For example, 3 week ramp up, 3 weeks of strength training (say a 5×5), then 3-4 hypertrophy cycles, repeat

Would that coincide with your recommendation?

Thanks.

Thanks, and very useful article.

This is of course at complete odds with sound training, which is based on creating the appropriate stimulus for physiological adaptation over time, not for obsessive emotional pre-occupations. The concept I like best to describe the differences is that the emotion based group are focussed on the external load of training (e.g. distance run, weight lifted, how long they spent in the gym, how many fitness classes they did) vs internal load, the load on the system, i.e. the stimulus the training represents with regards to the desired adaptation.

Those who look at training in terms of internal load inevitably characterise training in the context of both the desired adaptation and its relation to their goals, as well the place of the training session in the microcycle and macrocycle. They don’t tend to fret if things don’t happen perfectly, as they monitor training and adjust appropriately.

Those that look at training in terms of external load characterise training often by feelings of pride if they feel they have gone particularly hard (i.e. tired themselves out, usually so as to exceed the optimum level for stimulus) or are driven by feelings of guilt with regards to “working out” and often go through the motions just to feel better about themselves or better than their friends, since many seem to think going to the gym/exercising makes you a virtuous person. Either way they have little perspective or idea what stimulus their training represents or for that matter how it is helping them towards their goals (if they have any specific goals), and will hammer away mindlessly because they equate random and directionless work with results.

I think those without coaches/trainers and training partners, as well as those without the requisite knowledge (though most think they know what they are doing, which only exacerbates frustation and thus emotion driven training) are often prone to the latter as they lack perspective on their program. Some might say the distinction between the two is that one group “trains” while the other “works out”, however the problem arises that even poor training methods will get results for inexperienced trainees, which leads to confusion and disillusionment when initial successes subside and the trainee has no real basis or direction for progression.