Author Topic: Autoregulatory Training vs Linear Periodization  (Read 10252 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


LanceSTS

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
  • Respect: +550
    • View Profile
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/LanceSTS
    • Email
Re: Autoregulatory Training vs Linear Periodization
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2010, 02:56:31 pm »
0
I like a-reg to a point, especially with plyometrics and jumps, I just think the inno guys try and make it sound like it is way more complicated than it really is.
Relax.

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34034
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +9110
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Autoregulatory Training vs Linear Periodization
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2010, 04:54:34 pm »
0
I like a-reg to a point, especially with plyometrics and jumps, I just think the inno guys try and make it sound like it is way more complicated than it really is.

ya, i'm for a more simplified version of areg, ie:
#1 listening to your body
#2 keeping track of indicators (bar speed, jump height, sprint speed, etc)

#1 is the best though, i mean, if your jumps are starting to suck or your lifts are slowing down, you can feel it physiologically/mentally.. to deny that/not pay attention to it, is a problem.

peace man

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12841
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +7949
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Autoregulatory Training vs Linear Periodization
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2010, 04:55:39 pm »
0
As stated on IRC, I have the full paper if anyone feels geeky enough to want to read it.
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

https://www.savannahstate.edu/cost/nrotc/documents/Inform2010-thearmstrongworkout_Enclosure15_5-2-10.pdf

black lives matter

LanceSTS

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
  • Respect: +550
    • View Profile
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/LanceSTS
    • Email
Re: Autoregulatory Training vs Linear Periodization
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2010, 05:13:21 pm »
0
I like a-reg to a point, especially with plyometrics and jumps, I just think the inno guys try and make it sound like it is way more complicated than it really is.

ya, i'm for a more simplified version of areg, ie:
#1 listening to your body
#2 keeping track of indicators (bar speed, jump height, sprint speed, etc)

#1 is the best though, i mean, if your jumps are starting to suck or your lifts are slowing down, you can feel it physiologically/mentally.. to deny that/not pay attention to it, is a problem.

peace man

Exactly, I mean I even use the tendo with lifts alot of the time, but its so much simpler than they make it out to be.  If you slow down noticeably 2 consecutive sets, stop.  If you jump lower 2 consecutive jumps, stop.  Not, wait until you drop off by .87560998 % and then stop.
Relax.

LanceSTS

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
  • Respect: +550
    • View Profile
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/LanceSTS
    • Email
Re: Autoregulatory Training vs Linear Periodization
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2010, 05:14:18 pm »
0
As stated on IRC, I have the full paper if anyone feels geeky enough to want to read it.

Yes, can you post it in here or is it too long?
Relax.

steven-miller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 879
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Re: Autoregulatory Training vs Linear Periodization
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2010, 08:10:43 am »
0
This is the paper: http://zachdechant.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/apre-mizzou1.pdf

Some interesting things to note about this study:

1. There was no pre-test. For comparison they used the numbers from the end of pre-season of the previous year.
2. Look at the group differences listed in table 1. While no statistical differences have been found, it is apparent that the APRE group on average was 7 kilogram (15 lbs) heavier than the LP group. While maybe not a statistically significant weight difference, it might very well still be a relevant difference.
3. The LP group on baseline was stronger in both bench press tests than the APRE group despite being slightly taller and less heavy on average - those differences were significant, one even being highly significant. It is therefore very plausible that improvements for the LP group were harder to come by than for the APRE group, simply because they might be closer to their maximal genetic potential.
4. In accordance to point 3, the LP group actually performed the same in post-test compared to baseline in the bench-press repetition test, actually the difference was even slightly in the negative. There must have been several athletes whose performance actually declined. Remember how the baseline levels were determined in the first place...
5. The differences in improvement between the groups can easily be attributed to the specific application of linear periodization vs. autoregulatory training. Despite the fact that the authors claim to have been utilizing very similar protocols, this is not apparent from the little information they actually give. One thing I can tell however is that the APRE group regularly went to failure and the LP group did not. Therefore the APRE group had the chance to train close to their actual potential while the LP group did not - because their training numbers were determined based on tests from a year before, which might very well have had little to do with their actual ability.

To summarize this... If you make a program based on the concept of linear periodization and have a very, very poor grasp of what you are doing and how you assign training numbers to your athletes, this is likely going to be inferior to training a group of athletes based on what they are actually capable of doing. Big surprise.
As a scientific paper this study is a complete failure and it has very little application for everyone who understands the slightest bit about training.

However, that does not take away from the fact, that AREG might be effective for certain things. As Lance pointed out this approach can be effective when dealing with reactive or power exercises because they are so much more susceptible to even slighter changes in constitution and because doing them correct and fast is probably more important than doing a certain number of them.
I found that not to be true for performing heavy resistance exercises where bar speed might in fact drop, which however says nothing about if the repetition or set can be completed or not. Strength exercises are for strength, power exercises are for power. That's my idea of it.

adarqui

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34034
  • who run it.
  • Respect: +9110
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Autoregulatory Training vs Linear Periodization
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2010, 12:28:20 pm »
0
This is the paper: http://zachdechant.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/apre-mizzou1.pdf

Some interesting things to note about this study:

1. There was no pre-test. For comparison they used the numbers from the end of pre-season of the previous year.
2. Look at the group differences listed in table 1. While no statistical differences have been found, it is apparent that the APRE group on average was 7 kilogram (15 lbs) heavier than the LP group. While maybe not a statistically significant weight difference, it might very well still be a relevant difference.
3. The LP group on baseline was stronger in both bench press tests than the APRE group despite being slightly taller and less heavy on average - those differences were significant, one even being highly significant. It is therefore very plausible that improvements for the LP group were harder to come by than for the APRE group, simply because they might be closer to their maximal genetic potential.
4. In accordance to point 3, the LP group actually performed the same in post-test compared to baseline in the bench-press repetition test, actually the difference was even slightly in the negative. There must have been several athletes whose performance actually declined. Remember how the baseline levels were determined in the first place...
5. The differences in improvement between the groups can easily be attributed to the specific application of linear periodization vs. autoregulatory training. Despite the fact that the authors claim to have been utilizing very similar protocols, this is not apparent from the little information they actually give. One thing I can tell however is that the APRE group regularly went to failure and the LP group did not. Therefore the APRE group had the chance to train close to their actual potential while the LP group did not - because their training numbers were determined based on tests from a year before, which might very well have had little to do with their actual ability.

To summarize this... If you make a program based on the concept of linear periodization and have a very, very poor grasp of what you are doing and how you assign training numbers to your athletes, this is likely going to be inferior to training a group of athletes based on what they are actually capable of doing. Big surprise.
As a scientific paper this study is a complete failure and it has very little application for everyone who understands the slightest bit about training.

However, that does not take away from the fact, that AREG might be effective for certain things. As Lance pointed out this approach can be effective when dealing with reactive or power exercises because they are so much more susceptible to even slighter changes in constitution and because doing them correct and fast is probably more important than doing a certain number of them.
I found that not to be true for performing heavy resistance exercises where bar speed might in fact drop, which however says nothing about if the repetition or set can be completed or not. Strength exercises are for strength, power exercises are for power. That's my idea of it.

lol.. tore that paper apart. hadn't read it myself prior to reading your summary, good stuff.

LanceSTS

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2255
  • Respect: +550
    • View Profile
    • http://www.youtube.com/user/LanceSTS
    • Email
Re: Autoregulatory Training vs Linear Periodization
« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2010, 01:02:23 pm »
0
lol yea and thanks for posting it Steven. 
Relax.

AlexV

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Respect: +19
    • View Profile
    • Evolutionary Athletics
    • Email
Re: Autoregulatory Training vs Linear Periodization
« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2010, 03:24:34 pm »
0
I actually like CT's autoregulation better than the old inno model.  Basically it is about listening to your body.  When you hit a set that you have to grind out you either:
Stop the exercise
do another set or 2 at that weight
drop 10% and keep doing sets until you start to grind the lighter weight.  No you dont need a calcualtor.  Squatting 435, take 40 or 50lbs off the bar, not 43.5lbs.  Just round to the nearest/easiest weight to remove

Pick which route you go based on goals and how you feel that day.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2010, 03:26:21 pm by AlexV »
Check out the new look and updates

http://evolutionaryathletics.com

steven-miller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 879
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Re: Autoregulatory Training vs Linear Periodization
« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2010, 05:53:42 pm »
0
I actually like CT's autoregulation better than the old inno model.  Basically it is about listening to your body.  When you hit a set that you have to grind out you either:
Stop the exercise
do another set or 2 at that weight
drop 10% and keep doing sets until you start to grind the lighter weight.  No you dont need a calcualtor.  Squatting 435, take 40 or 50lbs off the bar, not 43.5lbs.  Just round to the nearest/easiest weight to remove

Pick which route you go based on goals and how you feel that day.

What is CT?

I don't think I would like AREG for beginners, which evidently the majority of trainees consist of - maybe not your clients though. The reason being that there is no need for it if basic training variables are taken good care of and there is always the danger of people picking the easier route, which is not always the best in the long-term. If the last squat for that day is a grinder, so be it. If your program is decent enough you will have the means to recover until the time you will need to PR next time.

Joe

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2356
  • Goobernatorial
  • Respect: +1091
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Autoregulatory Training vs Linear Periodization
« Reply #11 on: September 10, 2010, 06:00:51 pm »
0
I actually like CT's autoregulation better than the old inno model.  Basically it is about listening to your body.  When you hit a set that you have to grind out you either:
Stop the exercise
do another set or 2 at that weight
drop 10% and keep doing sets until you start to grind the lighter weight.  No you dont need a calcualtor.  Squatting 435, take 40 or 50lbs off the bar, not 43.5lbs.  Just round to the nearest/easiest weight to remove

Pick which route you go based on goals and how you feel that day.

What is CT?

Christian Thibaudeau
"i threaten to kill myself whenever my parnets tell me to get a job" - bjpenn

steven-miller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 879
  • Respect: +63
    • View Profile
Re: Autoregulatory Training vs Linear Periodization
« Reply #12 on: September 10, 2010, 06:14:13 pm »
0
I actually like CT's autoregulation better than the old inno model.  Basically it is about listening to your body.  When you hit a set that you have to grind out you either:
Stop the exercise
do another set or 2 at that weight
drop 10% and keep doing sets until you start to grind the lighter weight.  No you dont need a calcualtor.  Squatting 435, take 40 or 50lbs off the bar, not 43.5lbs.  Just round to the nearest/easiest weight to remove

Pick which route you go based on goals and how you feel that day.

What is CT?

Christian Thibaudeau

Thanks Joe!