How Every Single Powerlifter Started Running a Bad Dietmar Wolf/Sheiko Clone Without Realising
- Josh Hezza
- Apr 21
- 17 min read
(Note: This isn’t a direct critique of the IPF—those discussions are coming in the days and weeks ahead.)
How Every Single Powerlifter Started Running a Bad Dietmar Wolf/Sheiko Clone Without Realising
Why today’s powerlifters are unknowingly stuck in recycled programming—and what to do instead.
🔥 TL;DR:
Powerlifting programming used to be diverse. Now? Scroll Instagram or Reddit and it’s 10 variations of the same thing—volume-based spreadsheets with 3–5 bench sessions per week, submaximal work forever, and no real individuality. Whether they call it evidence-based, RPE-driven, or DUP, it’s just Dietmar Wolf or Sheiko in a new tracksuit. But worse.
🧱 The Copy-Paste Era of Powerlifting
Open Instagram. Browse a Reddit log. Ask a lifter what their coach has them doing.
Chances are, it’s the same thing with a different logo.
Top sets at RPE 7.5. Back-off work at 75–82%. Three to five bench sessions a week. Pause squats on Day 2. Deadlifts every Monday.
Larsen Press only bench variation. All dressed up with a couple of spreadsheets, a PDF check-in form, and a bio that says “evidence-based.”
But scratch the surface and what do you find?
It’s just Dietmar Wolf. Or Sheiko. Sometimes a mangled hybrid of both. Usually with less thought, less intent, and zero understanding of where the original came from.
We’re in the era of copy-paste coaching. The age of templated fatigue. Everyone’s running the same thing—but pretending it’s bespoke.
It wasn’t always like this.
There used to be diversity. There used to be schools of thought, not just brands.
You had Westside guys hammering box squats and speed pulls. You had the 5/3/1 crowd grinding brutally simple cycles. You had Cube Method lifters chasing variations and wave loading. RTS was testing RPE and autoregulation in real time. Sheiko and Dietmar programs were floating around, sure—but they were understood for what they were: technical, high-volume base templates for lifters with strong coaching environments.
Now?
Everyone’s a spreadsheet coach. Everyone’s a data guy. Everyone’s prescribing top sets at 8 with back-offs at 72–78% like it’s cutting-edge.
It’s not cutting-edge. It’s a bad remix of two Eastern European (lol okay Norway and Germany aren't in Eastern Europe) systems from 15–20 years ago—stripped of context, culture, and progression logic.
“People think they’re being coached. They’re often just being spreadsheeted. Based off some templates that came out more than a decade ago— and their coaches might not even realise it.”
Where It All Came From: The Sheiko–Dietmar Wolf Blueprint
If you’ve spent more than five minutes in the online powerlifting scene, you’ve seen the signs:
Bench five times a week
Squat three days in a row
Submaximal waves that never seem to peak
Endless doubles at 72–78%
A deadlift session that’s just five sets of four, forever
And yet, nobody talks about where this all really came from.
We’re not in the golden age of coaching innovation. We’re in the trickle-down era—where the average lifter is unknowingly running butchered versions of two systems they’ve never read about: Boris Sheiko’s Russian model, and the Norwegian system via Dietmar Wolf.
🇷🇺 Boris Sheiko: The Russian Model
Boris Sheiko wasn’t a meme. He wasn’t a minimalist. And he definitely wasn’t trying to write cookie-cutter PDFs for Instagram.
He was a coach at the highest levels of Russian powerlifting, authoring programs for elite athletes—primarily equipped lifters—within the Russian school of high-frequency, technique-driven, submaximal lifting.
The Sheiko method revolved around:
Multiple same-lift sessions in a day (e.g. bench twice in one workout)
Wave loading within the same session or week
Moderate intensity ranges (think 70–85% most of the time)
High skill exposure and repetition-based learning
Meticulous neural load tracking and calculated stress modulation
It was built on the philosophy of technical mastery through volume, frequency, and repeatability. It wasn’t about testing your max every month—it was about practicing to eventually express it, with as little fatigue cost as possible.
Sheiko didn’t program by feel. He built waves, repeated exposures, and tight control over volume.
🇳🇴 Dietmar Wolf: The Norwegian System
Now step westward to Dietmar Wolf—long-time architect of the Norwegian lifting scene, and currently the Interim Vice President and Treasurer of the IPF.
Dietmar is one of the most influential yet under-discussed figures in modern powerlifting. His programming style, which shaped a generation of IPF competitors (especially from Norway and Germany), was marked by:
Strict progressive overload
Undulating intensity blocks
Regulated, fixed volume targets
Deliberate use of technical variations
A strong emphasis on control, not chaos
Think of Dietmar’s system as more structured than Sheiko, with clear week-to-week progression and no guesswork. It's a framework of precision. Every session has a purpose, even if that purpose is “hit the same numbers again and nail the tempo.”
Dietmar wasn’t chasing Instagram PRs. He was developing resilient, competition-ready athletes for the IPF platform. Athletes who squatted three times a week, benched five, and didn’t touch 90% until it actually mattered.
🎯 What They Had in Common
Despite being different in layout and origin, both systems shared a common goal:
Maximise motor learning
Minimise destructive fatigue
Build athletes, not highlight reels
They trained the skill of lifting—especially squat and bench—through volume, frequency, and variation. They de-emphasised limit strength expression. They delayed maximal loading. And they used close variations (pauses, tempo, grip changes) to sharpen technique—not to “confuse the muscles.”
📉 Then It Got Lost in Translation
What happened next is what always happens:
Intermediates got hold of elite frameworks—and tried to replicate the structure without the system.
Programs written for national-level, well-coached athletes in controlled environments… ...became copy-pasted Google Sheets passed around Discords and subreddits.
What started as a high-level approach to long-term development became a religion for beginners chasing a 160kg squat and a 4x/week bench plan.
And coaches—especially in the raw IPF scene—latched on to these models hard. Why? Because they were safe. Repeatable. Quantifiable. Easy to assign. And for a few years? They worked well enough.
“What was once elite-level structure has become the default for beginners chasing a 160kg squat.”
Now we’ve got thousands of lifters—and their coaches—swearing by volume-based submaximal DUP without ever realising it’s just Sheiko + Dietmar with a layer of RPE and a fancier font.
They’re not innovating. They’re not individualising. They’re not building systems.
They’re just recycling spreadsheets.
And the worst part?
Most of them don’t even know it.
🧠 What Today’s Programs Really Are
Ask 100 lifters what their coach has them running.
They’ll say it’s personalised. They’ll call it RPE-driven. They’ll say it uses autoregulation and fatigue management and high-frequency bench with accessories for weak points.
They’ll say it’s advanced. Custom. Evidence-based.
But open the spreadsheet—and what do you actually see?
🗓️ The Same Structure. Every. Time.
Squat 3–4x/week
Bench 4–6x/week (because “technique sport”)
Deadlift 2–3x/week, almost always on Day 1 and Day 4
Always in SBD order, no matter what the lifter’s needs are
Top set @8, followed by 4–6 back-off sets
Paused variation on secondary day
“Optional” accessories tacked on as afterthoughts
You’ll get the odd tempo squat. The occasional Larsen press. A bit of incline if you’re lucky.
But in essence? It’s Sheiko or Dietmar—with more fluff, fewer rules, and emojis in the notes column.
🔢 Progression by Spreadsheet, Not Adaptation
Here’s what most of these modern programs really rely on:
% work disguised as RPE
Volume increases every week or every block, regardless of performance
Pre-set waves masquerading as autoregulation
Identical lift structures across all lifters, sometimes even in the same order, on the same days
Minimal variation, because comp specificity is treated like a magic spell
Everything is built on external structure: sets, reps, percentages, waves. None of it is built on the internal feedback that matters—bar speed, joint feedback, compensation patterns, readiness, mental fatigue, technical decay.
📉 Just Rebranded Templates
You’re not running something new. You’re not running something personalised. You’re running a lightly modified version of a system that’s been floating around since the early 2000s—with some RPE and a fancier font.
Let’s break it down:
Sheiko with More Reps:
Submax top sets
High weekly lift frequency
Repeated exposures at 70–85%
“Technique as stimulus” philosophy
But now cranked up with even more volume, less wave logic, and no same-day doubles
Dietmar/Norwegian with Optional Accessories:
Regulated, undulating intensity
Tight weekly structure
Moderate volume over long timeframes
But now with flexible days, accessories slapped on, and none of the long-view consistency that made it work
Hybrids that Lose the Plot:
A little of both
Top set @8 + linear % increase next week
“Reactive” programming that just means wait for the lifter to break, then deload
“You’re not running a customised program. You’re running #32 with emojis.”
None of this means Sheiko or Dietmar were bad. Quite the opposite—they were brilliant, in their context.
But what you’re doing isn’t that. It’s a watered-down remix that’s lost the original purpose, the structure, and the coaching that made it effective in the first place.
And it’s being served to beginners as gospel.
🧱 Why This Is a Problem
It’s easy to look at the current powerlifting scene and think everything’s fine. People are stronger than ever. Elite totals keep going up. There’s more access to coaching than ever before.
But once you step outside of the 5–10 lifters getting reposted on King of the Lifts and take a look at the actual programming being run at the ground level?
You realise it’s broken. Not in theory—but in practice. And it’s been broken for a long time.
📉 1. There’s No Real Variation
Most modern programs are built on a copy-paste loop of the same exercises, bars, tempos, and loads.
Comp squat. Comp squat paused. Comp squat with tempo. ...and repeat.
Deadlifts from the floor, every week. Flat bench, four to five times a week, every week. The same warm-ups. The same equipment. The same joint angles. Forever.
And then people wonder why their knees hurt, their back is flaring up, and their lifts stall every 6 months.
No variation = no adaptation.
Your body doesn’t respond to volume—it responds to change. When that change disappears, so does your progress.
🧨 2. No Real Max Effort Work
One of the biggest gaps in today’s programming?
There’s no genuine high-intensity training.
Everyone’s terrified of heavy singles unless it’s meet week. If it’s not at RPE 7.5 or lower, it’s labelled “junk volume” or dismissed as too risky.
But here’s the truth:
If you never strain, you never peak.
If you never touch 90%+, you never learn how to grind.
If you never test yourself under pressure, you don’t build performance—you build fragility.
And that’s why meet-day meltdowns are so common now. Lifters walk into the warm-up room having never lifted heavy under stress. They’re used to clean triples at 77.5%, not ugly grindy lifts with real consequences.
🧱 3. No GPP, No Hypertrophy Structure
Despite the insane number of bench sessions, many lifters today are under-muscled. Why?
Because they confuse skill exposure for hypertrophy. And they confuse volume for general physical preparedness.
But:
Repeating comp bench 5x/week doesn’t build new tissue—it sharpens old patterns.
Running SBD every session doesn’t build fitness—it builds breakdown.
“Optional accessories” tacked on at the end aren’t GPP—they’re an afterthought.
There’s no real phase for hypertrophy. There’s no aerobic work. There’s no focused development of hamstrings, triceps, lats, or grip.
Just more sets. More percentages. More of the same.
🌀 4. Burnout and Stagnation Are Misdiagnosed
When these systems stop working, coaches don’t adapt. They just add volume.
Bench stalling? Bench more. Deadlift fading? Add another variation. Feeling cooked? Here’s a deload and another 12-week block of... the same exact thing.
But you don’t need more volume. You need smarter programming. You need rotation. GPP. Intentional weak point work. Autoregulation with actual rules—not vibes.
👤 5. Zero Individuality
Most of today’s popular templates—especially in the IPF pipeline—offer no real room for personalisation.
Older lifter with hip arthritis? Same spreadsheet.
Neurodivergent lifter with executive dysfunction? Same spreadsheet.
Lifter with a decade of experience and a 15-year injury history? Same spreadsheet.
And it’s delivered with a check-in form, a smiley face, and a note that says “keep pushing.”
This is programming for the average lifter in a vacuum. Not coaching for the individual in front of you.
🧠 6. These Templates Were Never Meant to Be the Default
The original Sheiko and Dietmar templates weren’t magic—they were contextual.
For early intermediates needing skill development
For technically elite lifters needing skill refinement
In national training centres, with hands-on coaching
Written in the 2000s, for equipped lifters or long-cycle technical raw athletes
They weren’t built for:
❌ Teenage Instagram lifters with no coaching
❌ 30-something gen-pop athletes with full-time jobs
❌ Raw lifters in the hypertrophy stage
❌ People lifting twice a week in a commercial gym
❌ Anyone trying to peak within 8–12 weeks
🤝 Sheiko and Louie Agreed More Than People Realise
When Boris Sheiko and Louie Simmons met in person, they actually found a lot of common ground—despite wildly different systems.
Why?
Because both men understood that training is about stimulus and response, not dogma and spreadsheets.
The Sheiko templates and the Westside templates were polar opposites—but both were systems, built to adapt, evolve, and produce results.
What we have now?
Is neither. Just a watered-down simulation of something that used to work in context—stripped of logic and applied universally.
🧬 7. "But It Works for the Elites!"
Let’s end on the myth that keeps this mess alive.
People point to a few top-tier IPF lifters and say:
“Look, they bench 5x a week and hit world records!”
Yes, and?
They’re genetic freaks. They’ve been lifting since they were 15. They’re national champions who probably would’ve gotten strong no matter what system they used. They live in countries with strong coaching pipelines, state funding, and structured training environments.
And most importantly?
They’re the exception—not the rule.
Citing them as proof your program works is like saying Usain Bolt’s diet is why he ran a 9.58.
We’re not innovating—we’re imitating. And most of the people copying this stuff don’t even realise what they’re copying.
🛠️ What Got Lost Along the Way
The deeper you dig into modern powerlifting programming, the clearer it becomes:
It’s not just that we’ve copied the wrong systems. It’s that we’ve forgotten entire tools that used to define effective training.
Somewhere between spreadsheets, bar speed trackers, and five-bench-days-a-week templates, we lost the essence of what actually works.
Not because we’re lazy.
But because we let the program become the coach, and we stopped listening to the bar.
Here’s what got left behind:
🔩 1. The Max Effort Method
This might be the single biggest casualty of the volume spreadsheet era.
Max Effort work—the intelligent, weekly rotation of limit-strength movements—was never just about lifting heavy. It was about:
Testing the system under stress
Identifying weak points in real time
Practicing intensity and intent
Learning how to grind, strain, and adapt
Now? Max effort has become taboo.
Too risky. Too fatiguing. We’re told to stay submaximal. To hit a top set at 8 and keep it clean. To “save it for meet day.”
But here’s the truth:
If you never strain in the gym, you won’t perform under the lights.
You don’t need to max out every week forever—but if you don’t know how to express strength, you don’t have any.
🧱 2. Exercise Variation for Weak Points
Remember when lifters used movements to solve problems?
You had a sticking point? You used a movement to smash through it.
Deadlift stalling off the floor? You pulled against bands, deficit, or with a snatch grip.
Missing the last inch of your bench? Board press, floor press, JM press.
Folding forward in the squat? Good mornings, SSB, wide-stance box squats.
Now?
You get a pause variation at 72.5% for 5x4.
Variation has become an accessory—when it used to be a weapon.
⚡ 3. Legitimate Speed Work
Speed work wasn’t just “lighter day.” It was a day dedicated to intent, to bar velocity, to power output.
Dynamic Effort training—done properly—developed:
Reversal strength
Acceleration
Timing
Confidence under load
But now, speed work is:
Misunderstood
Underloaded
Replaced with back-off sets at RPE 6
There’s no compensatory acceleration. No bar pop. No wave loading. No rotating bars, grips, stances.
Just... more submax volume.
The bar isn’t moving fast. It’s just not heavy. And that’s not the same thing.
🫀 4. Conditioning and GPP
General Physical Preparedness used to be a foundation—not an afterthought.
Lifters built:
Work capacity
Recovery ability
Mobility
Resilience
Through sleds, sandbags, rows, marches, carries, circuits, jumps, and drags.
Now?
They finish their top sets, do some half-hearted lateral raises, and wonder why they gas out halfway through comp day warm-ups.
There’s no movement, no sweat, no athletic base.
And when things start hurting? No GPP = no way to pivot.
🔁 5. The Repetition Method
This one gets mentioned even less.
You had Max Effort for strain. Dynamic Effort for speed. And Repetition Method to build muscle, engrain patterns, and develop capacity.
This was the glue.
3–4 sets of 10–15 on targeted lifts
Moderate intensity, high focus
Constant mechanical tension
High value per set
Now? Reps get shoved to the end of the session, often as “optional accessories.”
And lifters wonder why they’re not building muscle, fixing imbalances, or improving their structure.
You’re not too advanced for the repetition method. You’re just not doing it.
👁️ 6. Actual Coaching Intuition
Here’s something no spreadsheet will ever replace:
A coach who can read the room. A coach who knows when to push. When to pull back. When to rotate a movement. When to deload you, not the program.
This doesn’t come from formulas. It comes from time under the bar and time watching people under the bar.
But the more we automate coaching, the more we lose this.
Now everything’s check-ins, autofills, and RPE calculators.
That might scale a business. But it doesn’t build lifters.
🎉 7. Fun
This one gets left out of every discussion.
But let’s be honest: training used to be more fun.
You got to try weird bars.
You rotated movements.
You challenged yourself with jumps, circuits, strongman medleys.
You had heavy days that got you fired up and light days that didn’t bury you.
You left the gym sweaty, satisfied, and better.
Now?
Lifters dread their sessions. It’s the same thing every week. Every session feels like a chore. They’re bored. Injured. Stalled. Confused.
And their coach says: “Stick to the plan.”
“The spreadsheet became the coach. The bar stopped telling people what they needed.”
We stopped listening to the iron. We started worshipping the structure.
And in doing so, we threw out some of the most important tools strength training ever gave us.
It’s time to bring them back.
✅ What to Do Instead
By now, the pattern is obvious.
Everyone’s running the same high-frequency, high-fatigue templates
Nobody’s building muscle, rotating movements, or actually peaking
Coaches have forgotten how to coach—and lifters are paying for it
But it’s not just a Sheiko or Dietmar problem.
It’s not even an IPF problem.
It’s a systems problem.
And the only way forward is to stop blindly running cloned templates and start building frameworks that flex, adapt, and evolve.
Here’s how to fix it:
🔁 1. Consider the Conjugate System
Before you roll your eyes—no, we’re not talking about banded box squats for everyone.
We’re talking about a framework built on:
Movement rotation
Max Effort expression
Dynamic Effort speed and intent
Targeted accessories for weak points
GPP and repetition method for structure
Conjugate doesn’t mean chaos. It means you’re never stuck.
When something starts breaking down, you don’t panic—you pivot. When performance dips, you shift the movement or the stressor—not the entire plan.
And when it works? It really works. Because it adapts to the lifter, not the spreadsheet.
📦 2. Use Block-Based Conjugate for Volume and Peaking Cycles
Want more structure? No problem.
Block-based Conjugate gives you:
Hypertrophy or GPP-focused early phases
Strength and speed emphasis mid-block
Peaking logic that actually prepares you for meet day
You get all the benefits of variation and rotation—but still within a progressive model.
Not random. Not vibes. Planned, sequenced, repeatable.
This isn’t Westside cosplay. It’s a functional, modern approach to raw lifters who want more than “another RPE 8 double.”
🧠 3. Individualise by Effort, Not Just Volume
Too many programs confuse quantity with customisation.
Adding more sets doesn’t make something individualised. Letting someone “choose their RPE cap” doesn’t either.
Real individualisation means:
Choosing exercises based on how a lifter moves
Modifying intent based on their needs (speed, strain, stability, range)
Progressing based on feedback, not spreadsheets
Having fallbacks when the plan stops working
You don’t need 50 variations per block. You just need a system that lets you change things when they stop helping.
🔧 4. Bring Back Variation and Intent
Variation isn’t a gimmick. It’s the foundation of long-term development and joint preservation.
And intent? That’s what turns a 70% set from a warm-up into a tool.
Do your pause squats have intent, or are they just thrown in?
Do your deadlift variations target weaknesses, or just add fatigue?
Are you pressing with purpose, or just logging another four bench days?
The best lifters don’t do more—they do better. More variation. More feedback. More focused effort.
👤 5. Program for the Lifter, Not the Excel File
This one shouldn’t need saying, but here we are.
Too many “coaches” are just assigning spreadsheet templates with minor tweaks.
But lifters aren’t spreadsheets.
They’re:
Working jobs
Raising kids
Battling injuries
Neurodivergent, fatigued, overstimulated
Motivated, discouraged, hungry, scared
In need of a system that fits their reality—not a protocol with 52 weekly bench sets
Stop chasing structure for structure’s sake. Start building training around the person in front of you.
🔁 6. Run a System—Not a Clone
This is the heart of it.
You don’t need to reinvent the wheel. You don’t need to abandon Sheiko or Dietmar or any of the tools they used.
But you do need to stop running clones of systems that no longer fit your life, your body, or your goals.
What you need is a system:
That includes variation, autoregulation, and feedback loops
That can be coached in real time—not just assigned at scale
That teaches the athlete, instead of trapping them
That helps them peak—not just practice
Because as we said in Your Coach Doesn’t Know How to Pivot:
“The problem isn’t the plan. The problem is that your coach can’t steer the damn thing.”
And if the system can’t pivot, it’s not a system. It’s a trap.
Closing
Let’s be clear:
This isn’t a call to throw away structure. It’s a call to stop pretending you’re innovating when you’re just remixing old spreadsheets.
What you’re running isn’t revolutionary. It’s a flattened, decontextualised, emoji-filled reboot of something that was written for a completely different lifter, in a completely different time, under a completely different system.
If you’re hitting a wall, it’s not your fault.
You’re not lazy. You’re not broken.
You’re just running a worse version of someone else’s program from two decades ago—and wondering why it doesn’t hold up under pressure.
You didn’t discover a better way.
You discovered a watered-down Soviet block that forgot how to rotate lifts, autoregulate fatigue, or let you actually strain.
It’s time to drop the pretense.
If you want long-term results—strength that lasts, a body that holds up, and a mind that doesn’t get fried every comp cycle—you need a system that adapts. Not a clone that burns out.
Let’s be clear—this isn’t a criticism of Boris Sheiko or Dietmar Wolf. Quite the opposite. Sheiko, especially, is one of the most influential minds in strength training history. His work was pioneering, thoughtful, and deeply effective within its intended context. The issue isn’t their systems—it’s how those systems have been stripped of nuance, repackaged without understanding, and treated as gospel by coaches lacking the imagination or experience to evolve. This article isn’t about tearing down legacy. It’s about calling for more creativity, more adaptability, and more critical thinking in how we build modern programs. If your system can’t pivot, it can’t grow—and neither can your lifters.
🧲 Choose What You Actually Need:
💬 “Want something that’s actually built for you?”
➡️ Check out my Coaching Tiers — Silver, Gold, or Diamond. No guesswork. Just coaching that fits your life, body, and goals.
📘 “Tired of copying bad programs? Want a full system?”
➡️ Get The Full Conjugate System — 12 months of structured, flexible, performance-ready training. Built to rotate, peak, autoregulate, and evolve.
📦 “Not ready to invest yet? Start with free value.”
➡️ Read the full blog archive,
➡️ Download free templates,
➡️ And stop copy-pasting weakness.
This sport will chew up anyone running someone else’s plan.
Build your own system—or let someone teach you how.
🧠 Q&A: Addressing Common Criticisms
Q: "But high-frequency programs like Sheiko and Dietmar have produced champions. Doesn't that validate their effectiveness?"
A: While these programs have indeed been successful for some, it's crucial to recognise that they were designed for specific contexts—often for elite, well-coached athletes in controlled environments. The success of a few doesn't guarantee universal applicability. Many lifters following these templates without proper adaptation or coaching support may not experience the same benefits and could risk overtraining or stagnation.
Q: "Isn't high-frequency training superior for strength gains?"
A: High-frequency training can be beneficial, particularly for skill acquisition and volume distribution. However, its effectiveness depends on individual factors like recovery capacity, training experience, and lifestyle. Without proper periodization and individualised adjustments, high-frequency programs can lead to fatigue accumulation and diminished returns.
Q: "If these programs are suboptimal, why are they so prevalent?"
A: Their structured nature and widespread availability make them appealing, especially to novice coaches and lifters seeking guidance. Additionally, the success stories associated with these programs contribute to their popularity. However, popularity doesn't equate to suitability for everyone. It's essential to assess whether a program aligns with an individual's specific needs and goals.
Q: "Isn't RPE-based programming sufficient for individualization?"
A: RPE (Rate of Perceived Exertion) is a valuable tool for autoregulation, allowing lifters to adjust intensity based on daily readiness. However, relying solely on RPE without considering other factors like exercise selection, volume, and recovery can be limiting. Effective individualization encompasses a holistic approach, integrating various training variables tailored to the lifter.
Q: "Are you suggesting we abandon structure altogether?"
A: Not at all. Structure is vital for progression and consistency. The key is to implement a flexible structure that accommodates individual differences and allows for adjustments based on feedback and progress. Programs should serve as frameworks, not rigid prescriptions.
Q: "What alternatives do you recommend to these traditional templates?"
A: Consider adopting a conjugate or block-based approach, which emphasises variation, targeted accessory work, and phases focused on different attributes like hypertrophy, strength, and power. These methods promote adaptability and can be tailored to an individual's strengths, weaknesses, and goals.
Q: "How can I ensure my program is truly individualised?"
A: Work with a knowledgeable coach who prioritises personalised programming, or educate yourself on training principles to make informed adjustments. Regularly assess your progress, listen to your body's feedback, and be willing to modify your training variables as needed. Remember, effective programming is dynamic and responsive, not static.
Comentarios