know that the step loading being described is the same as Easy Strength. It also depends on what version of ES you're talking about.

I think most people think of the "40 day program," but there is also the 2-3 times per week version. The former consisting of ~10 reps each of the major movement patterns, done something like 40-60% 1RM (IIRC), the latter consisting of 2-3 sets of 2-3 reps of a very high %RM. The first is low intensity (the "easy" part) but with high frequency. The latter is the opposite: it is "easy" in that it is very minimal volume, but the intensity per rep is wayyy higher. While the latter could be considered challenging in that the weight is heavy, it is not challenging in that you are supposed to cut the session once rep speed slows. That could mean doing one set of three, starting a second set, and cutting it short at two reps, then calling it a day for that lift.

I won't put words into @Bauer 's mouth, but the type of loading I described in my post is commonly called "steady state cycling," i.e. you continue the same thing until it's easy and then increase, and then repeat. I suppose it could be done in different ways, but the way I learned it was by doing 2-3 sessions per body part per week. You don't work at a low RPE or %1RM, and you don't necessarily stop when a session gets kind of tough. You just repeat the same session until it gets relatively easy/comfortable. Anecdotally, I have seen a number of "street workout" or calisthenics athletes intuitively do this without using any sort of intricate programming. For example, they just did pushups and dips and handstands until they could do like 1-2 handstand pushups, and then they did handstand pushups until they could do more handstand pushups. The hard part of this style is regulating yourself. It's easy (no pun intended) to add reps or weight when you are having an easier day, but that defeats the purpose of doing the same thing every session.

One could argue that it might not be the most efficient way to gain muscle and strength, but being that it is the least "cerebral," I like that it means you just show up and train consistently, and let time and recovery do their thing.

I don't mean to nitpick semantics, but my understanding of Easy Strength does not necessarily equate to steady state cycling.
Click to expand...
I don’t view easy strength as JUST the 40 day program. I look at it more as a catch all for most park bench style programs that you “punch the clock” with. Which one could argue sounds like what Bauer was describing. But at the end of the day it’s all interpretations of the same thing.
If it’s easy in some manner and you’re gaining strength isn’t it easy strength
;)
PTTP
JUST SINGLES
40 day program
5x5x5 program
1,2,3 ladders until easy
Mind over muscle from beyond bodybuilding.
GREASE THE GROOVE
All of these are easy strength esque IMO.

Easy strength is a very general term that fits a lot of different programs.
Some are slightly higher intensity or higher frequency but they for the most part fit the general concept.
 
Exactly how I felt about AXE! When I did Geoff's Maximorum, autoregulation almost killed me. Quite easily I overtrained and stopped at week 4. The same is true for step loading when I did S&S several years ago. When there is no clear limit for the length or volume in a session, I tend to push myself way too hard. Quite frustrating.
AXE feels completely different! @Bauer put everything I wish to say out there, and I couldn't agree more!
A question, is Easy Strength the book written by Dan John that people are referring to? Thanks.
 
flightposite said:
...Easy strength is a very general term that fits a lot of different programs.
Some are slightly higher intensity or higher frequency but they for the most part fit the general concept.
Click to expand...
How i interpret it as well. A concept, not a single program.

Lots of good points in the book, not limited to:
- What us important? Are you a sports athlete, strength athlete, recreational athlete?
- Vary intensity/density/volume over time (autoreglation, dices, E/M/H days).
- Pirate maps! (X marks the spot, where we want to be, make a plan on how to get there)
- Keep full body lifts to about 10 per lift.
- Lift mostly 60-85% of 1RM. Sometimes higher, sometimes lower.
- 2-3 days a week, up to 5 days a week.
- Rest is your friend.
- DO NOT FAIL! (1-2 RIR)
 
Luwuwu said:
Exactly how I felt about AXE! When I did Geoff's Maximorum, autoregulation almost killed me. Quite easily I overtrained and stopped at week 4. The same is true for step loading when I did S&S several years ago. When there is no clear limit for the length or volume in a session, I tend to push myself way too hard. Quite frustrating.
AXE feels completely different! @Bauer put everything I wish to say out there, and I couldn't agree more!
A question, is Easy Strength the book written by Dan John that people are referring to? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Good to hear!

On your last question:
The term Easy Strength is used for
  • the book Easy Strength by Pavel and Dan John, containing general information on strength training for athletes (and everyone else). The idea being, that you don't need a lot of reps or fatigue to build strength, if you follow the right principles (thus, Easy Strength). The core of the programming in the book is made up of two plans:
  • a) Easy Strength (3x per week, 10 reps per lift, mostly heavyish)
  • b) Even Easier Strength / the 40 day workout: (5x perweek, 10 reps per lift, slightly lighter weights), based on Pavels instructions to Dan John
  • Dan John has written a pretty "famous" article on the latter.
  • Dan John has recently also written a book called Easy Strength Omnibook as well as Easy Strength for Fat Loss. Both use the "40 day" version.
  • Pavel has written most of his version of Easy Strength 2.0 and announced on the forum that he wanted to let some "ideas marinate" before finishing it.
  • Even Easier Strength is usually what people mean by Easy Strength.
  • However, PTTP, Justa's Singles, Daily Dose Deadlift, the Quick and the Deadlift, and even S&S would fall in the Easy Strength category as well, in my opinion.
To get back to the topic:
Overall I think I am quite good at pursuing mastery instead of chasing numbers. However, I often find myself doubting if I am doing enough for progress.
What I like a lot in AXE are the paragraphs on the benefits of deloading and prolonging steps. "Guilt-free cruising" :D
 
@Bauer could you please explain a bit more what you mean by auto regulated step loading and perhaps give more of an example about how you use it. I’m also following the KBSF double LCCJ programme but I am doing my reps OTM until I hit a stop sign (AXE)
 
Bauer said:
Good to hear!

On your last question:
The term Easy Strength is used for
  • the book Easy Strength by Pavel and Dan John, containing general information on strength training for athletes (and everyone else). The idea being, that you don't need a lot of reps or fatigue to build strength, if you follow the right principles (thus, Easy Strength). The core of the programming in the book is made up of two plans:
  • a) Easy Strength (3x per week, 10 reps per lift, mostly heavyish)
  • b) Even Easier Strength / the 40 day workout: (5x perweek, 10 reps per lift, slightly lighter weights), based on Pavels instructions to Dan John
  • Dan John has written a pretty "famous" article on the latter.
  • Dan John has recently also written a book called Easy Strength Omnibook as well as Easy Strength for Fat Loss. Both use the "40 day" version.
  • Pavel has written most of his version of Easy Strength 2.0 and announced on the forum that he wanted to let some "ideas marinate" before finishing it.
  • Even Easier Strength is usually what people mean by Easy Strength.
  • However, PTTP, Justa's Singles, Daily Dose Deadlift, the Quick and the Deadlift, and even S&S would fall in the Easy Strength category as well, in my opinion.
To get back to the topic:
Overall I think I am quite good at pursuing mastery instead of chasing numbers. However, I often find myself doubting if I am doing enough for progress.
What I like a lot in AXE are the paragraphs on the benefits of deloading and prolonging steps. "Guilt-free cruising" :D
Click to expand...
Much appreciated! That is far too comprehensive an explanation than I had expected!
I never read the book. But now that I know Q&D, one of my favourite books and my single most favourite programme is Easy Strength, I should definitely read it, and looking forward to Pavel's 2.0 version at the same time.
 
flightposite said:
I don’t view easy strength as JUST the 40 day program. I look at it more as a catch all for most park bench style programs that you “punch the clock” with. Which one could argue sounds like what Bauer was describing. But at the end of the day it’s all interpretations of the same thing.
If it’s easy in some manner and you’re gaining strength isn’t it easy strength
;)
PTTP
JUST SINGLES
40 day program
5x5x5 program
1,2,3 ladders until easy
Mind over muscle from beyond bodybuilding.
GREASE THE GROOVE
All of these are easy strength esque IMO.

Easy strength is a very general term that fits a lot of different programs.
Some are slightly higher intensity or higher frequency but they for the most part fit the general concept.
Click to expand...
You've just described my training during the last decade.
 
Summerhouse said:
@Bauer could you please explain a bit more what you mean by auto regulated step loading and perhaps give more of an example about how you use it. I’m also following the KBSF double LCCJ programme but I am doing my reps OTM until I hit a stop sign (AXE)
Click to expand...
I think all good programming has fixed and flexible or autoregulated parts.

S&S step loading has fix load, fixed volume, autoregulated rest, and fixed step duration.

AXE step loading has fixed load, fixed volume, fixed rest, and autoregulated duration (RPE going from 8 to below 7) - and flexible deloads. Therefore I have called it autoregulated step loading, as the length is individual.

KBSF Swings & GU step loading is fixed all the way. However, block length and volume increase are autoregulated.

KBSF LCCJs are originally programmed with fixed load, autoregulated volume, fixed rest, and planned deloads. In the article version Pavel recommends short consolidation steps for the 30 minute sessions.

Geoff Neupert likes fixed duration, fixed rep scheme, fixed load, autoregulated rest, and autoregulated volume with fixed block durations.

Of the different versions I prefer AXE's programming, as it allows me to focus on quality and prevents me from pushing too often (and thus from chasing fatigue).
 
Reading the different and slightly varied interpretations of Easy Strength makes me wonder if the original instructions are really that hard to decipher.

Personally, I find the prescription for 3×3 all the way rather interesting. Certainly a simple and effective scheme that naturally invites one to use heavier loads and minimise fatigue from session to session.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom