[Madcow2]

Since we are talking about linear progress I figured I'd repost my example of showing how absolutely rediculous even adding a single rep per week can be. Personally, I think I have it all over Siff with my example although his is admittedly a lot more consise. But this is an important point so it's really key to hammer it home and show how rediculous it is.

All we are doing is starting at a set of 8 reps at 100lbs to failure (i.e. 8RM), We add 1 rep per week until we hit 12 reps, i.e. 12RM, the following week reset at the new calculated 8RM and build 1 rep at a time to 12 again. Real simple and very standard. 40 weeks you go from 100x8 to 376x12. Or a 124 single rep max to a 542 single rep max.

Ref: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...near+resetting

Originally Posted by Madcow2

I think if you break out some calculations and assumptions - then be conservative and slash them downward drastically for fun - you'll find that 7 years of steady linear progress compounded arrives at an unfathomable number.

Here are some fun calcs assuming you train 8-12 reps and add just a single rep per week. So you start at your 8RM of 100lbs in the bench (calc'd 1RM = 124) and add a single rep of capacity each week to 12 reps and then move back to 8 after increasing the training weight. After the 12th rep, I assume you gain another rep meaning you could do 13 reps the next week because you gained a rep after the week of 12 reps and calculate a new 8RM from there.

I think this is pretty typical of what a lot of guys advocate for HIT and insist works for years and years at a time with no need to expand volume whatsoever or alter training. In addition to advocating it, plenty of people claim to have done over periods from 7 years in your case to if I remember right it was GAfromAZ who has 20 years in or something like that.

What we have let's say is a 124lbs 1RM bencher gaining a paltry 1 rep per week and increasing the training weight every 5 weeks after he gets his 12th rep and resets at his new 8RM. He's doubling his 1RM in 20 weeks and by week 40 he's handling 540lbs in the raw bench and training with 376lbs where he can get 12 reps. Numbers and equations below.

Anyway, this is quite a fricking run for 40 weeks. Personally, you can cut it in 1/2 and it's still just stunning for 1.5 years of progress - hell it's impressive for 4 years or even a lifetime. We just increased this guy's max by 437% just by adding a single rep per week.

I don't think I really need to spell out my point but if there is a period of 7 years and linear weekly progress which is 9.1x the 40 week period below that produced the unfathomable numbers, even at adding a fraction of a rep per week (much less than what most people claim to achieve over these long periods), the numbers someone would be handling in the core lifts would have placed the collective strength world on it's knees. This is the nature of compounding which is made such a big deal of in the investment industry 'power of compounding returns'.

So something's wrong here - because obviously this doesn't happen and has never happened. I think the oft quoted HIT timeline for reaching genetic potential in the 1970s was 3 years right? Something doesn't add up there either even if you bias everything down and make it a lot less than 1 rep per week. Even if the numbers below are wrong (by the way none of the popular equations will produce substantially different results) or off in some way even slashing the time estimates to compensate still leaves a rediculous number. Welcome to the power of compounding, I just saved your financial advisor a lot of time.

So anyone who claims to have been making linear progress for year after year and consistently increasing their reps or training weights week to week (or even in 50% of weeks i.e. adding 1/2 rep per week on average) - I don't know what they are improving at but it certainly isn't any exercise I do. I'd gather that if they are being honest they had the impression this was happening from rotating exercises around a lot but not increasing fundemental strength to anywhere near what they thought and likely spending the majority of time not seeing true fundemental increases but just swapping training around with nothing real to show for it besides the illusion of progress (see my comments above about using the core lifts as a benchmark).

Once again, not saying HIT can't work for people or at some point might not be optimal for a given person. What I'm saying is that there is a ton of BS that is often spouted and maybe these numbers make it a little more clear. By all means though, if you can keep adding reps and weight - ride that damn train and increase your capacity that way as long as you can because I think it's obvious that at some point it isn't going to happen anymore or we'd have a tremendous number of elite lifters getting there in a year or so and having to do very little work.

Week 1RM Reps Training Weight
1 124 8 100
2 129 9 100
3 133 10 100
4 139 11 100
5 144 12 100
6 150 8 121
7 156 9 121
8 161 10 121
9 168 11 121
10 174 12 121
11 181 8 146
12 188 9 146
13 195 10 146
14 202 11 146
15 210 12 146
16 219 8 176
17 226 9 176
18 235 10 176
19 244 11 176
20 254 12 176
21 264 8 213
22 274 9 213
23 284 10 213
24 295 11 213
25 307 12 213
26 319 8 257
27 331 9 257
28 343 10 257
29 356 11 257
30 370 12 257
31 386 8 311
32 400 9 311
33 415 10 311
34 431 11 311
35 448 12 311
36 467 8 376
37 484 9 376
38 501 10 376
39 521 11 376
40 542 12 376

Base equation is pretty standard:
1RM = (Weight Lifted) / (1.0278 - (0.0278*Reps Performed))
XRM = 1RM * (1.0278 - (0.0278*X))