I mean to offer a clarification...
- The various Strong Endurance protocols/templates each have a prescribed frequency.
- A given template/protocol does not prescribe a decreasing frequency.
Aside: I very much enjoy thinking of the Warm-Up Idea. Very useful.
Chart Comparing Relative Non-Linearity of Rest-Between-Sessions
Intensity Level of Each Protocol | Max Training Frequency (Days / Week) | Average Rest Days Between Sessions |
|---|
1 | 5+ | 0 |
2 | 5 | 0 |
3 | 4 | 1 |
4 | 3 | 1 |
5 | 2 | 3 |
6 | 1 | 6 |
I found that when I reviewed the templates (and was thinking differently about recovery between sessions) - in Strong Endurance (and Probably other areas of programming) - there is a rather clearly non-linear relationship between the inherent intensities prescribed by the protocols and the rest required by them.
some of the increases are as linear as an observable increase of reps per set by increments of 5.
others have per-session-volume differences.
But, as these increments are comparably linear in differences in the loading between separate programs - they demand much more rest between them.
Again, To clarify: a given protocol does not specify a decreasing frequency within its own framework. Rather, each protocol (as they sit on a spectrum of density or intensity) specifies its own regular frequency of training throughout the week; for the duration of the training cycle.
And, the newer perspective in my thinking is that this infers a rapidly rising number of days off between sessions for recovery and adaptation. This is an adjustment in my thinking about Programming, Load, Recovery, and related sensations of freshness, and fatigue.
It happens to render differently in my mind's eye, now that I think of it. and it makes some sense, given the intentions of the Strong Endurance program design; which thus far is serving me well. I'm glad for the intentionally acquired Hypertrophy which is apparently visible to others after a few weeks of training.
A Thought on Mentzer and His Evangelism for HIT Training
I do believe it's possible that for the purposes of Body Building (at his elite level) that higher levels of intrasession intensity (Like training to failure in a single set) may have been necessary and successful. And, while it could be the case that HIT-style training was partially useful (and, to whatever extent, effective) for any other trainee, maybe it was (and is) sub-optimal for many beginner or intermediate trainees. I believe there is a special place in the afterlife for anyone who puts their money where their mouth is, practices what they preach, and walks the walk, above and beyond one who talks the talk.
I do find that there is at least something to learn from Mr. Mentzer (and apparently Mr. Jones) and his success, even if it's not the wholesale adoption of all his prescribed methods and implementations. Even without adoption - there is value in considering the information, and his claims, to at least add to my existing, nascent, naive, perspective. I also appreciate his noting that volume beyond necessity is a negative factor. He's rare, (in my memory) but not alone, to offer that claim. But, his presentation is much more aggressive. he claims: Not that it resembles Junk, not that it's neutral, if unnecessary; but that it's Subtractive.
"Stimulate, Don't Annihilate" indeed.
In General:
As a neophyte, I'm glad to benefit from those who came before me.
