Barbell Linear Cycles and Structured Waves

[LoneRider]

I just had a thought on the timeless nature of the advice in Power to the People, among Pavel's classics and wanted to share it with everyone. Said thought came to me when I was (re)reading the section on cycling.

I've followed many different strength programs over the years, most recently I've been running Wendler 5/3/1 as my barbell based strength programming since November 2015. As I read about the linear and structured wave cycles it hit me. Wendler 5/3/1, with its percentage of training max based progressions is basically a structured wave.

Conversely, programs like Stronglifts 5x5, Starting Strength, and my personal favorite Greyskull Linear Progression are obviously linear cycles.

And the section on the different cycle types got me thinking. Even if one is a relatively experienced lifter linear cycles can still work for them. Most conventional wisdom I've encountered around the web and various other sources over the years has said linear progressions are best left to novices.

What typically is the best time to use a linear cycle when it comes to planning one's training?

 

[ShawnM]

You can pretty much use it all the time for your strength focus. I like the wave style from PttP and 5,3,- but linear can be used pretty much non-stop. The problem is most linear programs are still wave programs with a bit less structure.

If you start to fail in GSLP Johnny advised to drop 10-15% and ramp back up. The only real difference between that and 5,3,1 is that Jim structures a de-load either at 3 or 6 weeks where you start another cycle at a slightly higher weight you started with. Johnny has you fail and ramp up, fail, and then start yet again.

Linear programs wave loads, just with a big a#@ crashing wave. Regular, structured wave programs are slower in building and while slower in raising weights, do so in a manner that can be followed for a longer time with less stress on the body.

 

[LoneRider]

Interesting way to view linear cycles as far as GSLP is concerned. In Johnny's most recent edition of Greyskull LP he also has rotating variants of main lifts either proactively or reactively, i.e. one session you'd do bench press and the next bench session is incline bench press, etc... That seems to be a structured wave in a manner of speaking.

On Johnny's Strength Villain forum some even discuss resets being done ahead of failure, making it sort of a hybrid of sorts.

With more years of barbell training under my belt, the thing I found interesting about PttP's cycling chapter was that the bit on linear cycles terminating before failure.

 

[LoneRider]

Thanks @ShawnM. I'm planning to go into a linear progression for a few months (doing a 3rd runthru of Greyskull LP) with rotating lifts.

The 'Same but different' approach is something I recognize with rotating lifts in a linear progression. It seems like that's another great way to drive progress when one reaches a certain point.

 

[Steve W.]

The problem is most linear programs are still wave programs with a bit less structure.

Good point. Linear cycles are just long, drawn out waves. Continuous linear progression is not possible, otherwise we would all be carrying bulls around on our shoulders ;-).

Regular, structured wave programs are slower in building

This depends on the structure of the cycle.

One way I like to do structured wave cycles is with bigger jumps between sessions in a wave and smaller jumps between waves. So, in a 4 steps forward/3 steps back cycle, this might be 15lb jumps between sessions, but 5lb jumps between waves. So each wave goes up 60lbs, but the next wave starts 55lbs lower than the end of the first wave. The top session builds slowly, but there's a fast ramp in each wave.

This gives a nice rhythm of easy/medium/challenging throughout the cycle. You don't long drawn out stretches of easy sessions at the beginning, or a death march of tough sessions toward the end.

There are lots of ways to cook it, but I agree that linear, step and wave cycles are overlapping variations on the same recipe.

The Even Easier Strength/40 Day approach is another variation. Cruise along at a constant weight, when you feel strong on a given day bump up the poundage, then cruise along some more, etc. Nudge up the cruising weight slowly over time. Add in "same but different" specialized variety periodically.

 

[LoneRider]

I think alternating every so often between structured wave and linear is a same but different approach keeping the type of lifts constant.

 

[Alan Mackey]

I tend to cycle all three progressions:

- Linear Progression: 3x3 ---> bump the load next session. Rinse and repeat until you get stuck. Then switch to...

- Step Progression: 3x1 ---> 3x2 ---> 3x3 ---> bump the load next session. Rinse and repeat until you get stuck. Then switch to...

- Wave Progression: 3x3 @80% of goal load ---> 3x3 @90% of goal load ---> 3x3 @100% of goal load (new PR) ---> bump the load next session, starting @80% of your adjusted goal load.

 

[LukeV]

It can be a real eye opener when you read the connections between different bodies of work. I read High Intensity Training by Mike Mentzer one week after I read 531 by Jim Wendler. The similarities were striking: a few sub-maximal efforts (eg warm up) followed by one 'balls to the wall' set with frequency around weekly and poundage progression each effective workout. 531 is a HIT methodology (by another name). Greyskull a variation on the theme differentiated by its reset

 

[Steve Freides]

There are many other ways. PlanStrong has its own approach. GTG is another. Easy Strength is another.

-S-

 

[LoneRider]

I always find it's interesting to re-read strength and conditioning books (or for that matter almost any book, but that's a separate subject) at a later date/time through different eyes.

I used to think linear cycles were solely the province of new/novice lifters, but now I'm rethinking that per a discussion via PM I had with @305pelusa this weekend.

 

[Steve Freides]

Marty Gallagher and the entire American school of powerlifting are big believers in linear cycling. It's interesting to note that their approach has some built-in cycling, e.g.

• 100 x 8
• 110 x 8
• 120 x 8
• 130 x 8
• 
  
• 140 x 5
• 150 x 5
• 160 x 5
• 170 x 5
• 
  
• 180 x 3
• 190 x 3
• 
  
• 200 x 2
• 210 x 2
• 
  
• Max/Meet

The change in volume as you move from 8's to 5's to 3's to 2's is a built-in "step" down in volume as the intensity rises linearly.

-S-

 

[Kenny Croxdale]

Marty Gallagher and the entire American school of powerlifting are big believers in linear cycling. It's interesting to note that their approach has some built-in cycling, e.g.]'

American School of Powerlifting?

What exactly is the "American School of Powerlifting"?

Kenny Croxdale

 

[305pelusa]

American School of Powerlifting?

What exactly is the "American School of Powerlifting"?

Kenny Croxdale

Also wondering what that is.

 

[Deleted member 5559]

What typically is the best time to use a linear cycle when it comes to planning one's training?

I was curious about the same thing a while back. My departing impressions from the inputs I gathered was less around when and more around how long.

1. how long to use one
2. how long one will work
3. how long it will take for the desired results
4. how long the results will last

I think the more of the variables you know the better linear progressions will work. The less variables you know and the more general the training, I think wavier might be better.

• no idea when you might want to compete/peak at task A = wavier might perform better
• competition X weeks away followed by another Y weeks away with a goal of Z target at A and K target at B = linear might perform better

 

[Steve Freides]

Marty Gallagher and the entire American school of powerlifting

Listen to any Marty Gallagher interviews, read his "Purposeful Primitive," etc - plenty of info out there. We could perhaps refer to it as the American school from the 1960's through the 1990's, but now we're getting away from what I know about and into what Marty or Kirk Karwoski or Ed Coan could talk about from first hand experience. Basically a linear progression leading up to a meet like the example I gave, which - again, if memory serves - would be used once a week for each of the four main lifts: BP, MP, SQ, DL. The above-mentioned book has a number of program examples, if memory serves.

-S-

 

[305pelusa]

I think something that is extremely confusing in this thread is that the terms "Linear Cycle" and "Linear Progression" are getting used interchangeably. And they are completely different.

Linear Progression can only be used at the Novice level. You do, say, 3 x 5 with 100 lbs. And because you're a Novice, you can get fully recovered and be stronger by the next session. So you can do 3 x 5 with 105 lbs next time.
With a Linear Progression, you are setting a PR every time you train. This is perfectly doable at the Novice level and with big compound exercises. You can't do this all the way to record-breaking weights as Pavel mentions in PTTP, but it can definitely be done at the Novice level (as many programs have proven).


A Linear Cycle is when you have a projected PR in mind, say, 8 weeks from today. And you simply count back to create a cycle. As weeks go by, you can cut reps and add weight and the whole 8 weeks culminates in one PR. After which you can set up another Linear Cycle to hit another PR.
Linear Cycling (also known as "Linear Periodization" or "Western Periodization") is actually an Advanced form of Periodization.

That's right, the cycle that Pavel calls as "Russian cycling" in PTTP is simply Western periodization as employed by people like Gallagher. What Verkhonshansky actually created was the Concurrent method of Periodization (think of Westside) which is not what PTTP does at all. Pavel makes this extremely confusing in the book.

A Wave cycle (as Pavel says in PTTP) is simply a Linear Cycle with some back-offs from time to time. That's all.


In between these worlds of difference (one where you PR every session and one where you PR every few weeks), you have Intermediate style programming where you PR every week. The Texas Method, the ROP and Starr's H/L/M are all examples of this.

Hope that clears up when it makes more sense to use each.

 

[Steve Freides]

That's right, the cycle that Pavel calls as "Russian cycling" in PTTP is simply Western periodization as employed by people like Gallagher. What Verkhonshansky actually created was the Concurrent method of Periodization (think of Westside) which is not what PTTP does at all. Pavel makes this extremely confusing in the book.

@305pelusa, I don't think the rest of us are confused. Your interpretation is non-standard.

I find your comments disrespectful to PTTP and to its author. This is the first time I have ever seen PTTP characterized as "confusing" in any way.

I decline to discuss this further here (for reasons I have explained to you elsewhere), but wanted, in light of your opinion as voiced above, to voice an opposing point of view.

-S-

 

[305pelusa]

@305pelusa, I don't think the rest of us are confused.

Then why do you have a thread full of people mixing up the terms and saying you can use LP like Starting Strength at pretty much any time of your lifting career?

Your interpretation is non-standard.

I've merely regurgitated Practical Programming and Supertraining's section of Periodization back to you. Nothing non-standard here. I think every poster reading my post will notice it makes perfect sense.

This is the first time I have ever seen PTTP characterized as "confusing" in any way.

The cycles Pavel presents as "Russian Cycling" are the same kinds of cycles you yourself just posted as "American school" cycles. It's confusing at least to me because what the Russian Prof. he quotes actually made was Concurrent Periodization, not Traditional Periodization (a la Gallagher). Confusing at least to me I suppose.

but wanted, in light of your opinion as voiced above, to voice an opposing point of view.

I get the feeling you oppose it more because I said PTTP was confusing to me than because you actually believe I'm incorrect.

It doesn't matter much since OP has read Practical Programming and my post will make perfect sense. I'm confident it'll make sense to every other poster too.

 

[krg]

Just a fairly novice lifter's opinion here (and I think it is valid because that is the readership PttP is targeted at):

Pavel is very clear in describing the various cycling options in PttP with example linear cycles, flexible wave cycles, structured wave cycles and step cycles.

His use of the term linear cycle is clear and consistent.

I don't think the author is to blame if people lump that term in with the linear progression used in Stronglifts 5x5 or Starting strength.

While there are undoubtedly parts of PttP which are difficult to master (feed forward tension has got me) the cycling part isn't. That chapter is pure gold for me.

 

[Deleted member 5559]

I honestly am confused by this conversation a little and could use some clarification. I don't think linear progression is only used in one specific manner. Can't we use linear progression within micro, meso, or macro cycles independently while using the same or different progression in others cycles for periodization? I don't think linear progression and linear cycles are always mutually exclusive. Isn't all periodization some combination of progressions and cycles? Is it only liner progression if used in all the different layers of cycles together?