Strength Training Manual The Agile Periodization Approach Volume One & Two: Theory Mladen Jovanović

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL
The Agile Periodization Approach

Volume One & Two: Theory
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
Strength Training Manual
The Agile Periodization Approach

Volume One and Two: Theory
Mladen Jovanović
Belgrade, Serbia
2020
For information: www.complementarytraining.net

Jovanović, M.
Strength Training Manual. The Agile Periodization Approach.
Volume One & Two: Theory
ISBN: 9798604459898
Copyright © 2020 Mladen Jovanović
Cover design by Ricardo Marino
Cover image used under license from Shutterstock.com
Paperback design by Goran Smiljanić
All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in
any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the author except
for the use of brief quotations in a book review.
Printed in the United States of America
First Paperback Edition
For information: www.complementarytraining.net

To my son Nikša
List of abbreviations used in the text
Abbreviation Meaning
1/N Naive diversification heuristic involving equal distribution across
options
1RM One Repetition Maximum, or the maximal weight that can be lifted
once with defined technique
3F 3F Model: Fitness, Fatigue and Facilitation
A+A Alactic Aerobic
AGT Anti-Glycolytic Training
aI Average Intensity
AMRAP As Many Reps As Possible. Could be in a set to failure, or
predetermined time
ANCOVA Analysis of covariance
ANOVA Analysis of variance
APRE Autoregulated Progressive Resistance Exercise
aRI Average Relative Intensity
BB Barbell
BP Bench Press
BS Back Squat
BW Bodyweight
CE Contractal Element
CE Competitive Exercise
CG Central Governor
CK Creatine Kinase
CLA Constraints-Led Approach
CM Competition Maximum
CNS Central Nervous System
COM Center of Mass
CSA Cross Sectional Area
CV Coefficient of Variation
CXL Central Exertion Load
DAGs Directed Acyclical Graphs
DAPRE Daily Autoregulated Progressive Resistance Exercise
DB Dumbbell
DE Dynamic Effort
DED Diminishing Effect Dose
DGP Data Generating Process
DL Deadlift
DUP Daily Undulating Progression/Periodization
DUPe Daily Undulating Periodization
DUPr Daily Undulating Progression
ECC Eccentric
EDM Every Day Maximum
EDT Escalatory Density Training
EMG Electromyography
EMOM Every Minute On the Minute
est1RM Estimated 1RM
FP Fatigue Percentage
GPE General Preparatory Exercise
GUT Grand Unified Theory
GVT German Volume Training
HR Heart Rate
HRmax Maximal Heart Rate
HRV Heart Rate Variability
ICE Individual Conditional Expectation
IMTP Isometric Mid-Thigh Pull
INOL Intensity Of Lift
ISO Isometric
IYI Intellectual Yet Idiot
KB Kettlebell
KNN K-Nearest Neighbors
LB Lower Body
LPT Linear Position Transducer
LV Load-Velocity
MAS Maximum Aerobic Speed
MCAR Missing Completely At Random
ME Maximum Effort
MED Minimum Effective Dose
MF Momentary Failure
MNAR Missing Not At Random
MP Military Press
MRD Minimum Retention Dose
MSE Mean Square Error
MTD Maximum Tolerated/Tolerable Dose
MV Mean Velocity
MVC Maximum Voluntary Contraction
MVP Minimum Viable Program/Performance
MVPe Minimum Viable Performance
MVPr Minimum Viable Program
NL Number of Lifts
nRM Maximal weight that can be lifted for N reps with defined technique
OKR Objectives and Key Results
PAP Post Activation Potentiation
PB Personal Best
PDCA Plan-Do-Check-Adjust
PDP Partial Dependence Plots
Perc Drop Percentage Drop - progression model
PP Peak Power
PR Personal Record
pred1RM Predicted 1RM
prox1RM Proximity of 1RM
PV Peak Velocity
pVO2max Power associated with VO2max
PXL Peripheral Exertion Load
rCXL Relative Central Exertion Load
RDL Romanian Deadlift
RE Repetition Effort
RI Relative Intensity
RIR Reps In Reserve
RIR Inc RIR Increment - progression model
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
RPE Rate of Perceived Effort/Exertion/Exhaustion
rPXL Relative Peripheral Exertion Load
S&C Strength and Conditioning
SD Standard Deviation
SDE Specific Development Exercise
SE Serial Element
SJ Squat Jump
SJW Social Justice Warrior
SL Single Leg
SPE Special Preparatory Exercise
TB Total Body
TCQ Time Complexity Quadrants
T&F Track and Field (athletics)
TM Training Maximum
TOV Take Off Velocity
TT Time Trial
UB Upper Body
VBT Velocity Based Training
VO2max Maximum Oxygen Consuption
vVO2max Velocity associated with VO2max
WOD Workout Of the Day
XL Exertion Load
Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.1 Precision versus Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
1.2 Generalizations, Priors, and Bayesian updating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.3 Large and Small Worlds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
1.4 Different prediction errors and accompanying costs . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.5 Classification, Categorization and Fuzzy borders . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
1.6 Place of Things vs. Forum for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
1.7 Qualities, Ontology, Phenomenology, Complexity, Causality . . . . . . . .27
1.8 Philosophical stance(s) and influential persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
1.9 What is covered in Volume One and Two? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
2 Agile Periodization and Philosophy of Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
2.1 Iterative Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2 Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.3 Phases of the strength training planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.4 Qualities, Methods, and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
2.5 Dan John’s Four Training Quadrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
2.6 Goals Setting and Decision Making (in Complexity and Uncertainty) . . 44
2.6.1 OKRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.7 MVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.8 Is/Ought Gap and Hero’s Journey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
2.9 Evidence-based mumbo jumbo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
2.10 Certainty, Risk, and Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
2.11 Optimal versus Robust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
2.12 Positive and Negative knowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
2.13 Barbell Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.14 Randomization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
2.15 Latent vs. Observable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.16 Inter-Individual vs. Intra-Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.17 Substance~Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.18 Other complementary pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.18.1 Explore~Exploit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
2.18.2 Growing~Pruning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
2.18.3 Develop~Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
2.18.4 Maintain~Disrupt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
2.18.5 Structure~Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
2.18.6 Weaknesses~Strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
2.19 Grand Unified Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
2.20 Shu-Ha-Ri and Bruce Lee’s punch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
2.21 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87
3 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
3.1 General~Specific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.2 Grinding~Ballistic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
3.2.1 Grinding movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
3.2.2 Ballistic movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.2.3 Control movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.3 Simple~Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.4 Fundamental movement patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
3.4.1 Grinding movement patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.4.2 Ballistic movement patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
3.4.3 Combining movement patterns with the
Time-Complexity quadrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
3.5 Exercise Priority/Emphasis/Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
3.6 Session Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
3.7 Use of the Slots and Combinatorics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
3.8 The use of Functional Units in Team Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
3.9 1RM relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3.9.1 Upper Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
3.9.2 Lower Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
3.9.3 Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.10 What should you do next? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4 Prescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.1 Three components of Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.1.1 Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.1.2 Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.1.3 Exertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.2 Load-Max Reps Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4.3 Load-Exertion Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4.4 Not all training maximums are created equal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
4.4.1 Competition Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
4.4.2 Training Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
4.4.3 Every-Day Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
4.5 Purpose of 1RM or EDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
4.6 How to estimate 1RM or EDM? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
4.6.1 True 1RM test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
4.6.2 Reps to (technical) failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
4.6.3 Velocity based estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
4.6.4. Estimation through iteration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
4.7 Total System Load vs. External Load? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
4.8 Comparing individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
4.8.1 Simple ratio (relative strength) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
4.8.2 Allometric scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
4.9 Approaches for prescribing training loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
4.9.1 Prescribing using open sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.9.2 Prescribing using %1RM approach (percent-based approach) . . 170
4.9.3 Prescribing using subjective indicators of exertion levels
(RPE, RIR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
4.9.4 Prescribing using Velocity Based Training (VBT) . . . . . . . . 172
4.9.5 Other prescription methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
4.9.6 Modifications of the percent-based approach . . . . . . . . . 174
4.9.6.1 Rep Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
4.9.6.2 Load Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
4.9.6.3 Subjective Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
4.9.6.4 Velocity Based Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
4.9.6.5 Time and Reps Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
4.10 Prediction and monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
4.11 Ballistic Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
4.11.1 What is 1RM with ballistic movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
4.11.1.1 Total System Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
4.11.2 Peak Power Bullshit, or Peak Bullshit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
4.11.3 What is failure with ballistic movements (and how many
reps you should do) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
5 Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
5.1 Training dose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
5.1.1 Intensity, Volume and Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
5.1.2 Within quality saturation~distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
5.1.3 “Saturate and Separate” heuristic and “complex/parallel~
unidirectional” continuum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
5.1.4 Phase Potentiation is bullshit - but sequencing might not be . . 216
5.1.5 Improve~Extend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
5.1.6 Extensive~Intensive and the birth of linear
periodization/progression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
5.1.7 The “Other” category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
5.1.8 External vs. Internal and subjective ratings of dose . . . . . . . 228
5.1.8.1 External-Objective Dose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
5.1.8.2 Internal-Objective Dose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
5.1.8.3 External-Subjective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
5.1.8.4 Internal-Subjective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
5.1.8.4.1 Rating of Perceived Motor Output . . . . . . . . 230
5.1.8.4.2 Rating of Perceived Effort. . . . . . . . . . . . 231
5.1.8.4.3 Rating of Perceived Exertion . . . . . . . . . . 231
5.1.8.4.4 Rating of Perceived Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . 233
5.1.8.4.5 Rating of Perceived Discomfort . . . . . . . . . 234
5.1.8.4.6 Rating of Perceived Pleasure/Displeasure . . . 234
5.1.8.4.7 Six buckets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
5.1.9 Three sources of fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
5.1.10 Training dose summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
5.2 Dose -> Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
5.2.1 Simple pharmacological model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
5.2.2 Dose zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
5.2.2.1 Restoration zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
5.2.2.2 Retention zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
5.2.2.3 Development zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
5.2.3 Upside and Downside effects (responses) . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
5.2.4 3F Model: Fitness, Fatigue and Facilitation . . . . . . . . . . . 244
5.2.5 Circular model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
5.2.6 Current State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
5.2.6.1 External-Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
5.2.6.2 External-Subjective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
5.2.6.3 Internal-Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
5.2.6.4 Internal-Subjective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
5.3 Hero’s Journey and Push and Pull concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
5.3.1 Push and Pull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
5.4 Three purposes of monitoring training dose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
5.4.1 Avoiding the big spikes and valleys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
5.4.2 Work Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
5.4.3 Qualities improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
5.5 Decision matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
5.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
6 Planning (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
6.1 Set and Rep Schemes: The Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
6.1.1 Anatomy of a set and rep scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
6.1.1.1 Pre-work sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
6.1.1.2 Main or Working sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
6.1.1.3 After sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
6.1.1.3.1 Plus sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
6.1.1.3.2 Joker Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
6.1.1.3.3 Back-Off sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
6.1.1.3.4 Myo-Reps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
6.1.1.3.5 Dynamic-effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
6.1.1.3.6 Isometrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
6.1.1.3.7 Variations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
6.1.1.3.8 Kitchen Sink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
6.2 Organization of exercises in the workout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
6.2.1 Blocked approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
6.2.2 Super-sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
6.2.2.1 Main~Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
6.2.2.2 Upper~Lower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
6.2.2.3 Simple~Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
6.2.2.4 Pre-Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
6.2.2.5 Post-Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
6.2.2.6 Compound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
6.2.2.7 Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
6.2.2.8 Giant-Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
6.2.2.9 Antagonist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
6.2.2.10 Contrast (or Grinding~Ballistic) . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
6.2.2.11 Circuits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
6.2.2.12 Complexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
6.2.2.13 Combos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
6.2.2.14 Combined Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
6.2.3 Hub and Spoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
6.2.4 Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
6.3 Classification of Set and Rep schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
6.3.1 Classification based . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
on Objectives or Qualities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
on Prescriptiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
6.3.3 Classification based on Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
on Toughness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
on Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
6.4 Decoupling Progressive Overload from Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . 296
6.5 Progression vs. Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
6.6 Vertical and Horizontal planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
6.6.1 Horizontal planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
6.6.2 Vertical Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
6.6.2.1 Perc Drop approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
6.6.2.2 RIR Inc approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
6.6.2.3 Difference between Perc Drop and RIR Inc methods . . . 315
6.6.2.4 Adjusting for Lower Body lifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
6.6.2.5 Adjusting using individualized Load-Exertion table . . 320
6.6.2.6 Vertical planning methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
6.6.2.6.1 Constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
6.6.2.6.2 Linear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
6.6.2.6.3 Reverse Linear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
6.6.2.6.4 Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
6.6.2.6.5 Block Variant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
6.6.2.6.6 Rep Accumulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
6.6.2.6.7 Set Accumulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
6.6.2.6.8 Undulating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
6.6.2.6.9 Reverse Undulating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
6.6.2.6.10 Volume-Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
6.6.2.6.11 Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
6.7 Mladen’s Methodological System of classifying Set and Rep schemes . . 328
6.7.1 Plateau method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
6.7.2 Step method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
6.7.3 Reverse Step method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
6.7.4 Ascending Wave method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
6.7.5 Descending Wave method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
6.7.6 Ascending Ladder method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
6.7.7 Descending Ladder method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
6.7.8 Traditional Pyramid method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
6.7.9 Reverse Pyramid method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
6.7.10 Light-Heavy method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
6.7.11 Cluster method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
6.7.12 Rest-Pause method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
6.7.13 Cluster Wave method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
6.7.14 Summary of the set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
and rep schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
6.8 Horizontal and Vertical planning cycles (Sprints and Phases) . . . . . . 364
6.9 Divisible and Indivisible Combinatorics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
6.10 Applying horizontal and vertical planning to a training slot . . . . . . 370
6.11 Robust vs. Optimal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378
6.12 Barbell Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
6.12.1 Microdosing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384
6.13 Don’t Break the Chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
6.13.1 Barbell Chain and Randomization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
6.14 Markov Chain and Probabilistic Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
6.14.1 Advanced uses of Markov Chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
6.14.1.1 Multi-level Markov Chain and
dynamic transition matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
6.15 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
7 Review and Retrospective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
7.1 Bias-Variance Decomposition and Tradeoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
7.1.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
7.2 Dose - Response models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
7.2.1 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
7.3 Review and Retrospective in different time frames . . . . . . . . . . . 429
7.3.1 Review and Retrospective at the Repetition Level . . . . . . . . 432
7.3.2 Review and Retrospective at the Set Level . . . . . . . . . . . . 434
7.3.3 Interlude: On Individualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435
7.3.4 Back to the Set Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
7.3.4.1 Fatigue Percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
7.3.4.2 Daily Auto-Regulatory Progressive Resistance Exercise . 449
7.3.5 Review and Retrospective at the Exercise Level . . . . . . . . . 455
7.3.6 Review and Retrospective at the Session/Day Level . . . . . . . 456
7.3.6.1 Dan Pfaff’s 3-Day Rollover program . . . . . . . . . . 462
7.3.7 Review and Retrospective at the Sprint Level . . . . . . . . . . 464
7.3.8 Review and Retrospective at the Phase Level . . . . . . . . . . 465
7.3.8.1 Phase to Phase Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
7.3.8.2 Updating the planning 1RM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
7.3.8.2.1 Retesting 1RM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468
7.3.8.2.2 Plus sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
7.3.8.2.3 Adjusting 1RM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470
7.3.8.2.4 Adjusting percentages in the next phase . . . . 472
7.3.8.2.5 Doing nothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473
7.3.8.2.6 Decreasing 1RM for 10-20% . . . . . . . . . . 473
7.3.8.2.7 Decoupling assistance exercise 1RM from the main
movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474
7.3.8.3 Change in Phase Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
7.3.9 Review and Retrospective at the Release Level . . . . . . . . . 481
7.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483
About. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .496
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
1 Introduction
As a strength and conditioning coach, I have always collected and referenced nu-
merous tables, heuristics and guidelines (such as various rep max tables, the Prilepin
table, exercise max ratios, to name a few) that helped me create strength training pro-
grams. Unfortunately, these were usually spread all over the place: various books and
papers, countless Excel sheets and PowerPoint presentations. Every time I wanted to
quickly find something to reference and possibly compare, it was a major pain in the
arse to find it. Therefore, I have decided to put them all together in one place, where I
can easily find and use them, possibly have it at arm’s reach in the gym.
Thus, I have decided to create this manual. But as soon I started writing it, I no-
ticed it will become bigger than I expected1. I also started learning as I wrote, and I went
to explore some “side-roads” without knowing where it will take me. I discovered as
I wrote, and I also learnt new things and new perspectives. This made me realize that
writing is not a simple dump of information on the paper, but an act of exploration and
discovery. Maybe that’s the reason I like writing. I also decided to publish this manual
in three volumes.
E-book version of the Strength Training Manual comes in three volumes: Volume
One, Volume Two, and Volume Three. Paperback edition of the Strength Training Man-
ual (the one that you are currently reading) comes in two volumes: Volume One & Two,
and Volume Three. This is done to avoid confusion and discrepancies between paper-
back and E-book versions of the manual
Volume One and Two of this manual is in-depth look into strength training plan-
ning and general training theory, as well as introduction to the Agile Periodization
framework. I believe that I haven’t left any stone unturned in the Volume One and Two.
But to do that I had to go full circle: I had to go deep into nitty gritty details, show issues,
assumption, flawed reasoning, and finally present simple solutions or even different
paradigms.
1 That’s what she said! No seriously, I had to break the ice with a shitty joke
19
STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL Volume One and Two
Volume Three is straighter to the point and represents a collection of all the use-
ful tables and heuristics from Volume One and Two that you can use as a starting point
when designing your strength training programs. Volume Three is my original writ-
ing intention, but as I already said, when I started writing I realized that some things
needed more thorough description and explanation (and besides, I went off-the-track
to explore some concepts that emerged during the writing process), rather than do-
this-and-not-this perspective. In short, Volume One and Two are more theory inclined,
while Volume Three is more practically inclined.
Before diving into the material, it is important to quickly go through some of the
rationale and warnings. It is a bit philosophical, but, please, bear with me for the next
few pages.
1.1 Precision versus Significance

“As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose
precision” - Lofti Zadeh
All of the material in this manual is WRONG. It is not precise. It will vary, some-
times a lot, between exercises, individuals, and genders (all 457 of them). This should
be expected, since day-to-day motivation and readiness to train, improvement rates,
testing errors, among others, are not constant and predictable, but rather represent
sources of uncertainty, often experienced when working with athletes or dealing with
any kind of performance enhancement. It is, therefore, up to you to update it with the
information you possess and acquire through the training iterations. Figure 1.1 perfectly
depicts the difference between the precision and the significance, as well as the aim of
this manual.
Figure 1.1 Difference between precision and significance.

Image modified based on the image in ‘’Fuzzy Logic Toolbox™’’ User’s Guide (MathWorks, 2019)
20
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
1.2 Generalizations, Priors,

and Bayesian updating
Not sure if there is anything else that pisses me off more than hearing someone
say: “You cannot generalize!”. Yeah, right, I will approach every phenomenon in the
Universe as unique and genuine. I am not sure we have the brain power for that - that’s
why we try to reduce the amount of information by generalizing. There is no science
without generalization. That’s why we have generalizations, laws, archetypes, stereo-
types.
Nevertheless, smart people are not slaves to generalizations - they start with
generalizations, but quickly update them with new information to improve their in-
sights. For example, one can say that females are generally weaker than males (yeah,
sexist generalization), which means two things: (1) average female is weaker than the
average male, and (2) randomly selected female will very likely be weaker than ran-
domly selected male in the population. Of course, we also need to take into account how
much weaker, but without making this a statistic treatise about magnitudes of effects,
one cannot claim that all females are weaker than all males.
Here is an example. Let’s say I start working with a new female client that I
have no information about. My best guess (i.e. prior belief), without seeing her, would
be that she is weaker than the average male. This generalization will affect how I will
approach her planning. But as soon as she started lifting, I noticed she is strong as
hell and has world-class powerlifting potential. I would be stupid not to update my
prior belief about her, since she is stronger than 95% of males. This doesn’t negate the
need for generalizations or that there are no general patterns that are true. But it does
imply that we shouldn’t stick to generalizations when the strong evidence hit us in the
head.
This means that we need to update our prior beliefs (e.g. generalizations or heu-
ristics) with our own observations in the process called Bayesian updating (Figure 1.2),
in order to gain insights which will improve our decision making.
This manual is full of generalizations. Therefore, you need to look at them as a

starting point, which you should update with your own observations, experience, ex-
perimentations, and intuition. Just don’t be a dumbfuck and blindly believe and adopt
everything that has been written. Again, use it as a starting point (prior).
21
Prior
Insight
Observa ons
Figure 1.2 Bayesian updating, simplified
1.3 Large and Small Worlds

The real world is very complex and uncertain. To help ourselves understand and
act, we create maps and models. These are simplifications of reality, or representations
of the real world. In the outstanding statistics book “Statistical Rethinking” (McElreath,
2015), author uses an analogy, originally coined by Leonard Savage (Savage, 1972; Bin-
more, 2011; Volz & Gigerenzer, 2012; Gigerenzer, Hertwig & Pachur, 2015a), that differ-
entiates between the Large World and the Small Worlds:
“The small world is the self-contained, logical world of the model. With-
in the small world, all possibilities are nominated. There are no pure surpris-
es, like the existence of a huge continent between Europe and Asia. Within the
small world of the model, it is important to be able to verify the model’s logic,
making sure that it performs as expected under favorable assumptions. Bayes-
ian models have some advantages in this regard, as they have reasonable claims
to optimality: No alternative model could make better use of the information in
the data and support better decisions, assuming the small world is an accurate
description of the real world.
The large world is the broader context in which one deploys a model. In
the large world, there may be events that were not imagined in the small world.
Moreover, the model is always an incomplete representation of the large world
and so will make mistakes, even if all kinds of events have been properly nomi-
22
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
nated. The logical consistency of a model in the small world is no guarantee that
it will be optimal in the large world. But it is certainly a warm comfort.” 2
Everything written in this manual represents Small Worlds - self-contained

models of assumptions about how things work or should work. Although they are all
wrong, some of them are useful3 (to quote George Box), especially as a starting point in
your orientation, experimentation, and deployment to the Large World. It is import-
ant to remember the distinction between these two. I embrace the integrative plural-
ism (Mitchell, 2002, 2012) in a way that there are multiple models (Page, 2018) that we
should use to explain, predict and plan intervention in the Large World. But please note
that I do not promote relativism, but rather pluralism of the models. Not every model is
of equal quality, usability and importance – there is hierarchy.
1.4 Different prediction errors

and accompanying costs
Since all models are wrong, but some are useful, we need to make sure they don’t
come with harmful errors and potential costs. We can make different types of errors, and
they come at different costs. Let’s take a simplistic model of predicting 1RM (one-repe-
tition maximum or maximal weight one can lift with a proper technique):
Real 1RM
150 kg 180 kg
150 kg
Type I Error
Predicted 1RM
(undershoo ng)
180 kg
Type II Error
(overshoo ng)
Figure 1.3 Different types of prediction error
Figure 1.3 represents a common scenario for predicting 1RM. The top row con-
tains two TRUE values (150kg and 180kg) and on the side, we have two predictions. Type
2 Excerpt taken from “Statistical Rethinking” (McElreath, 2015), page 19

3 “All models are wrong, but some are useful” is aphorism that is generally attributed to the statistician
George Box. Nassim Nicholas Taleb expanded this aphorism to “All models are wrong, many are useful,
some are deadly”
23
I error is undershooting (predicting 150kg when the real value is 180kg), and Type II er-
ror is overshooting (predicting 180kg when the real value is 150kg). Does making these
two errors come with different costs if the predicted 1RM is implemented into the train-
ing program? Hell yes!
It must be noted that undershooting a lot is still safer than overshooting a little.
This is because when you undershoot, you can still perform training sessions and easily
update, whereas if you overshoot, you will hit the wall quite quickly, and potentially
injure someone or create expectation stress and/or heavy soreness. Plus, in my own
experience, it is easier to ask for more from an athlete, than less. Furthermore, imagine
that your program calls for 3 sets of 5 reps with 100kg, and your athlete feels great and
performs 8 reps in the last set instead of the situation where your program calls for 3
sets of 5 reps with 110kg and the athlete struggles to finish it, or might even need to strip
the weights down. Performing better than written in the training program is always
motivating (first situation), whereas the opposite can be very discouraging (second sit-
uation).
The problem is that we cannot get rid of errors - we can balance them out by ac-
cepting higher Type I error, while minimizing Type II error, or vice versa. In this manu-
al, I have accepted the fact that when making errors (and I do make them), I want them
to be Type I errors, or undershooting errors, since they come up with much less cost
that can easily be fixed through a few training iterations. Because of that, you might
notice that some percentages in this manual are quite low. Therefore, I suggest you take
a similar philosophy when deciding about percentages and every other guideline in this
manual: lean on the side of conservatism and safety first.
1.5 Classification, Categorization

and Fuzzy borders
As it is the case with generalizations, classifications and categorizations (which I
consider synonyms here and use interchangeably) are aimed at reducing the number of
dimensions and numbers of particular phenomena at hand (with the aim of easier ori-
entation and action). This possibly means that the items in one bracket or class might
differ, while items from different brackets or classes might be similar. Besides, there
are multiple approaches for classifying phenomena which might have different depths
24
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
or levels of precision (see Figure 1.3). To paraphrase Jordan B. Peterson: “Categories are
constructed in relationship to their functional significance”, meaning that there are no
objective or unbiased approaches to categorization and classification, and they depend
on how we aim to use these categorizations. For example, powerlifter might classify
strength training means, methods, qualities, and objectives differently than Olympic
weightlifter or a soccer player. This is because they experience different phenomena
and demand a different forum for action.
Categorization is not an exercise in futility, but rather helps us make better de-
cisions (more educated and faster decisions via information reduction and simplifi-
cation). This simplification has some similarities with heuristics (fast and frugal rules
of thumb that help to avoid overfitting in a complex and uncertain world). Hence, the
categories should have functional significance. In other words, you want to use those cat-
egories somehow. Therefore, one should stop categorizing once there is no functional
significance.
"Thing in itself" Classi ca on 1 Classi ca on 2
Classi ca on 3 Classi ca on 4 Classi ca on 5
Figure 1.4 There is no bias-free, objective way to classify phenomena.

Classification depends on what you plan to use it for
That being said, categories should be in the lowest possible “compression” (low-
est resolution) that still conveys information that is pragmatic enough. Since there are
numerous ways to categorize certain items (see Kant’s thing in itself4), the way we ap-
proach categorization and what we see, depends on what we plan to use it for (see Fig-
4 From Wikipedia (“Thing-in-itself,” 2019): “The thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is a concept in-
troduced by Immanuel Kant. Things-in-themselves would be objects as they are, independent of observa-
tion”
25
ure 1.4). I might be wrong, but this reminds me of both phenomenology5 (things as they
manifest to us) and pragmatism6 (practical application), although they are radically op-
posed philosophical positions. It is beyond this manual (and my current knowledge) to
discuss these topics, but in my opinion, philosophy is very much alive, and it needs to
be taken into account, especially with the recent rise of scientism7 in sport science and
performance.
1.6 Place of Things vs. Forum for Action

Classification thus serves a dual purpose: place of things and forum for action. By
term place of things, I refer to simply classifying phenomena relative to some objective
criteria (this is usually physiological, anatomical or biomechanical criteria), or using
an analytical approach. On the other hand, the forum for action refers to a classification
based on how we intend to use these classes in planning, action, and intervention. In
this manual, I am leaning more toward forum for action approach in classifying phe-
nomena, mostly as a strength and conditioning coach of team sports athletes, rath-
er than powerlifting or a weightlifting coach. This doesn’t mean that powerlifting and
weightlifting coaches cannot use this manual (at the end of the day, we have common
physiology, anatomy, psychology, and experience shared phenomena in training), but
that they might classify things a bit differently because their forum for action differs
from the forum for action of the non-strength-sport athletes.
It is also important to mention that class membership is not a TRUE/FALSE state

(although it does simplify things a lot), but rather fuzzy (or continuous) membership.
For example, is split squat double leg or single leg movement? For simplicity purposes
(Small World model), it is easier to assume it belongs only to one class or category, but
in real life (Large World) we know it is not that easy to make a strict border between
classes (thus, it can be 60% double leg, and 40% single leg, or what have you). One use-
5 From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Smith, 2018): “Literally, phenomenology is the study of
“phenomena”: appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experi-
ence things, thus the meanings things have in our experience. Phenomenology studies conscious experi-
ence as experienced from the subjective or first-person point of view.”
6 From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Legg & Hookway, 2019)including: that all philosophical
concepts should be tested via scientific experimentation, that a claim is true if and only if it is
useful (relatedly: if a philosophical theory does not contribute directly tosocial progress then it is
not worth much: “Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that – very broadly – understands knowing the
world as inseparable from agency within it.”
7 Belief or stance that all things can be reduced to science (Boudry & Pigliucci, 2017)
26
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
ful approach, that helps me minimize how much I break my own balls over categoriza-
tion, is to ask “How do I plan using this classification and for whom?”. Also, remember
that you do not need to be very precise, but rather meaningful and significant in helping
yourself orienting from the forum for action perspective (see Figure 1.1).
1.7 Qualities, Ontology, Phenomenology,

Complexity, Causality
Most, if not all, coaching education material regarding planning and period-
ization comes with highly biased classification using objective physiological and bio-
mechanical approaches (place of things; analytical approach (Loland, 1992; Jovanović,
2018)). These fields have a monopoly on defining ontology8 (“What exists out there”) of
qualities and methods: maximal strength, explosive strength, VO2max, anaerobic ca-
pacity, you name it. Some individuals tend to wave around with this scientific method, as
something objective and unbiased, but they are just value signaling, because they are us-
ing a scientific approach, and you, the little dungeon dweller, are not. But unfortunately,
there is no objective or unbiased approach, and you, the dungeon dweller, might engage
phenomena classification as you experience it (phenomenology) and you should not be
embarrassed about your subjectivity. Yes, you should understand anatomy, physiology
and biomechanics, but they should not hold the monopoly over how you classify the
phenomena of importance to yourself. It is necessary, but not sufficient knowledge.
Since these fields define what is real (ontology), it is thus natural to follow up with
an approach that assumes these qualities are the building blocks of periodized training
programs. Beyond this, we assume very simplistic causal models (Small World models
of what causes what), where we further assume there is some magic training method, or
intensity zone, that drives adaptation of the qualities we need to address. For example,
we might claim that reps >90% improve maximal strength and that reps with 65% done
fast improve explosiveness. This is bullshit. Even worse than this is the Load Velocity
curve with associated qualities and intensity zones.
8 From Wikipedia (“Ontology,” 2019): “Ontology is the philosophical study of being. More broadly, it stud-
ies concepts that directly relate to being, in particular becoming, existence, reality, as well as the basic cat-
egories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known
as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist
and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities
and differences.”
27
Methods
Repeated E ort Repeated E ort Max E ort Dynamic E ort Complexes,
Method Method Method Method WODs, Circuit
(<65% 1RM) (75-85% 1RM) (>90% 1RM) (50-60% 1RM) Training
Anatomic Maximal Rate of Force Strength

Hypertrophy
Adapta Strength Development Endurance
Figure 1.5 An overly simplistic causal model of methods and qualities
Unfortunately, or luckily, things are not that simple. Yes, we can use these as
Small World models, representations and heuristics (which they are), rather than the
factual state of the world (ontology). First, different individuals will manifest different
phenomena and will demand different quality identification as a forum for action. For
example, what is holding back a world-class powerlifter in the bench press of 200kg
might be a lockout strength or bottom strength (and these are phenomenological qual-
ities). Therefore, one might approach intervention with these qualities in mind. This
will not be the case for your average soccer player since his bench press performance
is not the ultimate goal, and the qualities manifested (and thus important) to 200kg
bench press powerlifter, will not be important to him. For him, bench press in only one
component of the training program aimed at qualities we identified as important (i.e.
in this case the need to have upper body pushing movement in the training program).
He might even ditch the bench press for something else (e.g. dumbbell bench press or
loaded push-ups).
Biomechanically speaking, bench press for aforementioned powerlifter and soc-

cer player is identical (place of things), but phenomenologically, they are very much
different, especially in defining the qualities from the forum for action perspective and
deciding about intervention to improve them. Expecting all the answers from biome-
chanics and physiology is thus example of scientism. It is necessary, but not sufficient
knowledge.
Second, assuming that there is an associated training method or intensity zone

that magically hits identified quality is a pipe dream. The causal network is very com-
plex and at the end of the day, we do need to realize and accept the fact that we are ex-
28
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
perimenting using a case-by-case approach. There are still useful priors we can rely on
(e.g. scientific studies, best practices, old school methods) as a starting point in our ex-
perimentation and updating process, but at the end of the day, we are all experimenting.
1.8 Philosophical stance(s) and

influential persons
Someone more versed in philosophy than myself currently, can probably put me in
a certain philosophical group or position. Here is my take on that. My current reasoning,
besides being complementarist9 is that of integrative pluralist (Mitchell, 2002, 2012),
pragmatist-realist (Maul, 2013; Guyon, Falissard & Kop, 2017; Guyon, 2018; Guyon et
al., 2018) and phenomenologist. I am highly influenced by the works of Robert Pirsig
and his Metaphysics of Quality10 (Pirsig, 1991, 2006), Jordan Peterson (Peterson, 1999;
Peterson, Doidge & Van Sciver, 2018), Nassim Taleb (Taleb, 2004, 2010, 2012, 2018), and
Gerd Gigerenzer (Gigerenzer, 2015; Gigerenzer, Hertwig & Pachur, 2015a). These phil-
osophical stances and personas are highly influential on my approach to training (and
life in general) and that will be quite visible in the chapters to come.
I do think, especially with the recent rise of scientism (Boudry & Pigliucci, 2017),
particularly in our domain of sport performance and science, that philosophy is needed
more than ever. This introductory chapter and the following one the Agile Periodization
are very much philosophical and are covering my philosophical stances and positions
that will serve a major element in more practical chapter later in this manual.
1.9 What is covered in Volume

One and Two?
I take the percent-based approach to strength training, since I find it a great pri-
or for being implemented concurrently with any other approach (velocity based, RPE
based approach, open sets and so forth), and because it can give a ballpark of where
9 Complementary Training is the name of my blog (www.complementarytraining.net) that I started in
2010, with the aim of reconciling opposing concepts in training using the complementary approach (Kelso
& Engstrøm, 2008).
10 You will probably read the word Quality numerous times in this manual
29
weights should be. When I was working with soccer athletes, I first tried to implement
open sets (only prescribing reps) and to teach them how to fish by allowing them to prog-
ress and select weights themselves by keeping a training log (which was usually forgot-
ten or slipped under treadmill). This failed miserably, since they didn’t give many fucks
regarding the strength training. They wanted to get it done and play rondo. Therefore, I
decided to calculate the weights and the number of repetitions they needed to lift. You
know - being a Hitler and a master of puppets. However, after that, I realized how all
these equations and tables differ for a given individual, exercise, and on a daily basis.
I needed something that is prescriptive enough to avoid fuckarounditis and to

make sure progressive overload happens over time, but also flexible enough to take into
account errors and uncertainties, individual differences, and rates of improvement.
That is how this manual was born.
This Volume starts with the Chapter 2 on Agile Periodization (Jovanović, 2018),
which provides an outline of the concept, particularly iterative planning component,
and how it is applied to strength training planning, objectives classification, and goals
setting. Chapter 3 discusses strength training movements classification, as well as the
ratios between their maximum (which can be quite useful in estimating max for novel
exercise, at least until one gain more insights regarding the exercise in question and
update this model). Chapter 4 discusses 1RM estimation (particularly estimation through
iteration idea), rep max tables and how they can be useful. Chapter 5 discusses the con-
cept of training dose. Chapter 6 discusses the planning of the strength training phase
and various set and rep schemes. Chapter 7 covers the review and retrospective ele-
ments of the Agile Periodization framework.
If you want to read only one chapter, without going through all nitty-gritty de-
tails and discussions, I suggest you give a read to Chapter 6, which is the most practical
chapter in this Volume.
30
and I think it can infer more forum for action than analytical physiological/biomechan-
ical place of things approach. Long story short, you are a hero, embracing a journey into
the unknown to bring something useful back and enlarge the known circle (which can
be considered performance potential). The path of those before you can give you some
direction, not exact scripts (see Figure 1.1, priors and Bayesian updating in previous
chapter), which brings me to evidence-based practices.
What should be: What should be:

The ideal future The ideal future
What is: What is:

The unbearable present The unbearable present
Figure 2.12 Training as Normal Story and Revolutionary Story (Regeneration of Stability from the
Domain of Chaos). Modified based on Jordan B. Peterson work (Peterson, 1999)
2.9 Evidence-based mumbo jumbo

Waving evidence-based flag is a virtue signaling for certain lab coats. These fra-
gilistas and intellectuals-yet-idiots (to use Nassim Taleb’s terminology (Taleb, 2004,
52
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
2010, 2012, 2018)) prefer citing and referencing studies and meta-studies done on grade
motivated student-athletes, while bitching about the old school and you, the unscien-
tific practitioner as something terrible and to be avoided at tea parties (read: scientific
conferences). While of course not having any skin in the game (Taleb, 2018): never been
responsible for any particular athlete and his or her performance (except collecting data
and publishing evidence-based findings)
Without being a complete dick to all lab coats, I will give them some slack and
state that these sources of evidence-based knowledge represent some aspect of prior
information (from the known domain, see Figure 2.12) we can use to start experiment-
ing with. We do not have any better epistemological method than the scientific method,
but assuming Small World models to be Large World, is the viewpoint I have issues with.
Thus, scientific knowledge has major significance, but it is not end-all-be-all. I have
represented this in the Figure 2.13 (see “Scientific literature” on the figure).
Figure 2.13 represents more complex Figure 1.2 on Bayesian updating. I have tried
to combine the famous Deming’s PDCA (plan-do-check-adjust) (“PDCA,” 2019) loop
with the iterative aspect of updating prior information with the experiment (interven-
tion). Is/Ought gap represents the embedded and inescapable uncertainty of how in-
terventions will work. This is especially the case in a complex domain, such as human
performance and adaptation. Equally as the evidence-based practices (using scientific
studies and meta-analysis to inform or shape your intervention), the data-driven ap-
proach should be treated as only one source of prior information in decision making and
should probably change the name to “data-informed”. These two sources of informa-
tion are not fail-safe, predictable, certainty strategies - they are necessary to be con-
sidered, but far from sufficient in guarantying the desired outcomes. It is the same story
with the pre-planned periodization schemes - if those fancy blocks seem to be working,
then most, if not all, athletes would reach personal best, or at least seasonal best, at the
major competition. Yet, that number is not very optimistic (Loturco & Nakamura, 2016).
Well, if performance goals are tough to reach in individual sports, then team sports are
even more notorious, uncertain and unpredictable. So, just because you are using ‘ev-
idence-based’, ‘data-driven’ or ‘Eastern European periodization’ approaches, at the
end of the day, you are still experimenting and gambling against unpredictable complex
systems and environments. They do provide warm comfort though. If put at the right
place, these strategies represent one source of prior knowledge that needs to be updated
through iterations and experimentation. This is the idea that Agile Periodization em-
braces and focuses on wholeheartedly.
53
PLAN DO CHECK
Best prac ces &
54
tradi on
Uncertainty
(randomness, noise, error)
Scien c literature
Opinion and wisdom

of the crowds
Heuris cs & models

IS OUGHT
Plan Experiment Observa ns
Pseudoscience, noise
& ideology
Current state &
Priors
MVP
context
Randomiza on
Barbell strategyy
Intui on
Preferences
Itera ons
Objec ves
Previous
experimenta on
Insights
ADJUST
Figure 2.13 The evidence-based approach of using studies and meta-studies is just one component of the prior that needs to be updated with
the iterative intervention and experiment for a particular individual and a group
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
2.10 Certainty, Risk, and Uncertainty

Similar to the already discussed direct versus oblique decisions and problem
solving, decision making differs in predictable versus unpredictable environments
(Gigerenzer, 2004, 2008, 2015; Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011; Neth & Gigerenzer, 2015;
Gigerenzer, Hertwig & Pachur, 2015b). What needs to be done, is to differentiate the
worlds of certainty, risk, and uncertainty (see Table 2.2).
Another model, with similar intentions, is Dave Snowden’s Cynefin framework

(Brougham, 2015; Berger & Johnston, 2016). Cynefin framework differentiates between
certainty (obvious), risk (complicated), uncertainty (complex) with the additional do-
main of chaos (Figure 2.14).
Realm Type of Problem Type of inference Appropriate Tool

Certainty All op ons and consequences are Deduc ve Logic
known for certain (known knowns) inference
Risk All op ons and consequences are Induc ve Probability theory,

known, and their probabili es can be inference sta s cs
reliably es mated (known unknowns)
Uncertainty Ill-posed or ill-defned problems Heuris c inference Heuris cs, ecological

(unknown unknowns) ra onality
Table 2.2 Three Realms of Rationality: Certainty, Risk, and Uncertainty. Modified based on Neth &
Gigerenzer, 2015
The takeaway point is that different domains demand different decision mak-
ing. The question is to which domain sports performance belongs to? Well, if you con-
sult contemporary planning strategies that were highly influenced by Taylorism and
industrial age approach to management, they belong to Complicated domain (or risk
domain). In this domain, probabilities of events are known, and with certain mathe-
matical tools (like expected utility equations), one can calculate the optimal choice. But,
to paraphrase Nassim Taleb: “Life is not a casino!”.
In my opinion and experience, our domain is a Complex domain. We just cannot

oversee and nominate all of the potential outcomes, their probabilities, and costs.
Let me quote the description of an excellent free course “Introduction to Dynam-

ical Systems and Chaos”, by David Feldman (Feldman, 2017):
55
“Deterministic dynamical systems can behave randomly. This property,

known as sensitive dependence or the butterfly effect, places strong limits on our
ability to predict some phenomena.
Disordered behavior can be stable. Non-periodic systems with the but-

terfly effect can have stable average properties. So, the average or statistical
properties of a system can be predictable, even if its details are not.
Complex behavior can arise from simple rules. Simple dynamical systems
do not necessarily lead to simple results. In particular, we will see that simple
rules can produce patterns and structures of surprising complexity.”
The bold emphasis is mine and it is related to the already stated idea that we can
predict the average effects and directions of intervention, but we cannot predict the de-
tails and exact values. For this reason, we combine the prior knowledge, expectations,
and beliefs with iterative experimentation through MVP.
COMPLEX COMPLICATED
Cause and effect seen in retrospect Cause and effect separated
and do not repeat over time and space
Good practice
Emergent practice (Sense-Analyse-Respond)
(Probe-Sense-Respond) Predictive planning
Pattern management Rules
Heuristics Expert Analysis
“More stories like this, less like this”
Data provides options; experts interpret;
Sensemaking; stories;
measure goodness
monitor coherence
Disorder
OBVIOUS
CHAOS Cause and effect repeatable
Cause and effect not usefully perceivable known and predictable
Novel practice Best practice

(Act-Sense-Respond) (Sense-Categorize-Respond)
Act to bring stability Standard operating procedure
Crises management Automation
Data provides answers; anyone can interpret;
Experience informs decisions; action is required; measure best
Figure 2.14 Dave Snowden’s Cynefin Framework. Image modified based on the work by Dave Snowden
Brougham, 2015; Berger & Johnston, 2016; Fernandez, 2016)
56
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
Please remember the previous chapter, wherein Small Worlds we are able to
nominate all of the outcomes and probabilities, but they are simplifications of the Large
Worlds. This process is useful, but let’s not forget the distinction. This puts all these
“optimal loads”, “optimal progression”, “optimal sequencing” approaches to turn up-
side down. They are insightful and useful priors we can consider but trying to find ‘op-
timality’ in complex domain is flawed and based on predictable and stable assumptions
and behaviors of the system and its environment. As outlined in the Table 2.2 and Figure
2.14, Complexity (or uncertainty in the Table 2.2 ) domain demands the use of probing,
heuristics and satisficing (good enough) approaches.
2.11 Optimal versus Robust

The whole analytical (physiology/biomechanics) approach utilized in contem-
porary planning is based on the assumed predictable behavior of the system, in which
optimal decisions can be estimated. There is an optimal training load distribution,
there is optimal intensity zone for developing certain qualities, there are optimal days
for high loads and so forth. This is, of course, the property of the Small World, where
all outcomes can be nominated and their probabilities calculated, hence optimal de-
cision can be estimated. But this optimality revolves on the assumption that things
are stable and predictable, and they usually are not. Figure 2.15 depicts an exam-
ple of how optimal day to perform speed work in team sport fails miserably when
faced with the unforeseen event (for example head coach not giving a shit about your
speed work).
To quote Gerd Gigerenzer: “When faced with significant irreducible uncertain-

ty, the robustness of the approach is more relevant to its future performance than its
optimality.” And this cannot be emphasized enough in the Complex domain. So rather
than trying to figure out the ‘optimal’ scenario (from physiological and biomechanical
perspectives), try to find the most robust scenario that will be satisficing (good enough)
when assumptions break (Jovanović, 2018; Jovanović & Jukić, 2019). The concept of
MVP revolves around providing the most robust plan one can rely on when the shit hits
the fan and the one that preserve optionality. This is also the basis of the bottom-up
approach to planning. Certain solutions might not be ‘optimal’ from physiological per-
spectives, but they will be more robust to logistical issues (such as missing sessions in
Figure 2.15).
57
Di erence between OPTIMAL and ROBUST planning strategies
58
OPTIMAL is the “best” so on under given constraints and assump ons of the “Small World” (model, or the map of the “Big World”). For
example, the “op mal” me to do speed training in team sports, would be G+3 or G+4 (3rd or 4th day a er a game).
The problem with ”op mal approach” is assuming constraints will stay xed as well as assump ons are true. But if they change, or are not
true representa n of the “Big World”, then the “best” might also become the worst.
In the given example, the weather might be really bad, and one cannot perform sprints at op mal co ons or at all, which means that using
the “op mal me” will make athletes being two weeks without speed work. This “op mal approach” soon becomes “dangerous”.
Game Speed Game Speed Game Speed Game

X
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
If something happens, athletes will miss speed work for 14 days!
ROBUST is a so on that is “good enough” under m e co ons and assump ons. It is “sa s cing” so on, rather than the “best”, but
it seems to be performing good enough under di erent co ons. Using the example above, more “robust approach” would be to “micro-
load” speed over the week. If co ons change, the athletes won’t be nega vely a ected. This so on is not “op mal”, but it is “robust” to
perturba ons.
Game Game Game Game

Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed Speed
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
X
ROBUST > OPTIMAL
Figure 2.15 Difference between optimal and robust planning on the example of
speed work in team sports
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
3 Exercises
What is the point of exercise classification? To impress girls with differentiating
between exercises for the long and short head of the biceps muscle? To pass the biome-
chanics class exam?
None of this, of course. The purpose of classification is not to create a place of

things, but a forum for action. Creating categories from place of things perspective al-
ways comes with two issues. First one is that creating more than needed precision with
categories represent exercise in futility and a rabbit hole (e.g. why having categories
of exercises for long vs. short biceps head if you do not plan to use them somehow?).
There are always unlimited ways to classify exercises, depending on what criteria is be-
ing used. Besides, these criteria will be usually in some type of a conflict (later in the
chapter you will see a few of those in the figures). Second issue is that, because there
is a category, you will have a proclivity to use it in planning, when there is no practi-
cal significance in doing so. For example, having vertical and horizontal press category
will create more proclivity do designate training slots for them, but they might not need
special treatment (for example with strength-generalists, such as team sport athletes).
Therefore, the goal of the exercise classification is to help you in planning and
simplifying complexity (i.e. Small World model) and to direct your decision making. It
bears repeating that categories are artificial, and that border is fuzzy rather than ei-
ther/or, which means that some exercises can belong to multiple groups (e.g. is split
squat single leg or double leg movement?), and exercises from a particular group can
differ (e.g. step-ups vs. lateral lunges - one is vertical and other is lateral, although both
are single leg movements). It also bears repeating Jordan B. Peterson: “Categories are
constructed in relationship to their functional significance”. This means that categori-
89
zation will depend on the potential use, particularly if you work with strength-special-
ists (e.g. powerlifters, strongman, weightlifters, and heavy athletics like a shot put) or
strength-generalists (e.g. everyone else that uses resistance training to help in achieving
performance in something else, like team sports athletes, combat athletes or what have
you).
3.1 General~Specific
Strength specialists might prefer utilizing classification based on specificity or
how similar particular exercises are to competitive exercises. For example, powerlifter
might classify exercises using their similarity to competitive bench press, squat, and
deadlift. One common approach (Small World, or mental model) that implements this
idea is a simple classification to general exercises and specific exercises (see Figure 3.1):
General category Speci category
Speci ty
Figure 3.1 Exercise classification based on specificity into general and specific. Note the fuzzy border
between the groups, rather than either/or distinction
According to Grand Unified Theory (GUT; see the previous chapter) model, gen-
eral exercises usually develop some innate (latent) quality (substance) by providing an
overload, and specific exercises express that potential (form) through the skill develop-
ment and manifestation (see Figure 3.2). This dichotomous thinking (either/or: either
90
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
you overload with general mean or you transform with specific, or develop~express di-
chotomy) is quite common, although not many coaches are aware of using it. For ex-
ample, improve VO2max (potential) and your running performance in the game will
improve, or in a shot put improve your strength using bench press and transform it by
doing a shot put.
Skill/Manifesta on
Substance
Form
General
Ge
G ea
Quality/Overload
Figure 3.2 Substance and Form of the Grand Unified Theory applied to general versus specific exercises
Keep in mind that this is also a Small World model and that different camps uti-
lize this model (or other models) differently. For example, a shot putter (who we might
consider a strength-specialist in this case) might use incline bench press to improve
the potential and utilize shot putting to manifest (or transform) that potential. This ap-
parent dichotomy of ability versus skills (or substance and form) is being used in some
schools (to my knowledge in American track and field school) while being critiqued in
others (for example in Bondarchuk’s approach to hammer throwing (Bondarchuk &
Yessis, 2007, 2010)). Another example might be the use of specialized exercises in West-
side powerlifting school (Simmons, 2007) to target specific quality or weak links (i.e.
potential), which will be later converted to competitive performance using the most spe-
cific lifts (i.e. form). On the contrary, Sheiko powerlifting school (Sheiko, 2018) might
approach things differently (using a different Small World model) by being less dichot-
omous and treat specific lifts (bench press, squat and deadlift) as developmental and
skill dependent, rather than just a sole manifestation of underlying potential that is
being developed with specialized exercises. Again, these are all Small World represen-
tations, and as we all know, both schools of powerlifting are more than successful in
developing world-class lifters. An example from soccer might involve arguing with the
head coach who says: “Players never squat in a game” (referring to form), while you try
to convey that they do need to strength train to improve underlying potential or sub-
stance (to improve performance on the pitch, but also to protect from the Downside, i.e.
injuries).
91
One extension of this model (by including additional categories in general vs. spe-
cific continuum) is the model by Dr. Anatoly Bondarchuk (Bondarchuk & Yessis, 2007,
2010) which is quite famous and utilized in track and field circles. This model makes
distinction between competitive exercises (CE), specific development exercises (SDE), spe-
cific preparatory exercises (SPE), and general preparatory exercises (GPE) (see Figure 3.3)
{
Pursue Upside
Compe ve
Exercises (CE)
Form
Barbell Strategy
Speci c Development
Exercises (SDE)
ty
Substance
Speci
Speci c Preparatory Exercises (SPE)
Avoid Downside
General Preparatory Exercises (GPE)
Figure 3.3 Exercise classification based on the work of Dr. Anatoly Bondarchuk (Bondarchuk & Yessis,
2007, 2010) and its relationship to the barbell strategy
In addition to GUT’s substance~form complementary pair, utilization of CE and

SDE exercises can be considered as investing in the Upside (improving performance),
while utilization of the SPE and particularly GE exercises can be regarded as protection
from the Downside (making sure you don’t fuck yourself up with too specific work). For
a powerlifter, this might mean doing some stability work, stretching, or horizontal and
vertical pulling (should we call it Vanilla training - see the previous chapter) or some
aerobic conditioning or bodyweight strength circuits (to improve Mongoose Persistence?;
also see the previous chapter) which can all help in protecting from the Downside.
I have personally used Bondarchuk categories in my work and previous writings,

and I believe they are a beneficial mental model. I have used them to help me catego-
rize speed, power, and other strength and conditioning components, and I will con-
tinue to use them as a tool in the toolbox (i.e. multi-model thinker), particularly for
strength-specialists (or athletes that compete in cm/kg/sec sports). The deal breaker is-
sue I have with this model is that its categories depend on criteria we use to judge spec-
ificity. The categories of exercises might be very different for a powerlifter, as opposed
to a rugby player. Criteria to judge specificity for a power lifter is similarity of the exer-
cises to competitive lifts (bench press, squat, and deadlift). For a rugby player, criteria
to judge specificity is more complex and pluralistic, since rugby competitive activity
92
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
involves plethora of qualities and movements (e.g. sprinting, acceleration, jump, ruck,
maul, shoulder tackling). How do we judge specificity of strength training exercises in
this case? After all, most, if not all strength exercises for team sport athletes, will be in
the GPE and SPE category. That way, although very useful as a general viewpoint, Bond-
archuk categorization is not very useful (lower functional significance) in team sports
or for strength-generalists.
For this reason, I will utilize a few different categorizations that I have found to
have the biggest forum for action, which will guide my decision making and help me de-
cide what are the big buckets (or planning slots) that I have to take care of. The following
categorization models are mostly aimed at strength-generalists, although they can be
utilized for strength-specialists, potentially as sub-categories of the SPE and GE cate-
gories in the Bondarchuk categorization model.
3.2 Grinding~Ballistic
Grinding movements are slow, controlled, compound movements (e.g. squats,
deadlift, bench press) with constant tension, while Ballistic movements are fast and
explosive (e.g. jump squats, hang cleans) with a burst of tension followed by relaxation,
and they usually involve a flight of the body or the implement (e.g. barbell or a medicine
ball). Additional categories involve Control movements and Other movements.
Control movements are mostly done under Vanilla Training umbrella, for exam-
ple, training for local and global stabilizers, shoulder mobility, and so forth..
Other movements represent that annoying category for exercises you do not
know where they belong to.
As with any categorization, it is hard to draw a fine line between categories. Fig-
ure 3.4 illustrates this classification system with additional sub-categories that will be
discussed shorty. Please keep in mind that there are numerous ways to classify and en-
ter the rabbit hole - I have included only the categories that I think have the most forum
for action when working with strength-generalists.
Table 3.1 contains the hypothetical (and very simplified) relationship between
Grinding, Ballistic, and Control with developing Anaconda Strength, Armor Building,
Arrow, Vanilla Training and Mongoose Persistence qualities.
93
Slow tempos
Eccentric
Additional weight
94
isoHolds * holding position (e.g., side bridge)
isoPush * overcoming immovable object
Action Isometric * quickly switching sides/extremities (e.g. hamstring

isoSwitch bridge)
Grinding * catch after an airborne phase (similar to catching
isoCatch exercises in the ballistic category)
* your normal lifting, but it can be solely concentric

Concentric (e.g. sled pushing)
Other * Accommodating resistance, isokinetic, etc
Compound
Segments
Isolation
Ground
Olympic Lifting Hang
Strength Training
Movements Blocks
Fast Grinding *See categories for Jumping
Explosive (Static Position)

Reactive (Countermovement)
Ballistic Relaxed
Jumping Continuous (Rhythmical)
Maximal
Catching (Eccentric- * Similar to isoCatch
Deceleration)
Throwing *Same categories as Jumping
Sprinting *Mostly Sled variations
Other
* Exercises belonging mostly to the Vanilla training
Control category (e.g., local/global stabilizers)
* Those annoying exercises that you do not know

Other where they belong
Figure 3.4 Categorization of movements based on their type

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
Armor Anaconda Mongoose Vanilla

Building Strength Arrow Persistence Training
Grinding 4 5 2 3 1
Ballis 3 4 5 2 1
Control 4 2 1 3 5
Table 3.1 Certain movement categories are more aligned with development of particular qualities. The
higher the number in the table, the better the alignment. In other words, certain movement categories
are more suited for pursuing certain qualities. Keep in mind that this is just a speculative, highly
simplified model.
3.2.1 Grinding movements

Figure 3.4 contains the sub-categories of the grinding movements that are based
on two criteria: (1) muscle action, and (2) the number of segments involved. Using mus-
cle action, we can classify grinding movements to predominantly (1) eccentric, (2) iso-
metric, (3) concentric, and (4) other34.
Eccentric category usually involves an emphasis on slow lowering phase (eccen-

tric phase) or somehow adding extra weight on the lowering part (e.g. leg press with two
legs, lower with one).
Isometric category involves categories coined by my colleague Alex Natera (see

Figure 3.4 for details): isoHold, isoPush, isoSwitch, and isoCatch. IsoHold can also belong
to Control movements, while isoCatch is very similar, if not the same to catch exercises
in the ballistic category.
The Concentric category are your regular lifting movements, although specific
apparatus can be used to perform movements only in the concentric range (e.g. heavy
sled pushes and pulls, deadlifting and then dropping the barbell).
Other category involves, well, everything else, from accommodating resistance to

using EMS (Electric Muscle Stimulation).
When it comes to the number of segments involved, the simplest classification

involves isolated movements (e.g. chest flies, biceps curls) and compound movements
(e.g. bench press, pull-ups).
34 It is always useful to have the “Other” category, in which you put the items you do not know where they
belong. After the number of these items increases, it might be a time to revisit your overall classification
model. Having said this, classification is also “iterative”, rather than set in stone. This also means that the
classifications in this book are “work in progress”, rather than the final picture.
95
3.2.2 Ballistic movements
Figure 3.4 contains the sub-categories of the ballistic movements: (1) Olympic
lifting, (2) Fast Grinding (think of dynamic effort squats or bench press with 50-60%
1RM (Simmons, 2007)), (3) Jumping, (4) Throwing, (5) Sprinting (mostly heavy sled
towing/pushing exercises), and of course the (6) Other category.
Olympic lifting is further classified based on the starting positions: (1) ground,
(2) hang or (3) blocks. Additional classification might involve catching position (e.g.
full, power, muscle), but that would be an overkill for this simple big picture overview.
Additional sub-categories for fast grinding, jumping and throwing are categories
based on movement action, and they involve (1) explosive from a static position (e.g.
think of squat jumps from pause), (2) reactive (e.g. counter-movement jump or depth
jump), (3) continuous (e.g. rhythmical jump squats that can be all-out, or sub-maximal
rhythmical), and (4) catching oriented (e.g. jump and land).
3.2.3 Control movements
Control movements category is a bloody mess, and involves everything from

core stuff, to BOSU ball and breathing fuckarounditis. Vanilla Training mostly utilizes
these movements with the aim of protecting from the Downside. Control movements
also have some overlap with complex movements category (e.g. the need to stabilize and
control segments) that will be discussed next.
3.3 Simple~Complex
What can be put on top of grinding and ballistic classification (one can include
control category here, but I will leave it out to simplify35) are simple versus complex
movements. This way we get a matrix: on the x-axis, we have movement time (a long
time for grinding movements, and short time for ballistic movements), and on the
35 Please beware of the “curse” of classification, particularly when using quadrants and matrix. Sometimes
we are “forced” to fill in all the spots to fit the model. Remember that you can have a blank spot in your
model and not everything should fit nicely. But sometimes, these blank spots can help us predict ‘predict’
novel things (e.g., periodic table allowed us to predict unknown elements that were discovered later), or see
things from different perspective.
96
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
y-axis, we have movement complexity axis (from lower complexity to higher complex-
ity). I like to refer to this model as Time-Complexity Quadrants (TCQ) (See Figure 3.5).
Movement complexity criterion of the TCQ model refers to how many segments
are utilized (which demands the need for coordination) and whether the stability is
compromised (i.e. some segment must be stabilized in order to produce movement). It
might be hard to pinpoint to exact biomechanics principles behind this criterion, but
from a phenomenological perspective, it is quite easy to understand the distinction (e.g.
“I know it when I see it”). Movement complexity criteria can also be related to sub-
stance~form and develop~manifest complementary pairs.
Complex
Movement Complexity
Simple
Ballis c Grinding
Movement Time
Figure 3.5 Time-Complexity quadrants
The following example might help in understanding the TCQ model. Using upper
body horizontal push movement pattern as an example (discussed in the next section of
this chapter), the following exercises can populate the TCQ quadrants (see Figure 3.6):
97
Grinding-Simple: Bench Press
Grinding-Complex: Standing (Split Squat) Landmine Press
Ballistic-Simple: Explosive push-up or Smith-Machine bench press throw
Ballistic-Complex: Single arm medicine ball throw

Complex
Movement Complexity
Simple
Ballis Grinding
Movement Time
Figure 3.6 Example of TCQ exercises
Exercises from all quadrants can be represented in the training program, in a

higher or lower degree, depending on the objectives, needs, season or phase, and con-
text. TCQ model can be useful when someone starts bombarding you with fancy Ins-
tagram exercises, for which you now have a drawer to put them in and use them if and
when needed.
98
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
3.4 Fundamental movement patterns

Not sure who suggested categorization to fundamental patterns first, but I guess
that Ian King (King, 2002) was one of the first to write about it. Different coaches uti-
lized different classifications of fundamental movement patterns, out of which I am
most thankful to Dan John (John & Tsatsouline, 2011; John, 2013) (who added loaded
carries which I am more than grateful for), Michael Boyle (Boyle, Verstegen & Cosgrove,
2010; Boyle, 2016) (mainly for his view on single leg movements), and Joe Kenn (Kenn,
2003) (whose book I consider one of the most important books written for general-
ist strength training). Figure 3.7 contains my current classification of the fundamental
movement patterns in the lowest resolution.
Grinding Ballis
Push Push
Pull Pull
Squat Squat
Hinge Hinge
Carry/Push Rota on
Core Other
Other
Figure 3.7 Fundamental human movements (for strength training purpose)36

36 Different authors name these categories differently. For example, Squat category is usually named
Knee-Dominant or Lower Body Push, while Hinge is oftentimes named Hip-Dominant or Lower Body Pull. You
probably noticed few things that are missing, like calves, hip flexor, to name a few. These can be put in the
“Other” category (since this is low resolution model), but if they become important aspect of your program,
you are more than free to create additional categories that represent forum for action to you.
99
As mentioned multiple times through this manual, categories should be as sim-

ple as possible (lowest resolution), while still being functionally significant (provide
a forum for action). Some of these categories could be further divided into horizontal/
vertical (e.g. horizontal push, vertical push; horizontal jump, vertical jump) or double
leg/single leg (single leg squatting movements, double leg squatting movements), but
that can quickly become an exercise in futility (which I will do anyway). If you train-
ing philosophy and programming demand extra categories and extra precision, then
please, by all means, include those categories. In my case, I needed something as simple
as possible, to which I can easily reflect on in order to see if I am hitting all the major
movements that I have to address37.
It is always good to include the “Other” category. I have learned this from the
“productivity movement” books and gurus. It is like the bottom drawer in which you put
things you are not sure how to categorize. Once this drawer fills up too much, well, I guess
it is time to use a different categorization model. It bears repeating that everything in this
manual are simple heuristics and strategies that you can use as a starting point and mod-
ify to suit your needs. For example, one can put “Vanilla” training exercises (breathing
drills, DNS rolling on the ground, PRI drills and so forth) into category “Other”.
One can also include gymnastic movements such as falls, rolls, and various holds
as special categories, which are quite useful but for now, we can leave them in the “Oth-
er” category. If these represent a major part of your training philosophy then, by all
means, I encourage you to make your own categories.
Some exercises can be combined into multiple movements, and that is not worri-
some, but something to keep in mind38. I am not trying to split hairs with 100% accurate
categorization here. Remember that we are more into functional significance and sim-
plicity, rather than 100% correct categorization.
Let me give you two examples. When I started working with few combat athletes,
I have used these most common fundamental movement pattern that helped me create
the most important training slots that I need to address. These categories and slots rep-
resented my prior beliefs and MVP. As I worked with them, I did notice that, due nature
of the sport, they demanded and needed more neck strength and wrist exercises. These
were at first put in the “Other” category, but as the evidence for importance of these
exercises grow larger, I had to update my prior model, and include extra category that
involved neck strength and wrist strength. These also became training slot that had to
be addressed.
37 This represents practical application of 1/N heuristic and MVP idea

38 Remember that the categories borders are fuzzy, rather than clear cut? One exercise can belong to mul-
tiple categories, or sit just on the border
100
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
Second example involve working with female recreational athletes. One might
start with fundamental movement patterns that help devising training slots and act
as MVP. Within few sessions of working with them, one might soon realize that most,
if not all, female recreational athletes demand special attention to the gluteal region
(a.k.a. booty). This body region becomes functionally significant and thus demand spe-
cial category and training slots.
The point of these two examples is two-fold. First, we never know up-front (par-
ticularly when we start without much experience, but even then, we need to adapt to
the individual) what is needed and what needs to be addressed. We start with MVP and
update as we learn and collect evidence. Second, these categories are not set in stone.
They are dynamic and they change, based on identified needs, preferences, learning,
and specific issues.
3.4.1 Grinding movement patterns
Figure 3.8 contains more detailed classification of the grinding movements using
fundamental movement patterns.
This classification, as well as pretty much everything else in this manual, is a

work in progress. This means that there are some questions I do not have an answer to,
or I still do not know how to address certain issues, or how to classify them. This is also
example of the fuzzy thinking, where membership to a given categories is not either 0
or 1, but a degree. Take for example single leg category in the Figure 3.8. The classifi-
cation of single leg movements is very much influenced by Michael Boyle’s classifica-
tion (Boyle, Verstegen & Cosgrove, 2010; Boyle, 2016). As you can see in the Figure 3.8,
supported single leg movements (e.g. split squats) can be considered double leg move-
ments with a staggered stance. These things can be argued until the cows come home,
so the key message forum for action, rather than ideally precise place of things (see Figure
1.1). Table 3.2 contains some example exercises for the main categories of the grinding
movements.
One thing you can do, and I will come back to this later in this chapter, is to enlist
all the exercises you can coach and perform (or your athletes can perform) under your
constraints. You can include whatever sub-categories you prefer, if they are actionable
(provide a forum for action) for you.
101
Single Arm
Horizontal
Push Double Arm
102
Vertical * Same categories as Horizontal
Pull * Same categories as Push
Double Leg
* Double leg?! E.g., split squats,
Supported Bulgarian split squats, lateral split squats
Static
Vertical
Squat (Lower Body Push)
Single Leg Horizontal
Unsupported Accelerative
Lateral
Rotational
Decelerative * Same categories as Accelerative
Grinding Movements
Straight
Single Leg
Bent
Hinge (Lower Body Pull)
Straight
Double Leg
Bent
Forward
Carry/Sled Backward
Lateral
Anterior
Posterior
Core
Lateral
Rotational
Other
Figure 3.8 Fundamental movement patterns of the grinding movements

MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
6 Planning (continued)
Previous chapter introduced theoretical concepts behind planning, using the

dose-response Small Worlds and multiple complementary aspects of planning, culmi-
nating with the concepts of pull the floor and push the ceiling. In this chapter, these
concepts will be put into more concrete and pragmatic strength training form.
The building block of this chapter will be set and rep schemes, that together with
exercise (or mean) represent a prescription unit (Figure 6.1), or the smallest planning
unit (i.e. strength training atom).
Exercise Set and Rep Scheme
Prescrip n Unit
Figure 6.1 Prescription unit consists of exercises and set and rep schemes
6.1 Set and Rep Schemes: The Basics

Chapter 3 covered exercises and their classification. This chapter will delve more
into set and rep schemes and combinatorics used in planning (e.g. vertical and hori-
zontal planning, as well as divisible and indivisible strategies and other novel planning
267
strategies that will be discussed shortly). Before we even start with more advanced top-
ics, let’s cover the anatomy of a set and rep scheme.
6.1.1 Anatomy of a set and rep scheme

Figure 6.2 contains anatomy of a set and rep scheme. This is, of course, a simpli-
fication (Small World), but quite frequent and useful model. Each set and rep scheme
consists of multiple components (i.e. sets), but what you find in most, if not all, strength
training materials are the main sets. This is unfortunate, since set and rep scheme is
much more complex and richer construct.
Warm-Up Sets
- Daily Max
Pre-Work Sets - Over-Warm-Up
Main Sets
- Plus Sets
- Joker Sets
- Back-O Sets
A er Sets - Myo Reps
- Dynamic E ort
- Isometric
…
Figure 6.2 Anatomy of a set and rep scheme
Similarly to the discussion on active recovery means and methods in the previous
chapter, I approach warm-ups differently. Rather than looking at warm-up as means
to reach working temperature of the body and priming the nervous system only, one
can look at warm-ups as affordance to practice and develop particular quality at the
268
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
current state of the organism. I know this is a mouthful, but it simply means addressing
what can be addressed while the athlete is warming up. During the warm-up, one can
perform and address different qualities that can be addressed at that particular state.
For example, one might perform Vanilla training, like rehab, mobility, pre-hab, core,
stabilization and so forth, as well as practice the main movement.
This is particularly useful in the beginning of the workout, where a given exercise
is performed first. The warm-up part of the workout can be blended with the main part
of the workout through the warm-ups sets of the first exercise. Let’s take a bench press
as an example, where 5x5 at 75% is planned as the main sets.
Warm-Up part (15-20min):
Address qualities that need to be addressed in this state of the organism
1. Foam Roll and Breathing drills if needed (e.g. someone coming after work through
city rush hour)
2. Ground Mobility
3. Core
4. Kettlebell or Bodyweight Circuit/Complexes
A. Bench Press 5x5 @75% (main sets)
Warm-up sets
Empty bar x 10 reps
Band pull-a-parts x 10 + Lat Stretch with band
Bench Press 30-40% x 5, start with isoHold at the chest and work on the tight-
ness in the bottom position
Thoracic stretch + Face Pulls
Bench Press 40-50% x 5
Hip flexor stretch if needed + YTWLs for the shoulder
Bench Press 50-60% x 5
Any extra mobility/core exercises or even explosive push-ups
Main sets...
269
The example above is a nice transition from the warm-up part to the first exer-
cise, rather than the abrupt switch. The warm-up sets, particularly for the first exer-
cises in a workout, can serve as an opportunity to address other qualities and nagging
issues (i.e. weaknesses), as well as practice the quality of execution (or even variable
execution, e.g. using different grip lengths, tempos, pauses, depth and so forth) of the
main movement.
More complex movements, like Olympic lifting might ask for longer ramp-up to
the working sets and adding extra elements in (e.g. mobility, etc). Warm-up sets can
also serve as a way of checking if everything is fine and adjusting the main set accord-
ingly. For example, I pretty much know what I can expect of the workout once I pinch
the 20kg plates when loading the bar (pun intended). Other methods might involve es-
timating 1RM using VBT approach (e.g. using 40-60-80% 1RM and using linear regres-
sion to estimate load at particular velocity at 1RM; see previous chapter for more info).
Sometimes, one feels like crap, but once the warm-up is finished, some magical energy
appears, and everything is up and running. The opposite can happen too - one feels very
good before a workout, but during the warm-up a few issues emerge and demand piv-
oting in the main sets, or changing the exercise, or workout altogether (e.g. discovering
a weird pinch in the shoulder, and deciding to use Swiss bar or dumbbells rather than
straight bar for the bench press). For this reason, warm-up sets are very important and
insightful. Use them for more than just banging few reps to warm-up, use them as a
probing process and adjust accordingly.
Warm-up sets can be much shorter and without any extras for the later exercises,
since the athlete is warmed-up. But again, this depends on the exercises that follow. For
example, if squats follow this bench press exercise, an additional lower body warm-up
might be needed.
There are multiple ways to ramp warm-up sets towards working/main sets, but it
usually involves doing either higher reps at the lower percentages or not. For example:
40% x 10
50% x 8
60% x 6
While it is important to warm-up and practice technique, it is also important not

to create unnecessary fatigue with the warm-up sets. For this reason, it might be wise
to keep the reps low (i.e. under 6) and with a lot of RIR. Thus, you should not pursue the
270
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
“burn” with warm-up sets at 40-60% by doing 10-20 reps. That is just dumb. Every-
thing else, including jumps and number of warm-up sets is individual preference.
Also, note that some athletes prefer longer warm-ups, and some are ready to roll
the instant they step into the gym. This could be genuine preference or the body need, or
it could be a simple habit. It is thus possible to experiment with extending or shortening
the warm-ups. I personally prefer longer smoother warm-ups and it generally takes
me longer to warm up. A friend of mine and a coach of the Female Volleyball Serbian
National Team, Vanja Banković, noticed that some athletes in the jump test need more
jumps to reach their maximal height, whereas some do it on the first rep. It could be
different CNS or whatever, but the point is that athletes do differ. One can try to change
the athlete or to adapt to the athlete, of course. I just love the guys who say “Have you
ever seen a lion warming up before hunting a gazelle?”. I tend to answer with a counter
question “Have you ever seen a lion sitting at a desk in the office for 10 hours? Me nei-
ther”. Don’t be a dogmatic idiot - adapt the athlete, but also adapt to the athlete. It is a
complementary pair.
Also note that warm-up sets are not counted in the dose - response models. But
as has been seen, they represent fruitful component of the training session and the pre-
scription unit, which is often missed in the “Evidence-Based” lab coat models.
6.1.1.1 Pre-work sets

This part of the set and rep scheme is usually completely neglected. The first
time I heard about this concept was in the excellent “Base Building” book by Paul Car-
ter (Carter, 2013), where he suggested using Over Warm Ups. Over warm-ups represent
warming-up past the weight you plan using for your main sets. In the above example of
5x5 @75%, that might involve the following:
Empty bar x 10-12 reps
40% x 5
50% x 5
60% x 3
70% x 1
80% x 1
75% x 5 x 5
271
Here, 80% x 1 represent over warm up set. Not sure if you noticed, but without
over warm up, the first set @75% feels a bit weird, but the later sets are much better. To
avoid this, and to prime for the main sets, over warm up sets can be used. This is usually
5-10% higher than the working sets, but it can actually be working up to your EDM or
daily-max without too much expectation and emotional fuss. This max can be used to
calculate working weights (e.g. 75% of daily max, rather than the pre-cycle 1RM).
40% x 5
50% x 5
60% x 3
70% x 1
80% x 1
90% x 1
100+ x 1 (find out daily-max)
75% of daily max for 5 x 5
This represents more advanced methodology, although it takes the problem of

figuring out the EDM out of equation, as well as adjusting for individual rate-of-change
and day-to-day fluctuation. It is powerful, but it is also a double-edged sword, because
in order to use it frequently, one needs to learn to be relaxed and not pushing it, without
an emotional drain and drama. Add multiple exercises that this needs to be done for and
we have a potential problem. Thus, this is easier said than done, particularly on the bad
days when daily-max might go down.
Pre-work sets might involve using overcoming isometrics (isoPush), or explo-

sive movements as well (explosive push-ups were performed before the last warm-up
set in the warm-up sets example).
40% x 5
50% x 5
60% x 3
272
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
70% x 1 + isoPush 6sec
80% x 1 + explosive Push ups x6 reps
75% for 5 x 5
Additional pre-work technique that can be used are walk-outs and holds and these
can be over 1RM. This is particularly useful if the working sets are 90%+. These involve
using very heavy weight and just holding it in the racking position or walking out with
it. Not sure this would be something to use frequently, but represents a viable strategy
if used sparingly and smartly.
I think that pre-work sets are a hidden gem, and I am more than thankful to Paul
Carter for pointing it out to us. If used sparingly and wisely, they represent a powerful
tool.
6.1.1.2 Main or Working sets

Main or working sets are bread-and-butter of the set and rep scheme. As such,
they are considered in greater depth later in this chapter. For the sake of completeness,
the Figure 6.3 consists of common prescription formats when it comes to set and rep
schemes, particularly the main sets.
6.1.1.3 After sets

After sets represent an additional opportunity and affordance in the workout and
there are different implementations that could be used. Let’s cover the most common
ones.
6.1.1.3.1 Plus sets
Plus sets involve finishing main sets with a set to failure (or to a particular ceil-
ing, e.g. 10 reps max). Here is an example:
75% x 5
75% x 5
75% x 5
75% x 5
75% x 5+
273
85 x 5 85 90 95 %1RM
90 x 3 5 3 1 Reps
95 x 1 85 90
3 2 Sets
%1RM Reps
5 2
“Five reps at 85% 1RM” “Three sets of ve reps at 85% 1RM”
“Three reps at 90% 1RM” “Two sets of two reps at 90% 1RM”
“One rep at 95% 1RM”
5 x 6 @80% w/2RIR
Sets Reps %1RM Reps In Reserve
“Five sets of six reps at 80% 1RM with 2 reps in

reserve”
3-5 x 6-8 @70-80% w/2-4RIR 30X1 in 15’

Time
Sets Zone Reps Zone %1RM Zone RIR Zone Tempo
constraint
“Three to ve sets of six to eight reps at 70-80% 1RM with 2 to 4 reps in reserve, done using 30x1 tempo
within 15 minutes”
Figure 6.3 Common set and rep schemes prescription formats
The last set is a plus set, where athlete tries to lift as many quality (in the same
manner previous sets and reps are prescribed) reps as possible (hopefully without too
much mental strain and psyching up). This can be used as an embedded test (see reps to
technical failure in the Chapter 4) and estimate of 1RM. Performance on the plus set can
then be used as a source of information for updating 1RM/EDM to base percentages off
for the next training phase. More about this will be covered in the Chapter 7.
274
6.3.5 Classification based

on Methodology
Classification based on methodology represents approach more aligned with
“forum for action” perspective, and classifies set and rep schemes based more on a
phenomenological aspects and differences. This might include wave loading, sets across,
ramping sets, pyramids, cluster and many others. I will present extensive classification
using this approach later in this chapter.
What is important to keep in mind is the pluralism of the approaches of how to

classify set and rep schemes. There is no single “objective” way to do it. Being equipped
with multiple models and being a skeptical thinker, willing to experiment is my pre-
ferred approach. Unless you are an ideologue of course (pun intended) and in love with
a particular system.
6.4 Decoupling Progressive

Overload from Adaptation
Progressive overload is one of the building principles of the strength training. In
simple terms, progressive overload represents the need to make training dose higher
and higher109, as one becomes stronger and stronger. This is needed to stimulate further
adaptation and improvements in the performance. However, as I have explained in the
previous chapter, training dose is a very complex construct, which makes progressive
overload a complex construct as well. From simpler “forum for action” perspective,
progressive overload is needed to push the adaptation.
But that is only one perspective of the progressive overload. Another one is to
actually adapt your training to the adaptation experienced. In other words, adaptation
pulls progressive overload thresholds up. As you adapt, you will have to (and you will be
able to) do more (take a new training dose) to progressively overload110. These are the
109 In theory, this means that dose thresholds introduced in the Small World models in the previous chap-
ter (MRD, MED, DED, MTD) are sliding, as one becomes stronger (or adapted). Training dose that was
needed to move my squat from 150kg to 170kg might not be the same dose needed to improve it from 170 to
180kg. This reasoning is the example of via Positiva, where via Negativa would involve trimming unnecessary
training dose and removing, rather than adding, to push/pull the adaptation further.
110 As will be explained in the next chapter, increasing 1RM from phase to phase creates an element of the
progressive overload, since improved 1RM affords it. For example, 3x5 @80% when 1RM is 200kg means
lifting 160kg, but if that 1RM increases to 210kg, it becomes 168kg that needs to be lifted for 3x5. Things are
more complex than that, of course, but the use of the percent based approach naturally has these progres-
sive overload elements integrated.
296
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
exact complementary pairs introduced in the “push the ceiling~pull the floor” model in
the previous chapter. Progressive overload and Adaptation are embraced into a complex
dance of interdependence (Figure 6.10), where progression moves the adaptation, while
adaptation affords progression. It is complex circular causation (see Figure 5.15 for a
circular model of dose -> response of which Figure 6.10 is simplification).
Progressive
Adapta
Overload
Figure 6.10 Progressive overload and Adaptation are embraced into a complex dance of
interdependence
Unfortunately, this complex dance between the progressive overload and the
adaptation is often bastardized and reduced to changes in week to week set and rep
schemes. Figure 6.11 represents hypothetical example where the same adaptation is
seen with three different scenarios. In this hypothetical example, adaptation is rep-
resented by 1RM in the back squat, while the training dose is represented by two back
squat workouts a week, done for five weeks. Initial back squat 1RM in this hypothetical
example is 200kg, and changes to 205kg across 5 weeks. To plan the loads using percent
based-approach, initial 1RM of 200kg is used. The adaptation pattern is the same across
the three scenarios. Table 6.5 contains summary metrics for all three progression sce-
narios.
Constant scenario involves performing the same workouts (3x5 with 160kg) across
five weeks. Might be questionable if these workouts would be the same (and thus repre-
sent the same dose, but we need to stick with this Small World model), since improve-
ments across weeks (and these improvements might be beyond simple 1RM, and might
involve other improvements beyond this example, like work capacity, explosiveness
and so forth) might afford one to perform reps faster, with greater depth or with short-
er rest between sets.
297
Constant Progressed Varied

1RM 1RM 1RM
200
170 170
165 165
160 160 160 160 160 160 160
155 155
150
150 145
Weight (kg)
100
3x5 @80.0%
3x5 @80.0%
3x5 @80.0%
3x5 @80.0%
3x5 @80.0%
3x5 @75.0%
3x5 @77.5%
3x5 @80.0%
3x5 @82.5%
3x5 @85.0%
3x8 @72.5%
3x4 @82.5%
3x6 @77.5%
3x3 @85.0%
3x5 @80.0%
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Week
Figure 6.11 Three week to week progression scenarios that have equal total dose characteristics (see
Table 6.5) as well as adaptation created (1RM in the back squat)
Progressed scenario involves performing 3x5 workout, but with progressively

heavier weight, starting from 3x5 @75% (150kg) in week one, and reaching 3x5 @85%
(170kg) in week five. Assuming 1RM remains the same (which is not the case, but for the
sake of the argument let consider that scenario), each week involves an increase in the
exertion level (expressed as RIR), cause by using heavier load for the same number of
reps. Since “bastardized” concept of progressive overload is implemented in this sce-
nario, this is believed to drive the adaptation and thus represents a must element in the
strength training programs. This “progression” can mean different things as will be
explained later in this chapter (see Vertical planning).
Varied scenario involves performing three sets of different reps (8, 4, 6, 3, 5 reps),
but since each set is done at the same exertion level (same RIR, at least in theory for this
hypothetical example), there is no “progression” across weeks, even if there is an un-
dulating change in weight used (145, 160, 155, 170, 165kg).
If we look at some dose metrics in the Table 6.5, we can see that all three scenar-
ios created very similar, if not the same, training dose. The same training dose (given
these metrics) equals the same training response (at least in this hypothetical example,
where response is a change in the squat 1RM).
This hypothetical example hopefully demonstrated that progressive overload is a

more complex topic than simply increasing or varying weights across weeks. Progres-
sive overload happens over a longer time frame than few weeks.
298
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
Constant
Week Sets Reps %1RM Weight Summary
1 3 5 80.0% 160 NL 75
2 3 5 80.0% 160 aRI 80%
3 3 5 80.0% 160 Impulse 60.00
4 3 5 80.0% 160 Tonnage 12000
5 3 5 80.0% 160
Progressed
1 3 5 75.0% 150 NL 75
2 3 5 77.5% 155 aRI 80%
3 3 5 80.0% 160 Impulse 60.00
4 3 5 82.5% 165 Tonnage 12000
5 3 5 85.0% 170
Varied
1 3 8 72.5% 145 NL 78
2 3 4 82.5% 165 aRI 78%
3 3 6 77.5% 155 Impulse 60.90
4 3 3 85.0% 170 Tonnage 12180
5 3 5 80.0% 160
Table 6.5 Dose metrics for the constant, progressed and varied scenarios.
From the aforementioned example, it might seem that (week) progression and
variation are useless concepts or noise. This cannot be further from the truth. Although
constant scenario produces the same adaptation, this approach might be boring as hell,
might increase the likelihood of chronic overload syndrome and might suffer from a
lack of variability. But some athletes might prefer this variant or scenario. Some coach-
es actually use this approach to estimate the adaptation curves and try to predict their
peak and shape which can help in planning the peak (Bondarchuk & Yessis, 2007, 2010).
And as said previously, not varying the pre-planned load might not mean the manifest-
ed performance is not varied or progressed.
The progressed scenario might be too predictable (“Oh crap, I barely survived this
workout, and for the next I need to add extra 2.5kg”) and if brought too far forward,
might be really ‘pushing’ the adaptation and cause downside rather than upside. Some
299
athletes prefer this type of planning, where steps are known and pre-planned ahead
and they can feel the increase in weight (“Oh, I can see the progression from the last
workout, and I like the feeling”).
When it comes to varied scenario, some might actually prefer it, due to its vari-
ability and a lack of predictability (i.e. it would be harder to judge progression when
reps change, as opposed when reps stay the same and athlete can clearly see things
going up, or down). This strategy can also help in reducing the likelihood of suffering
from boredom and chronic overload syndrome due to its waves in load (but I am spec-
ulating).
The point of this is that, after the basic dose and progressive overload across a
longer time frame (which are necessary conditions) are taken care off, one can experi-
ment with progressions and variations based on individual preferences, but also com-
plex interactions with other training elements. We do not know how given variations
and progressions affect adaptation for a given individual and when interacting with
other training components, so these need to be experimented with.
It is important to notice that all the aforementioned scenarios (from Table 6.5
and Figure 6.11) can belong to the push and pull domains (see Figure 5.21).
6.5 Progression vs. Variation

In the West, the key word in strength planning is “progression.” In the
East, it is “variability.”
Pavel Tsatsouline (Tsatsouline, 2014)
Although progressive overload represents increasing the training dose to push

the adaptation and/or is being pulled by the adaptation itself in the long run, what is the
difference between the progression and the variation in the short term111?
It is very hard to distinguish between the progression and the variation, but it is
important to realize that both of these complementary aspects are involved in planning
and represent component of the training dose (both progression and variation are nec-
essary stimuli) (Figure 6.12).
111 Please note that progression~variation as a complementary aspect are involved both in the short term,
as well as in the long term (progressive overload). For example, the saturated~distributed, complex~uni-
directional as well as extensive~intensive can be traced back to changes in variability.
300
All 10 vertical planning progression methods will be applied to various set and rep
schemes. See Volume Three of this manual for a complete list of generated set and rep
schemes.
6.6.2.6.11 Combinations
The mentioned 10 vertical planning progressions represents the most common

archetypes. The real-life vertical progressions can involve numerous combinations of
these archetypes (e.g. see Set and Rep accumulation combined with Block and Block
variant). It is up to your imagination and best practices to utilize what seems to be fit
for a particular program.
6.7 Mladen’s Methodological System

of classifying Set and Rep schemes
As outlined in Figure 6.8, an additional approach to classify set and rep scheme
that will be explained in this section is a “methodological” approach. The set and rep
methods that follow can be applied to different rep ranges, qualities, toughness and
volume variants. These will be combined with the aforementioned vertical planning
progressions to generate really extensive list of set and rep schemes that can be found
in Volume Three of this manual.
Table 6.27 contains a list of 12 different set and reps schemes methods. For the
sake of simplicity, each utilized 4x10 (except Cluster and Cluster Wave methods) and
Constant vertical planning progression.
328
Progression #1 Progression #2 Progression #3 Progression #4
Set and Rep Scheme %1RM Reps %1RM Reps %1RM Reps %1RM Reps
59% 10 61% 10 64% 10 66% 10

Plateau 59% 10 61% 10 64% 10 66% 10
59% 10 61% 10 64% 10 66% 10
59% 10 61% 10 64% 10 66% 10
36% 10 39% 10 42% 10 45% 10

46% 10 49% 10 52% 10 55% 10
Step
56% 10 59% 10 62% 10 65% 10
66% 10 69% 10 72% 10 75% 10
66% 10 69% 10 72% 10 75% 10

56% 10 59% 10 62% 10 65% 10
Reverse Step
46% 10 49% 10 52% 10 55% 10
36% 10 39% 10 42% 10 45% 10
59% 10 61% 10 64% 10 66% 10

Ascending Wave 63% 8 65% 8 68% 8 71% 8
68% 6 70% 6 73% 6 75% 6
329
Table 6.27 Mladen’s Methodological System of classifying Set and Rep schemes
Continues on the next page
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
330
68% 6 70% 6 73% 6 75% 6
Descending Wave 63% 8 65% 8 68% 8 71% 8
59% 10 61% 10 64% 10 66% 10
62% 2 65% 2 68% 2 70% 2

62% 3 65% 3 68% 3 70% 3
Ascending Ladder
62% 5 65% 5 68% 5 70% 5
62% 10 65% 10 68% 10 70% 10
62% 10 65% 10 68% 10 70% 10

62% 5 65% 5 68% 5 70% 5
Descending Ladder
62% 3 65% 3 68% 3 70% 3

62% 2 65% 2 68% 2 70% 2
59% 10 61% 10 64% 10 66% 10

63% 8 65% 8 68% 8 71% 8
Tradi onal Pyramid 68% 6 70% 6 73% 6 75% 6
63% 8 65% 8 68% 8 71% 8
Continued from the previous page
68% 6 70% 6 73% 6 75% 6

63% 8 65% 8 68% 8 71% 8
Reverse Pyramid 59% 10 61% 10 64% 10 66% 10
63% 8 65% 8 68% 8 71% 8
68% 6 70% 6 73% 6 75% 6
62% 10 65% 10 68% 10 70% 10

52% 5 55% 5 58% 5 60% 5
Light-Heavy 62% 10 65% 10 68% 10 70% 10
52% 5 55% 5 58% 5 60% 5
62% 10 65% 10 68% 10 70% 10
66% 8 (5x3) 69% 8 (5x3) 72% 8 (5x3) 75% 8 (5x3)

66% 8 (5x3) 69% 8 (5x3) 72% 8 (5x3) 75% 8 (5x3)
Cluster
66% 8 (5x3) 69% 8 (5x3) 72% 8 (5x3) 75% 8 (5x3)
66% 8 (5x3) 69% 8 (5x3) 72% 8 (5x3) 75% 8 (5x3)
66% 8 (5x3) 69% 8 (5x3) 72% 8 (5x3) 75% 8 (5x3)

Cluster Wave 69% 7 (4x3) 71% 7 (4x3) 74% 7 (4x3) 77% 7 (4x3)
71% 6 (6x2) 74% 6 (6x2) 76% 6 (6x2) 79% 6 (6x2)
331
Continued from the previous page
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
7.3.3 Interlude: On Individualization
In one ideological sense, individualization is about creating “equal playing field”,

or making sure everyone is training at similar individual potential. What does “equal
playing field” mean here?
Imagine we have N=15 athletes, with a range of 85 - 110kg 1RM in the bench press.
The average of this group is around 100kg (SD = 7.5kg). The first method of equality (or
creating equal playing field) would be to make everyone lift 3x5 with 80kg over few
weeks. The external load is equal for every individual (since everyone is lifting 80kg for
3 sets of 5), but is the internal load and hence stimuli the same for everyone? 3x5 with
80kg might be too much for some individuals and too little for the others.
Therefore, we decide to use relative intensity, where load is selected based on in-
dividual 1RM. The second method uses percentages of 1RM to prescribe, e.g. 3x5 @80%.
This is much better because we take into account individual differences (or individ-
ual potential). Since everyone is lifting relative to their 1RM, have we achieved equal
playing field? Hold your horses, my liberal social justice warrior friend. Although much
improved in making things more equal, 80% of 1RM still might be too much for an in-
dividual to do for 5 reps with, or it might be too little. One solution could be to create
individualized rep-max tables (which might be a pipe dream if we use many exercises,
particularly with strength-generalists). Other solution would be to allow for some flex-
ibility in prescription, by introducing variance in the system by giving some rep or load
ranges (e.g. 3x4-6 @75-85%). Perfect? Not really, but much better.
Even with flexible prescription, a few individuals might experience the set as very
unpleasant, since they might be very tall, or prefer smaller number of reps in a set. So,
to make the equal playing field even more equal, we decide to use a method number
three, which is even more individualized by prescribing using RIR (e.g. 3x5 w/2RIR or
3x80% w/2RIR)136. We do this since we believe that individual subjective feeling is the
construct that needs to be targeted with equality. Since everyone is training at the equal
potential (potential in this case being the same RIR at the same reps or %1RM), we must
be creating same stimuli (dose) and hence we can expect same response? Sorry to dis-
appoint, but no.
The equality methods above are mostly related to the repetition level (or a single
136 We can also use VBT, or velocity drop metrics to stop the set at, say, 10-20% drop in mean velocity. But
why 10%? Why 10% for all the athletes?
434
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
set), but what if someone needs to do more or fewer sets? Everything else being equal,
one needs 5 sets and other needs only 2 sets. So, the SJW in us needs to set another
equality normalization level. We might measure fatigue accumulation construct across
the sets, with some proxy metrics, like increase in RIR rating (e.g. first set 8RIR, second
8RIR, third 9RIR, done), drop in reps at the same RIR rating (first set 5 reps @8RIR,
second set 5 reps @8RIR, third set 4 reps @8RIR, done), drop in average set velocity and
so forth. These are usually called Fatigue Percents (Tuchscherer, 2008, 2016), and will be
explained after this interlude. So now, besides equalizing individual sets, we also equal-
izing multiple sets. This is done by performing sets until reaching a particular metric
with the aim of individualizing training dose. For example, repeating sets of 5 w/2RIR
until reaching 5% fatigue level. This way we assume that everyone is training at an equal
individual potential by auto regulating dose based on stress (i.e. fatigue experienced).
Figure 7.27 depicts the methods above with hypothetical Pre and Post scores.
3x5 w/80kg 3x5 @80%
120
10
110
100
5
Change in 1RM (kg)
90
1RM (kg)
3x5 w/2RIR 5s w/2RIR 5% Fatigue

0
120
110
100
90
Pre Post Pre Post 3x5 w/80kg 3x5 @80% 3x5 w/2RIR 5s w/2RIR 5% Fatigue
Figure 7.27 Hypothetical methods of individualizing by creating equal playing field. Each dot represents
one athlete’s bench press 1RM. Left panel depicts Pre and Post score, while the right panel depicts the
change in score (Post - Pre)
Our belief here is that by individualizing the training, we create equal playing field
and hence we get higher training effects, as well as lower inter-individual differences in
response. Figure 7.28 and Figure 7.29 depict this theoretical idea.
435
Change in 1RM (kg)
Fatigue
Figure 7.28 Depicting hypothetical change scores (Post - Pre) when using different methods of
individualization. In theory, by individualizing the effects should be better, and inter-individual variation
should be smaller
E ects (Resp nse)
n
L wer inter-individual varia
cts
Higher mean
n
Higher inter-individual varia
cts
L wer mean
“One size s all” “training at similar individual p ten al”
Individualiza
Figure 7.29 In theory, individualizing more improves the overall effect, and reduces the inter-individual
variation. In theory...
This is great in theory, same as with other left wing and progressive ideas, but
fails in practice. Why is that? First, there are unlimited number of variables that one
436
MLADEN JOVANOVIĆ
can use as proxies to equalize or create equal playing field. In all of the methods above,
we used individualization principle. We can also continue by individualizing the rest
time, range of motion, exercise selection, you name it. We can also use different met-
rics to represent those constructs (e.g. stress created by sets can be measured by drop
in average velocity, increasing in RIR ratings, increase in ammonia production, drop in
EMG, just to name a few). Hence, it is impossible to create an equal playing field, since
equality can be represented with unlimited number of variables that need equalization,
and by balancing one, we create havoc somewhere else. Very much similar to the pro-
gressive ideologues and SJW types. But even more important, how the hell do we know
that we have maximized individual response, by equalizing individual dose metrics? What
if doing “5s at 2RIR until 5% Fatigue” is epitome of self-regulating dose and creating
an equal playing field, but one slacks? Or if ne needs higher levels of dose than equalized
dose to progress? What if someone prefers something else? What if that same work-
out creates bigger soreness for a few athletes, which affects the next session? What if
someone suffers from fuckarounditis and needs a whip every now and then? What if we
cannot manage workout like that in the group setting due to the facility and equipment
limitation? Why do we think that dose created by “5s at 2RIR until 5% Fatigue” is ac-
tually equal to everyone? Or it will create similar responses? Why do we actually want
similar responses in the first place?
The point is that we do need to strive for individualization but keep it real and un-
derstand that there are numerous assumptions in the equalization process and models.
We do need some bias in the program and understand that at the end of the day, even
with individualization, we are still experimenting. If we go back to the Figure 1.1, the
aim of individualization is in forum for action, particularly with the group settings, by
making sure everyone survives the workout and performs at similar individual poten-
tial or current ability. At the end of the day, we are still wrestling with uncertainty. This
is about satisficing (good enough) individualization, rather than ideological or place-
of-things individualization.
Rather than utilizing SJW definition of individualization, I prefer another one
(see Figure 7.30). It is not about training at equal individual potential, as much as it is
about reaching full (or better yet, satisficing) potential while avoiding the downsides.
Surely, making sure that one is not killed in the workout by using dose individualization
is a step forward, but it is not the end goal. Most likely, there is a tipping point where
this equal playing field becomes detrimental or exercise in futility.
437
“Individualiza is crea “Individualiza is m sure

equal playing eld, r m is what it takes t
sure every is tra at reach ten while
similar individual ten av the d wnsides
Figure 7.30 Better definition of individualization
7.3.4 Back to the Set Level
Besides individualization, by utilizing relative prescription in trying to match

athlete’s current ability (stable level of adaptation and current state), Review and Ret-
rospective also deals with making sure that what is actually prescribed is being realized.
For example, if a hard workout is planned, one wants to make sure a hard workout is
actually done. This doesn’t mean following a program to the letter, but acknowledging
program constraints and bias, while providing for some variance to take into account
errors in the prescription and current ability of the athletes.
For example, if program calls for 80% 1RM, one way to make sure that 80% is
actually used, is to either use predicted or estimated 1RM (done with LV profile or us-
ing RIR equation), VBT prescription by using velocity associated with 80% 1RM from
438
About
Mladen Jovanović is a Serbian Strength and Conditioning Coach and Sport Sci-
entist. Mladen was involved in the physical preparation of professional, amateur and
recreational athletes of various ages in sports, such as basketball, soccer, volleyball,
martial arts, tennis and Australian rules football. In 2010, Mladen started the Comple-
mentary Training website and in 2017 developed the scheduling and monitoring ap-
plication, the AthleteSR. He is currently pursuing his PhD at the Faculty of Sports and
Physical Education in Belgrade, Serbia.
Twitter: @physical_prep
Instagram: @physical_prep
Facebook: www.facebook.com/complementarytraining/
Website: www.complementarytraining.net
Email: coach.mladen.jovanović@gmail.com

Strength Training Manual The Agile Periodization Approach Volume One & Two: Theory Mladen Jovanović

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strength Training Manual The Agile Periodization Approach Volume One & Two: Theory Mladen Jovanović

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strength Training Manual The Agile Periodization Approach Volume One & Two: Theory Mladen Jovanović

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRENGTH TRAINING MANUAL

The Agile Periodization Approach

The Agile Periodization Approach

For information: www.complementarytraining.net

Copyright © 2020 Mladen Jovanović

Cover design by Ricardo Marino

Cover image used under license from Shutterstock.com

Paperback design by Goran Smiljanić

Printed in the United States of America

First Paperback Edition

For information: www.complementarytraining.net

1.1 Precision versus Significance

Figure 1.1 Difference between precision and significance.

1.2 Generalizations, Priors,

This manual is full of generalizations. Therefore, you need to look at them as a

1.3 Large and Small Worlds

Everything written in this manual represents Small Worlds - self-contained

1.4 Different prediction errors

Figure 1.3 Different types of prediction error

2 Excerpt taken from “Statistical Rethinking” (McElreath, 2015), page 19

1.5 Classification, Categorization

"Thing in itself" Classi ca on 1 Classi ca on 2

Classi ca on 3 Classi ca on 4 Classi ca on 5

Figure 1.4 There is no bias-free, objective way to classify phenomena.

1.6 Place of Things vs. Forum for Action

It is also important to mention that class membership is not a TRUE/FALSE state

1.7 Qualities, Ontology, Phenomenology,

Anatomic Maximal Rate of Force Strength

Figure 1.5 An overly simplistic causal model of methods and qualities

Biomechanically speaking, bench press for aforementioned powerlifter and soc-

Second, assuming that there is an associated training method or intensity zone

1.8 Philosophical stance(s) and

1.9 What is covered in Volume

I needed something that is prescriptive enough to avoid fuckarounditis and to

What should be: What should be:

What is: What is:

2.9 Evidence-based mumbo jumbo

Opinion and wisdom

Heuris cs & models

Current state &

2.10 Certainty, Risk, and Uncertainty

Another model, with similar intentions, is Dave Snowden’s Cynefin framework

Realm Type of Problem Type of inference Appropriate Tool

Risk All op ons and consequences are Induc ve Probability theory,

Uncertainty Ill-posed or ill-defned problems Heuris c inference Heuris cs, ecological

In my opinion and experience, our domain is a Complex domain. We just cannot

Let me quote the description of an excellent free course “Introduction to Dynam-

“Deterministic dynamical systems can behave randomly. This property,

Disordered behavior can be stable. Non-periodic systems with the but-

Novel practice Best practice

2.11 Optimal versus Robust

To quote Gerd Gigerenzer: “When faced with significant irreducible uncertain-

Game Speed Game Speed Game Speed Game

If something happens, athletes will miss speed work for 14 days!

Game Game Game Game

ROBUST > OPTIMAL

None of this, of course. The purpose of classification is not to create a place of

General category Speci category

Speci c Preparatory Exercises (SPE)