Implicit vs Explicit Loading Strategies

Integrated vs non-integrated loading strategies, comparing static vs non-static microcycles

We’ve been accused of being lazy coaches. In my gym I always hear about coaches struggling to reset training sheets every week, about lifters waiting on Friday/Sunday nights to see what their training week will look like next, and honestly I can never relate to either of them. 

For one, the training blocks we design and deploy here at Odyssey Strength are rarely a surprise to our athletes. We pride ourselves on a collaborative, iterative process taking advantage of data and insights our lifters build up over the course of their training careers. The main reason I can never relate to other athletes and coaches in this manner however, is the same exact reason we’ve been accused of being lazy, cookie cutter, Ctrl+C/ Ctrl+V, coaches. For us, every week of training in a block is usually the exact same.

This might sound very strange, and incredibly lazy, but let me explain.

First of all, the time frame actually isn’t important. What we aim to do is tailor an effective training microcycle for our athletes. This is generally one week long, but the term “microcycle” only refers to the shortest repeating unit of training. We’ve used microcycles that are 2 or 3 days, and some that are 2 or 3 weeks. What we aim to achieve by using a static microcycle over the course of several exposures, is to see whether the magnitude and nature of the stress placed on the athlete with this microcycle is an effective way to improve their performance. This sounds a little vague, so let me dive deeper.

Most of you will be familiar with the conceptual stimulus, recovery, adaptation (SRA) curve. This posits that upon exposure to a stressor at an appropriate magnitude (significant enough to disrupt homeostasis, the range of stressors in which your body considers normal day to day life), your body will recover from that exposure, and improve some aspect of your physical fitness to adapt to the imposed stimulus. Of course it’s worth noting that according to the SAID principle (specific adaptations to imposed demands), the nature of your adaptation will depend on the nature of the stressor. With this in mind, what we are trying to achieve by keeping the stress (training microcycle) the same each week, is to build a map of athlete response, to measure whether or not the microcycle we have designed exposes the athlete to the goldilocks zone (sweet spot) of stress so they can progressively load the microcycle over the course of their training block. It’s important to note that the idea of exposing an athlete to a “stressor” is pretty simplified, maybe even reductive. As I alluded to earlier, there’s a myriad of known and unknown stressors, biopsychosocial adaptive and recovery processes ongoing all the time. Unfortunately training is rarely a simple calculation, but we do what we can with what we know and control, so a margin of error and a degree of noise is to be expected at all times.

Inherent to the static microcycle is the use of autoregulation (RPE). While using autoregulation as a medium for stress exposure, we can see whether an athlete has improved their fitness adaptation/ skill of choice for the block. Imagine you have a training block of singles at an RPE of 8. On week 1 you hit 200kg on the squat (nice), on weeks 2,3, and 4 you hit 200, 202.5, 205, and 207.5kg respectively. Since the stress (microcycle) is identical, and your self-reported single at rpe 8 has increased, this can be seen as evidence of adaptation. Patterns of adaptation can be a little bit tricky. If you’re lucky you might be able to increase the weight at the same rpe every time you repeat the microcycle, for most others it is less clear cut. It is not uncommon to have a few repetitions where the weight on the bar has not increased, or may have even regressed. What matters is that the weight on the bar for the same training cycle at some point in a reasonable timeframe increases to a meaningful degree. Believe it or not, if the stress imposed by the microcycle is appropriate and the microcyle is otherwise productive, the number of repetitions (weeks of training for example) you will have to expose yourself/ an athlete to this stress can be quite consistent. I tend to repeat a microcycle for 6/7 weeks depending on proximity to a meet, and physical and mental fatigue management. This concept should sound quite familiar, it’s known as your time to peak (TTP). With a record of blocks, we can accurately infer the ideal time your block length should be, and start to build effective training microcycles into well timed blocks for an optimal rate of progression and fatigue management. Using a static microcycle where the stress remains the same is what I like to call a non-integrated, or implicit loading strategy. The degree to which progressive loading occurs is down to the compatibility between the athlete and the microcycle at that point in time. The same block may be more or less effective for the same athlete at different points in their training career. Life stressors change, adaptations build over time and the sequence of blocks can have a large impact on the efficacy of a block.

Compare this approach with a training style built around non-static microcycles. On week 1 you’re prescribed a single at an rpe of 6, and on weeks 2,3 and 4, a single at an rpe of 7, 8, and 9 respectively. You’ll very likely increase the weight on the bar each week, but is this a sign of progress? No. You just added more weight to the bar. This might seem a bit confusing at first, it’s definitely one of the things our athletes struggle to wrap their head around at the start of their training career. Moving increasing weights at increasing RPE levels doesn’t tell us a whole lot about your progress, although you could be progressing. This style of approach in a training block where the weight on the bar will increase no matter what is what I like to call an integrated, or explicit loading strategy. Regardless of how the block is going, you will progressively load more and more weight. There is merit to this approach, as increasing the intensity (the weight on the bar) is the main way in which we can get stronger. The issue with this approach in my mind however, is the lack of meaningful data you can pull from this training block. Sure it may have gone well, but you’re left with several question marks over stress management and the repeatability of non-static microcycles as fatigue and life difficulties inevitably set in. One advantage of an integrated loading strategy however is that they can be more enjoyable from a lifter’s point of view. Running a static microcycle can be a mentally fatiguing for some people, especially if you find yourself repeating the same weights frequently. Prescribed loading strategies may give a lifter more confidence with heavier weights (although it’s often false confidence in my opinion), and it may remove some decision fatigue. It may give more apprehensive athletes a push to expose themselves to more specific stimuli requiring significantly more neural drive, an essential skill for a competitive powerlifter.

So what?

Expanding your training toolkit to encompass different styles of loading in your training blocks can be incredibly valuable. Off the bat, changing the nature through which you expose you or your athletes to a stressor presents a novel stimulus, to push through points of plateau or mental fatigue.

The vast majority of my athletes run implicit, non-integrated loading based training blocks, where the objective load is self-selected, and autoregulation drives loading throughout the block. As I alluded to, this can become taxing mentally, and trialling a more explicit loading strategy can remove much of the decision fatigue associated with training, especially during times of high stress.

Similarly, athletes whose programming is dominated by explicit, integrated loading strategies may benefit from periods of time where the onus is on them to choose an appropriate load within the constraints of the programme. I’ve found this approach to be incredibly beneficial, increasing an athlete’s awareness of their own exertion and fatigue management, whilst also providing an opportunity for a collaborative approach between coach and athlete, programme and lifter, to foster buy-in and self-actualisation. 

Which choice is more appropriate? That will depend not only on the lifter, but the specific conditions at any point in time in their training career. Sometimes it’s one, sometimes the other, and sometimes a mixture of both. An overarching theme to consider is that there are no strict rules, and you can (and should) be as creative as possible in crafting the best vehicle for the delivery of a stressor to elicit the adaptation you desire.

Where to start?

If you want to work with some of the most experienced powerlifting coaches in the country, on a timeline and budget that works for you, to design and implement training blocks tailored for your growth, click the link below:

Memberships — Odyssey Strength