.png)
Strongman Through Every Lens: How Each Periodisation System Builds Power & Performance
- JHEPCxTJH
- Oct 10
- 53 min read
Strongman Through Every Lens: How Each Periodisation System Builds Power & Performance
One Sport, Many Roads
Strongman is the ultimate proving ground for every idea in strength training. It is not a sport of precision or predictability but of variation, and adaptation. No two competitions are identical. No athlete’s path from one show to the next ever looks the same. The implements change, the surfaces change, the weather changes, and the events are never repeated in perfect sequence. Yet through all that uncertainty, one constant remains: the demand for total-body strength expressed across every plane of motion, under every type of fatigue, and at every conceivable speed.
That chaos is exactly what makes strongman such a powerful lens for exploring periodisation theory. When a sport demands maximal strength, speed, endurance, and skill development all at once, it exposes the cracks in every neat, linear system. It shows what happens when structure meets reality. A well-designed periodisation model is supposed to guide the process of adaptation, but in strongman, the process itself often becomes the test.
Imagine, then, that seven coaches - each trained in a different school of periodisation - were asked to prepare the same athlete for the same competition. One follows the classic linear model of steady overload and tapering intensity. Another comes from the block periodisation tradition, favouring sequenced phases of focus. A third relies on daily undulating variation, while a fourth uses data-driven feedback loops rooted in autoregulation and emerging strategies. A fifth believes in constant maximal loading, the Bulgarian way. Another structures training through rotating tiers of total, lower, and upper emphasis. And finally, one coach builds from the Conjugate framework, developing every quality concurrently through rotating stimuli.
Each of these coaches has a different logic, a different philosophy, and a different interpretation of what “progress” looks like. Their training diaries would not resemble one another, even if the end goal - winning the same five-event show - was identical. Their choices about load, frequency, intensity, and event integration would all diverge, revealing not only their systems’ assumptions but also their blind spots.
This comparison is not about declaring one method superior. It is about seeing how each system thinks. Periodisation, when stripped of jargon, is simply the attempt to bring order to adaptation - to organise chaos into progress. Every method is a reflection of the environment it was born in: the sport, the athletes, the equipment, and the scientific paradigms of its era. Each one offers insights that can inform how we train today, provided we understand the reasoning behind it rather than copying its form blindly.
And yes, while many modern coaches no longer consciously follow a defined “system,” every approach still stems from somewhere. Whether someone writes 5x5s because that is what they learned as a lifter, or builds blocks because they saw it in a spreadsheet, those choices have philosophical roots. Even the decision to ignore periodisation entirely is a statement about belief in self-organisation and reactive programming.
By putting these systems side by side, strongman becomes the perfect test case. It forces us to confront what each method values most, how it manages conflicting demands, and how it interprets readiness and performance under pressure. The goal is not to defend a favourite system but to understand why each one works for certain athletes, fails for others, and evolves over time.
Through that lens, the sport becomes more than a collection of events - it becomes a microcosm of strength science itself. Strongman is where theory either adapts or dies.
The Systems
Before we compare how each model would prepare an athlete for competition, we first need to understand what a “system” actually is in the context of strength training. Every periodisation framework - whether classical, modern, or hybrid - is built on a specific set of assumptions about how adaptation occurs, how it can be managed, and how performance should be expressed on a given day. Those assumptions shape not only how training is written on paper but how coaches interpret feedback, adjust load, and define success.
A periodisation system is not a collection of exercises or percentages. It is a philosophy of change. Each system represents a different way of mapping the relationship between fatigue and fitness, stress and recovery, generality and specificity. When we talk about linear, block, or Conjugate systems, what we are really describing are models of adaptation - each one an attempt to predict how the human body responds to organised stress over time.
Some systems emerged from laboratory settings, built on quantifiable metrics like volume load, tonnage, or bar speed. Others were born out of coaching cultures, refined through decades of trial and error. The classic Soviet schools (Matveyev, Verkhoshansky, and later Issurin) tried to model adaptation mathematically and segment training into discrete phases. In contrast, Louie Simmons and the Westside lineage approached it experimentally, using conjugate variation and concurrent stressors to keep the body in a constant state of adaptation. The modern autoregulatory models like RTS (Reactive Training Systems) emerged from the digital era, using data feedback loops and subjective readiness tracking to replace fixed programming with adaptive response.
Despite their differences, all systems share a common purpose: to convert time and effort into measurable performance improvement by managing the interplay of stress, fatigue, and adaptation. The disagreement lies in how that should be done.
The Role of Systems in Strongman
Strongman is where those theoretical differences are exposed most clearly. In powerlifting, the target is narrow - three lifts, one maximal output per movement pattern. In Olympic weightlifting, the skills are technical but consistent. In strongman, however, the goalposts move every season. Athletes might train for a 400 kg deadlift one month and a 120 kg log for reps the next. They must sprint with a yoke, load a sandbag, press from an axle, and endure prolonged fatigue - all within the same competition.
This reality poses a challenge to every established model of periodisation. Systems designed for fixed technical skills or single-mode strength sports often struggle to accommodate the variability of strongman without significant modification. The coach must balance static maximal strength, explosive power, and work capacity, all while keeping the athlete resilient to the eccentric stress of moving events and the unpredictable nature of implements.
Therefore, each system’s theoretical logic will dictate how it copes with this chaos:
Linear systems assume that adaptation can be sequenced cleanly from general to specific.
Block systems assume that qualities can be trained in isolation and re-synthesised later.
Undulating models assume that multiple qualities can coexist within the same week.
Autoregulatory models assume that readiness determines training, not the calendar.
Max-specific approaches assume that neural adaptation is the ultimate key to strength.
Tiered and concurrent systems assume that rotating emphasis provides balance.
Conjugate systems assume that variation itself is the driver of continued progress.
These are not just theoretical differences - they fundamentally change how an athlete trains, recovers, and prepares to perform.
The Controlled Scenario: “One Athlete, One Competition, Many Systems”
To make these distinctions tangible, we will consider a single shared scenario. Imagine an experienced U105 kg strongman preparing for a generic National/Home Nations Level Comp, twelve weeks out from competition. His event set is as follows:
Max Axle Deadlift
Log Press for Reps (120 kg target)
20 m Yoke Carry with Anchor Drag
Farmer’s Hold for Time
Stone Series Finale (120–160 kg to 52-inch platform)
(Rational for this selection is provided later)
He trains four days per week, has a solid base of general strength, and maintains consistent recovery. He represents the archetype of a well-trained but not elite-level competitor - strong enough to make national finals, but still developing the balance between static power and endurance under fatigue.
Each system will now be applied to this same athlete and the same twelve-week window. The point is not to determine which approach would win, but to understand how each model structures training to reach a competitive peak.
In every case, we will examine three components:
Theoretical Logic – The system’s origins, guiding assumptions, and underlying philosophy.
Application to Strongman – How the model handles the sport’s multidimensional demands, what it does well, and where it struggles.
Conceptual Framework – A high-level view of how a twelve-week cycle might look for this athlete under that system, including the focus of each training block or week.
By analysing each method through the same scenario, we can begin to see the deeper relationships between theory and practice. A system designed for predictable barbell sports may shine during static strength phases but falter under the constant variation of events. Another may excel at conditioning but lack the directed overload needed for top-end performance. The Conjugate model may appear the most adaptive, but even it relies on principles borrowed from the same traditions it later diverged from.
What this comparative study reveals is not just the differences between systems but the shared logic that connects them. Every coach, whether consciously or not, borrows from these paradigms when writing a program. The question is not whether we follow one school or another, but how well we understand the principles that underpin our decisions.
The sections that follow will unpack each system in turn - its structure, rationale, and how it would prepare this athlete for the same five-event strongman competition twelve weeks away.
Systems
Linear Periodisation
Linear periodisation is where almost every modern strength system begins. It is the oldest and simplest formal model of organised training, built on the principle that performance improves through a gradual, predictable shift from volume to intensity over time. The theory assumes that adaptation follows a roughly linear path: build a broad foundation of general strength and work capacity, progressively reduce volume while increasing load, and ultimately peak for maximal performance at a single, planned point.
The origins of linear periodisation trace back to the mid-20th century Soviet and Eastern European sports science revolutions. The foundational work of Lev Matveyev in the 1950s and 60s codified the concept of dividing a training year into distinct stages - preparatory, competitive, and transitional - each with its own focus and intensity profile. This model was later refined by figures such as Tudor Bompa, who introduced it to Western coaching circles in the 1970s and 80s. Their premise was simple but powerful: adaptation is finite, so training stress must be managed sequentially, not simultaneously. The athlete develops general capacities first, then refines and expresses them closer to competition.
The physiological reasoning behind this model is drawn from Selye’s General Adaptation Syndrome and the supercompensation curve. Stress leads to fatigue, recovery leads to adaptation, and planned progressive overload produces predictable gains. Early stages use moderate loads and high repetition ranges to increase muscle cross-sectional area and work capacity. Later stages increase load and reduce volume to refine neural efficiency and movement specificity. In sports like Olympic weightlifting or track and field, where the competitive target is fixed and predictable, this structure has historically produced consistent results.
However, linear periodisation makes several assumptions that begin to break down in the context of strongman. It presumes that the athlete can focus on one dominant physical quality at a time, that competitions are infrequent and predictable, and that technical and physical skill demands remain stable throughout the season. Strongman is the opposite. It is a sport defined by shifting implements, concurrent qualities, and overlapping stressors. Training for a static max-effort pull in one week and a high-speed medley the next requires concurrent development of strength, speed, endurance, and resilience. Linear sequencing struggles to manage those competing demands without qualities decaying between phases.
From a theoretical standpoint, linear periodisation excels at managing simple, singular adaptations. It is effective for novice or intermediate athletes who need general progression and clear structure. Its clarity makes it ideal for teaching progression, developing discipline, and tracking measurable overload. But its rigidity becomes a liability in sports that require multiple qualities to peak at once.
Applying Linear Periodisation to Strongman
If we applied a traditional linear model to our hypothetical U105 kg athlete preparing for Faux Britain’s Strongest Man, the program would unfold in clearly defined stages. The overall structure might look like this:
Weeks 1–4: Base and Accumulation Phase The goal is to build general strength and conditioning. The athlete would perform higher-volume, moderate-intensity barbell work (sets of 6–10) alongside general accessory movements and light event practice. Conditioning and GPP (sled drags, carries, circuits) would feature heavily to improve recovery capacity. The focus is on muscle development, technical refinement, and aerobic foundation.
Weeks 5–8: Maximal Strength Phase Volume decreases while intensity rises. Main lifts (squat, deadlift, overhead press) move into 3–5 repetition ranges, with accessory volume trimmed to prioritise recovery. Event work becomes more specific - heavier yoke runs, log presses at competition load, and sandbag carries to shorter distances. The aim is to transition from general strength to specific strength.
Weeks 9–11: Event Integration and Specificity Phase Barbell volume is now minimal, with training directed toward competition replication. Heavy event runs dominate the week: max axle pulls, timed log press sets, full yoke and anchor medleys, and stone series practice under fatigue. Technical precision and energy system adaptation are key.
Week 12: Taper and Realisation Phase Training volume drops by 40–60 percent. The athlete maintains load intensity but cuts accessory work, focusing on sharpness and recovery. The final week includes event run-throughs at 60–70 percent effort to maintain motor patterns without inducing fatigue.
In this model, progression is simple and predictable: general to specific, light to heavy, broad to narrow. It fits well on a spreadsheet and provides visible structure. The problem lies in what it omits. By isolating qualities into phases, linear periodisation risks losing the concurrent readiness required in strongman. The athlete may enter Week 12 maximally strong but aerobically deconditioned, or technically sharp but too fatigued from heavy weeks to move quickly between events.
Strengths and Limitations
The main strength of linear periodisation lies in its clarity and simplicity. It creates discipline and measurable progression. It builds a strong foundation and allows fatigue to be managed in a highly controlled way. For developing athletes or those with limited competition frequency, it provides a logical framework to build toward a single peak.
Its limitation is that it cannot easily handle the chaos of concurrent demands. Strongman athletes rarely have the luxury of a single competition per year. They must maintain a base level of static and dynamic readiness year-round. The linear approach, with its phase separation, often causes the decay of previously developed qualities before they can be re-expressed.
In a sport defined by uncertainty, linear periodisation offers predictability - but sometimes at the cost of preparedness. It remains an excellent teaching tool and a foundation for understanding load progression, but as we will see, more adaptive systems have evolved precisely because the strongman athlete cannot afford to train in straight lines.
Block Periodisation
Block Periodisation emerged as an evolution of the traditional linear model, designed to solve one of its key weaknesses: the inability to sustain or develop multiple physical qualities at once. Where linear periodisation follows a long, gradual shift from general to specific, Block Periodisation operates through focused, sequential “blocks” of concentrated training stress, each targeting a specific performance quality. Rather than trying to train everything at once, the athlete trains one or two things intensely while maintaining the others at a lower level, then transitions to a new focus in the next block.
The model was formalised in the 1980s and 1990s through the work of Dr. Vladimir Issurin, who drew heavily from Soviet sports science traditions and the writings of Yuri Verkhoshansky on concentrated load theory. Verkhoshansky observed that athletes adapted best when a single quality was trained in depth for a short time, rather than spreading effort too thin across multiple goals. He referred to this as “concentrated loading,” where the body’s adaptive resources were directed toward a single dominant stimulus. Issurin developed this concept into the structured model we now call Block Periodisation, introducing three canonical phases: Accumulation, Transmutation, and Realisation.
Accumulation builds general qualities such as hypertrophy, work capacity, and technical consistency.
Transmutation converts those general gains into sport-specific strength and power.
Realisation expresses those developed qualities in competition performance through tapering and event-specific practice.
The science behind Block Periodisation is rooted in the idea of phase potentiation - that is, each block should potentiate or enhance the adaptations of the next. The general base built in Accumulation increases the athlete’s capacity to tolerate and benefit from the higher-intensity work of Transmutation, which in turn enhances the peak expression in Realisation. The model follows a biological logic of stress and adaptation cycles: by concentrating load and then shifting focus, the coach can drive deeper adaptations in each quality without overwhelming the athlete’s recovery capacity.
Theoretical Strengths and Coaching Logic
Block Periodisation became popular in sports requiring the development of several distinct performance traits - speed, strength, power, endurance - across a season. It offered a way to bring structure to complexity. Each block could have a clear goal and measurable outcome, and progress could be tracked not only by load but by transfer to sport performance.
For strength sports, this system allowed coaches to design training cycles that balanced hypertrophy, maximal strength, and peaking phases without excessive overlap. It also allowed for targeted emphasis: for instance, a strongman athlete struggling with static strength could bias one block toward maximal strength development, while another athlete lacking endurance could bias toward GPP or event conditioning.
However, while the model solved the problem of excessive dilution found in linear training, it introduced another limitation - compartmentalisation. By isolating one or two qualities per block, others may detract or decay if not maintained sufficiently. In predictable sports like powerlifting or track and field, this is acceptable. In strongman, where static and dynamic demands coexist in every competition, those decays can become costly.
Applying Block Periodisation to Strongman
For our theoretical U105 kg athlete preparing for Faux Britain’s Strongest Man, a 12-week cycle could be organised as follows:
Weeks 1–4: Accumulation (Base and General Strength) This block builds the foundation. The goal is to increase muscle mass, improve work capacity, and re-establish technical consistency in the main lifts. Barbell work would be higher in volume (5–8 repetitions), while events remain lighter and more technical. For instance:
Axle Deadlift: 4×6 at moderate intensity for technical efficiency and posterior volume.
Log Press: 4×8 focusing on clean technique and shoulder hypertrophy.
Yoke Carry: 4×20 m with submaximal weight to reinforce posture and control.
Farmer’s Hold: Moderate weight for longer durations to build grip endurance.
Stone Loading: Light stones for speed and rhythm. Conditioning work (sleds, carries, tempo runs) is frequent to build aerobic recovery.
Weeks 5–8: Transmutation (Strength and Power Development) This is the performance-driving block. Volume decreases, intensity rises, and event specificity begins to sharpen. Exercises shift toward lower reps and heavier loads, focusing on maximal strength and rate of force development.
Axle Deadlift: 4×3 at 80–90 percent to convert base strength to maximal output.
Log Press: 5×3, heavy singles introduced later.
Yoke Carry: Heavier loads, shorter distances, timed runs for power and acceleration.
Farmer’s Hold: Heavier holds or short-distance carries to build static control.
Stone Loading: Moderate-to-heavy weights for low-rep sets under partial fatigue. Dynamic effort and plyometric accessories can be introduced - such as box jumps or lighter speed pulls - to enhance power expression.
Weeks 9–12: Realisation (Event Peak and Competition Readiness) The final block focuses entirely on specificity and recovery management. Barbell work is minimal, used only for neural activation or mobility. Event sessions dominate the week, replicating competition conditions.
Axle Deadlift: Heavy singles at or slightly above opener weight, then taper.
Log Press: Repetition practice at competition load (120 kg) with time caps.
Yoke and Anchor Drag: Full-distance runs under time pressure.
Farmer’s Hold: Competition weight for short-duration, high-intensity holds.
Stone Series: Full run-throughs of the series at 80–90 percent effort to refine transitions. In the final two weeks, training volume drops sharply (30–50 percent), maintaining load intensity for neural readiness while allowing recovery.
Strengths and Limitations
Block Periodisation suits athletes who benefit from focused, sequential development - particularly those needing to isolate weaknesses without losing sight of the bigger picture. It allows for deep work on specific qualities, such as improving static strength in a weak deadlifter or building GPP in an athlete with poor conditioning. The clear segmentation also helps with psychological focus; each block has a purpose and a defined outcome.
However, for strongman, its limitations stem from the sport’s inherent complexity. Because events require overlapping qualities - strength, speed, endurance, and skill - block separation can cause interference or detraining. If static strength is trained exclusively for four weeks, the speed and conditioning required for a yoke or loading medley may regress. Conversely, a GPP block may erode peak strength just as competition nears. To compensate, coaches often include “maintenance exposures” within each block, ensuring that other qualities are not completely lost.
Conceptual Summary
Block Periodisation offers a logical, disciplined framework for strongman athletes who thrive on structure and defined objectives. It can be especially valuable in off-season phases or for intermediate competitors who need to prioritise one trait at a time. In our twelve-week competition example, it builds the athlete from base to peak with clear transitions: Accumulation to develop resilience, Transmutation to generate maximal output, and Realisation to convert that strength into event performance.
Its challenge lies in timing and overlap. Strongman rarely allows perfect sequencing. Events reward athletes who can express multiple adaptations simultaneously, while Block Periodisation rewards those who can express them sequentially. Used intelligently, however, it can form the backbone of a strongman macrocycle - especially when combined with concurrent or conjugate elements that preserve the qualities not actively trained in each block.
Undulating Periodisation (DUP – Daily Undulating Periodisation/ Weekly also)
Undulating Periodisation, often referred to as DUP, developed as a response to the limitations of both linear and block models. Where linear periodisation progresses steadily from high volume to high intensity over time, and block periodisation isolates distinct qualities in phases, DUP embraces the idea that multiple performance qualities can and should be trained concurrently - but with frequent variation in intensity, volume, and focus across the training week.
The concept originated in the late 1980s and early 1990s, evolving out of both scientific research and applied coaching practice. Sports scientists such as Dr. William Kraemer and Dr. Mike Stone were among the first to systematically test non-linear models in resistance training, publishing studies that showed athletes could maintain and even enhance strength and hypertrophy when training volume and intensity fluctuated from session to session rather than following a fixed progression. The key insight was that adaptation does not require steady linear loading - it requires novel stimulus and adequate recovery.
This model later gained traction in powerlifting through the work of Bryan Mann, Mike Zourdos, and others, who formalised “Daily Undulating Periodisation” as a method that rotates load parameters within the same week. For example, an athlete might perform a heavy 3×3 session on Monday, a moderate 4×6 session on Wednesday, and a lighter, faster 5×2 session on Friday. The fluctuating stimuli allow for consistent exposure to multiple qualities - strength, hypertrophy, and power - without overtaxing any single adaptation pathway.
The scientific foundation of DUP lies in managing neural and muscular fatigue through variation. Research demonstrates that frequent modulation of load and volume enhances long-term strength development by preventing accommodation - the plateau that occurs when the body adapts fully to a repeated stimulus. From a physiological perspective, alternating high-intensity and high-volume days allows both the nervous system and musculature to recover asynchronously, producing more frequent “micro-waves” of adaptation. Psychologically, DUP also reduces monotony, maintaining athlete engagement and motivation.
Theoretical Strengths and Key Concepts
DUP is best understood as a concurrent micro-periodisation system. Instead of dedicating entire mesocycles to one adaptation, it layers multiple qualities - maximal strength, hypertrophy, speed, and skill - within a single week. This makes it particularly well-suited to sports like strongman, which demand simultaneous development across multiple performance domains.
The core principles are:
Variation drives adaptation – changing intensity and volume within a short time frame prevents stagnation.
Concurrent quality development – athletes maintain readiness in multiple traits simultaneously.
Flexible weekly sequencing – different days emphasise different physical qualities (e.g. strength, speed, or endurance).
For strongman, these principles align perfectly with the sport’s structure. Athletes must be able to exert maximal force one moment, then move dynamically or endure prolonged effort the next. DUP provides a framework for balancing these competing demands without fully specialising or neglecting any one trait.
Applying DUP to Strongman
For our U105 kg athlete preparing for Faux Britain’s Strongest Man, a 12-week DUP model might follow a consistent weekly rotation where each day targets a different performance quality. Across the twelve weeks, intensity, volume, and event specificity would wave upward, but each week maintains the same rhythm of Strength → Power → Hypertrophy/Work Capacity → Events.
Example Weekly Structure:
Day 1 – Max Strength Focus: Heavy barbell or event-specific lifts trained for low repetitions (1–5).
Axle Deadlift 5×3 @ 85–90%
Log Press 5×2 (heavy, clean each rep)
Assistance: Heavy rows, triceps extensions
Goal: Reinforce neural drive and maximal force output.
Day 2 – Power & Speed Focus: Moderate loads moved explosively to train rate of force development.
Speed Deadlift 8×2 @ 60–70%
Push Press 5×3 (fast concentric)
Yoke 4×15 m runs (moderate load, max acceleration)
Jumps or throws as accessory work.
Day 3 – Hypertrophy & Work Capacity: Higher-volume accessory and structural work to build muscle and fatigue tolerance.
Safety Bar Squat 4×8
Dumbbell Press 4×10
Farmer’s Holds: 3×max time with moderate load
GPP finisher: sled drags, carries, or circuits.
Day 4 – Event Integration: Competition-style event practice combining fatigue and skill transfer.
Max Axle Deadlift practice (technical singles)
Log Press for Reps (120 kg)
Stone Series: 5 stones to 52-inch platform
Conditioning medley: Yoke + Anchor Drag under time cap.
Across the 12 weeks, loading would fluctuate weekly but remain concurrent in focus. For example, early weeks might prioritise hypertrophy and technical proficiency, while later weeks increase load on the strength and power days while trimming the volume on hypertrophy work. Event days gradually shift from general movement practice to near-competition simulations in the final four weeks.
How It Handles the Competition Events
Max Axle Deadlift: Trained through both strength and power days - heavy triples for maximal output, speed pulls for bar acceleration, and positional work under fatigue.
Log Press for Reps: Appears across all three types of sessions - heavy singles or doubles on strength days, speed work on power days, and high-rep conditioning sets on event day.
Yoke Carry with Anchor Drag: Integrated on power and event days, with alternating heavy/fast runs to build both acceleration and stability.
Farmer’s Hold for Time: Fits neatly into hypertrophy or conditioning sessions to develop grip endurance and static strength under fatigue.
Stone Series: Rotated into event days weekly, progressing from submaximal speed loads early to full run-throughs during the final four weeks.
This design allows the athlete to train all five events concurrently, with shifting emphasis and load to ensure that no single quality stagnates. Because each week revisits strength, power, and endurance, competition readiness can be maintained across the entire training cycle without the performance decay typical of linear or block models.
Strengths and Limitations
DUP’s greatest strength lies in its balance. It sustains multiple adaptations at once, maintains event readiness year-round, and prevents monotony. For strongman, it provides the structural flexibility to manage the sport’s inherent unpredictability. If an event changes mid-prep, the coach can simply reassign it to the relevant focus day (for example, a keg toss might replace speed pulls on a power day).
However, the system’s main limitation is complexity. Because it manages so many variables concurrently, it requires careful monitoring to prevent overreach. Strongman’s heavy event work already taxes recovery, so excessive fluctuation in barbell load or accessory volume can quickly lead to cumulative fatigue. DUP demands discipline in managing effort and clear communication between coach and athlete.
Conceptual Summary
Undulating Periodisation represents the first major shift toward true concurrent development in modern strength programming. Instead of viewing adaptation as a straight line or a sequence of phases, it views it as a continuous wave - a pattern of alternating stimuli designed to keep the athlete progressing across multiple fronts simultaneously.
In the context of strongman, it offers a pragmatic and powerful middle ground. It maintains strength, builds power, develops endurance, and integrates event work all within a repeatable weekly framework. For our twelve-week hypothetical prep, DUP creates a steady rhythm of stress and recovery that mirrors the chaotic but continuous nature of the sport itself.
It is not the most elegant model on paper, but for an athlete facing the shifting demands of strongman, it provides what few systems can: readiness without regression.
Emerging Strategies (RTS-Style Autoregulation)
Emerging Strategies represents one of the most modern evolutions in periodisation thinking. Unlike traditional models built on pre-planned blocks or fixed progressions, it approaches training as an adaptive, data-driven feedback loop, where the structure of future training emerges from the athlete’s actual performance trends rather than a predetermined calendar. It is an inherently autoregulated system, founded on the principle that adaptation timelines vary from person to person - and even for the same person across different lifts or training contexts.
The framework was popularised by Mike Tuchscherer, founder of Reactive Training Systems (RTS), whose work in the 2010s formalised autoregulation as a complete programming philosophy. Tuchscherer’s system grew out of elite-level powerlifting, where lifters needed to balance heavy, high-frequency training with precision fatigue management. Instead of writing 12-week plans that assumed a fixed progression rate, Tuchscherer designed reactive microcycles - short, repeating units of training - whose outcomes would inform the next block. Over time, the data from these microcycles revealed “emerging peaks,” points where performance consistently improved before plateauing. By tracking these patterns, coaches could adjust block length, exercise rotation, or training stress to align with the athlete’s real adaptive rhythm.
The theoretical roots of this approach draw from several key scientific ideas. The first is individual response variability, well-documented in sports science literature, showing that no two athletes adapt to the same stimulus in the same way. The second is systems theory - the notion that complex biological systems (like the human body) cannot be perfectly predicted but can be observed and guided through feedback. Finally, it relies on autoregulation, a concept dating back to the 1970s but fully realised in modern training through tools like RPE (Rate of Perceived Exertion) and RIR (Reps in Reserve). These metrics allow load and volume to be adjusted daily according to performance readiness rather than following a rigid pre-set plan.
Theoretical Strengths and Coaching Logic
At its core, the RTS-style model is about closing the feedback loop between stimulus and adaptation. Traditional systems assume an athlete will peak predictably after a given number of weeks of progressive loading. Emerging Strategies rejects that assumption. Instead, it asks: What does this athlete’s data actually show? If an athlete consistently improves for three weeks before stagnating, the system adapts to use three-week waves. If another lifter thrives on five weeks before needing a reset, the model adjusts accordingly. This turns programming into an observational science rather than a pre-scripted plan.
The key strength of this method lies in its precision. Over time, a coach can map out how each athlete responds to different exercises, loads, and frequencies, effectively creating a personalised performance model. It’s particularly effective in highly stable sports like powerlifting, where external variables are minimal and fatigue patterns can be measured with consistency. Over months or years, the data reveals patterns of performance “decay” and “emergence,” allowing for increasingly accurate predictions of when to deload, rotate movements, or taper for competition.
However, the very qualities that make this system powerful also make it difficult to apply in chaotic, multi-variable sports like strongman. Strongman training is influenced by far more than load management - surface conditions, implement design, event variability, and competition logistics all introduce noise into the feedback loop. Fatigue is not only neural or muscular but also structural and systemic. As such, data collection becomes less clean, and emergent patterns are harder to isolate.
Applying Emerging Strategies to Strongman
Despite these challenges, the RTS philosophy can still inform a hybrid approach for strongman athletes, especially at advanced levels. The key is to treat autoregulation not as a replacement for structure, but as a layer of responsiveness within structure.
For our U105 kg athlete preparing for Faux Britain’s Strongest Man, an RTS-style plan would likely be built around short, repeating 3-week microcycles, each designed to test and refine readiness for specific events. The program would still include all major training components - Max Effort, Dynamic, and Repetition work - but their sequence and duration would adapt based on emerging feedback.
Conceptual Outline:
Weeks 1–3 – Microcycle 1 (Baseline and Data Collection): The athlete begins with moderate intensities (RPE 7–8) across all key lifts and events. Data is collected on bar speed, perceived exertion, and recovery. Each event is tested lightly to establish readiness and identify early response trends.
Axle Deadlift: Top triple @ RPE 8, repeat next week and monitor load change.
Log Press: AMRAP at RPE 8–9 to gauge work capacity.
Yoke Carry: 3×20 m moderate runs, timed for speed.
Farmer’s Hold: 3×max time at moderate load.
Stones: Technique runs with 70–80% competition load.
Weeks 4–6 – Microcycle 2 (Adjustment Based on Response): If strength performance improved consistently over the first three weeks, the same structure repeats with slightly higher intensity. If performance dipped early, block length or loading is adjusted. Events are now trained closer to specificity, and weaker areas receive more exposure.
Axle Deadlift: Heavy single @ RPE 9 weekly to track peak emergence.
Log Press: Top set @ RPE 8, followed by 2×AMRAP @ 70% for volume.
Yoke Carry: 4×20 m, load increased by 10–15%.
Farmer’s Hold: 3×1:00 at 90% load.
Stones: 3–4 singles at 90% for speed and precision.
Weeks 7–9 – Microcycle 3 (Peak Emergence and Realisation): The block length and taper timing are dictated by data. If performance improved across three consecutive weeks, the athlete deloads in Week 10. If strength flattened in Week 8, a taper begins sooner. Events are performed under competition-specific fatigue conditions.
Axle Deadlift: Top single @ RPE 9.5, last exposure before taper.
Log Press: Full competition simulation (60 seconds for reps).
Yoke Carry + Anchor Drag: Combined medley under time cap.
Farmer’s Hold: One heavy maximal attempt.
Stone Series: Full run-through for rhythm and conditioning.
Weeks 10–12 – Taper and Competition: Volume is reduced based on fatigue feedback rather than a fixed percentage. The coach uses previous microcycle data to predict recovery timelines. The final week focuses on mental rehearsal and event flow, with RPE capped at 6–7 across all training.
This approach relies on iterative adjustment. There is no fixed “Week 1–12” plan written in advance; instead, each three-week cycle refines the next. The coach’s job is to analyse patterns - when does the athlete’s deadlift performance start to dip? Does the log press continue improving beyond three weeks, or does fatigue build sooner? Over time, the data creates a personal adaptive fingerprint for the athlete.
How It Handles the Competition Events
Max Axle Deadlift: The clearest fit for autoregulation, since it can be tracked easily with RPE and bar speed. The system would identify how quickly the athlete’s pull “emerges” and when fatigue outweighs progress.
Log Press for Reps: Monitored via RPE and total volume tolerance across sessions. Autoregulation helps balance fatigue from heavy pressing against recovery for dynamic events.
Yoke Carry and Anchor Drag: More difficult to autoregulate quantitatively but can use perceived exertion and time-to-fatigue tracking. Load and distance are adjusted each microcycle based on speed retention.
Farmer’s Hold: Simple to monitor; time-to-failure and grip endurance trends serve as feedback markers for readiness.
Stone Series: Treated as an “emergent event” measured through efficiency - if barbell and carry performance improve but stone speed lags, focus shifts to power output under fatigue in subsequent microcycles.
Strengths and Limitations
The strength of the RTS-style model lies in its precision and responsiveness. It treats each athlete as a living system rather than a spreadsheet, mapping their adaptive timeline through direct observation. Over time, it builds a level of personalisation unmatched by any fixed model. For advanced lifters, it prevents both overtraining and under-stimulation by letting readiness dictate training.
The limitation, especially for strongman, is signal-to-noise ratio. The sport’s variability - different implements, surfaces, event orders, and recovery demands - creates too much external noise for perfectly clean data. Where powerlifters can rely on a barbell, a strongman’s “barbell” changes every week. The more chaotic the sport, the harder it is to detect a clear emerging pattern. This makes RTS-style training more effective as a monitoring layer within another structure (for instance, inside a Conjugate or DUP framework) rather than a standalone system.
Conceptual Summary
Emerging Strategies represent a shift from prescription to observation. It replaces the coach’s predictive model with a continuous feedback loop, letting the athlete’s own data reveal when and how to progress. In sports like strongman, where the only constant is variation, pure RTS-style programming may be too fluid to manage all the moving parts. Yet the principle of autoregulation - responding to the athlete rather than forcing them into a calendar - is invaluable.
Applied intelligently, it can help coaches fine-tune intensity waves, detect recovery bottlenecks, and manage emerging peaks for specific events. For our twelve-week hypothetical competition, it creates a living program - one that evolves session by session, microcycle by microcycle - until the athlete’s performance tells us they are ready to step onto the competition floor.
Bulgarian / Max-Specific Training
Few systems in the history of strength sports have been as extreme, influential, and misunderstood as the Bulgarian Method. Developed in the 1970s under the leadership of Ivan Abadjiev, head coach of the Bulgarian national weightlifting team, it represented the most radical departure from classical Soviet periodisation ever seen. Where Matveyev’s linear models favoured planned variation, phased volume, and long-term adaptation cycles, Abadjiev’s philosophy rejected the very concept of periodisation. His premise was simple: the best way to lift heavy weights is to lift heavy weights - every day.
The Bulgarian system revolved around maximum-specificity and extreme frequency. Athletes trained up to six or seven times per day, often performing the competition lifts (snatch, clean and jerk, front squat) to daily maximums. Abadjiev believed that by continuously exposing the nervous system to maximal effort, the body would adapt by becoming more efficient, resilient, and neurologically “hardened” to heavy lifting. Volume, variation, and accessory work were virtually eliminated. The focus was entirely on neural drive, motor pattern perfection, and psychological tolerance of maximal intensity.
Theoretical and Scientific Rationale
From a physiological standpoint, the Bulgarian model exploited the principles of neural adaptation and motor learning specificity. By training the same movement patterns to maximum daily, athletes developed exceptional skill efficiency and recruitment capacity in those lifts. The constant near-maximal loading increased neural firing frequency, enhanced inter- and intra-muscular coordination, and built psychological resilience to high intensity. Abadjiev argued that submaximal volume only created fatigue without directly improving competition-specific strength.
Later sports science analyses would describe this as a form of high-intensity overreaching, where chronic exposure to extreme stress forces adaptation if recovery resources are sufficient. However, it also demonstrated the limits of biological tolerance. Many athletes who thrived under Abadjiev’s system did so with full professional recovery environments, limited competition schedules, and in many cases, pharmaceutical support. For the majority, the same approach produced rapid burnout, chronic fatigue, and injury.
Key Themes and Concepts
The Bulgarian system embodies several key ideas:
Max-Specificity: The closer a training stimulus is to competition conditions, the greater the transfer.
Neural Overload as Adaptation Driver: The nervous system, not muscle tissue, is the limiting factor for elite strength expression.
Minimal Variation: Mastery through constant repetition, not rotation.
Tolerance Training: Building psychological and physiological resilience by repeatedly confronting maximal loads.
These principles can produce extraordinary short-term performance gains but are unsustainable as a long-term model for most athletes, especially in complex, chaotic sports like strongman.
Why It Fails in Strongman
Strongman differs fundamentally from Olympic weightlifting in two ways:
Movement Variability: No two events are identical. Implements vary in size, shape, and loading method. The “competition lifts” change every show. A system based on perfecting one or two movements cannot generalise to a sport with dozens.
Multi-System Fatigue: Strongman requires not only neural efficiency but muscular endurance, grip stamina, aerobic recovery, and power under fatigue. Daily maxing compromises these capacities.
Applying a Bulgarian model directly to strongman would rapidly destroy readiness for dynamic or endurance events. Daily maximal deadlifts or log presses would create joint and connective tissue strain that impairs recovery for carries, holds, and medleys. Even the best-conditioned athletes would find cumulative fatigue too high to maintain technical precision in moving events.
However, the underlying principle - short-term neural overreach - can be used strategically. When applied briefly and intelligently, max-specific training can sharpen top-end strength and desensitise athletes to heavy loads before competition. In other words, the Bulgarian system fails as a full-time model but succeeds as an intensification tool.
Applying Max-Specific Methods to Strongman
For our U105 kg athlete preparing for Faux Britain’s Strongest Man, Bulgarian-style training could be used in a 2–3 week overreach phase at the end of a longer, more balanced cycle. The goal would be to elevate neural readiness for maximal events - particularly the Axle Deadlift and Log Press - while tapering fatigue before the show.
Example Application (Weeks 9–11 of a 12-Week Prep):
Axle Deadlift: Train to a daily max single (RPE 9–9.5) three times per week. No prescribed percentage - load is adjusted daily according to readiness. Minimal back-off work (1×3 at 90% of that day’s top lift).
Purpose: Reinforce maximal neural output and confidence under heavy weight.
Log Press: Daily heavy singles or doubles at RPE 9. Alternate between clean-each-rep days and single-clean pressing days to simulate competition demands.
Purpose: Improve efficiency in the clean phase and overhead stability under heavy load.
Yoke Carry: Performed twice per week at near-maximal loads for 10–15 m. Each run treated as an all-out effort.
Purpose: Overload bracing and midline control for short, explosive distances.
Farmer’s Hold: One or two heavy holds per week for time at 95–100% of competition load.
Purpose: Reinforce grip and static endurance while maintaining neural intensity.
Stone Series: Light, technical work only once per week to prevent cumulative fatigue.
This phase would immediately precede a one-week taper (Week 12), where intensity drops to 70% and volume to 30–40%. The intent is to let accumulated fatigue dissipate while preserving the neural adaptations gained from overreaching.
How It Handles the Competition Events
Max Axle Deadlift: The most compatible event for Bulgarian logic. High-frequency singles train both confidence and motor pattern under maximal load.
Log Press for Reps: Works for heavy exposure but must be moderated; pressing to near-failure daily would destroy shoulder integrity.
Yoke Carry: Suitable for short, high-intensity sprints but not frequent repetition. Neural and spinal fatigue accumulate quickly.
Farmer’s Hold: Can benefit from maximal static exposure; heavy holds improve tolerance to discomfort and time-under-tension.
Stone Series: Poor fit; loading events require coordination and speed under fatigue, not maximal neural arousal.
Strengths and Limitations
Strengths:
Rapid improvement in neural efficiency and top-end confidence.
Effective short-term intensification before a taper.
Excellent psychological preparation for maximal events.
Limitations:
Extremely high injury and fatigue risk if used long-term.
Incompatible with concurrent endurance or conditioning work.
Unsuitable for athletes without elite recovery capacity or professional infrastructure.
Conceptual Summary
The Bulgarian or Max-Specific model represents the purest expression of neural training - a relentless pursuit of maximal output with no compromise for volume or variety. It strips training down to its most essential form: heavy, frequent, specific. For Olympic weightlifters, this created unprecedented records. For strongman, it serves best as a tactical weapon, not a full-time philosophy.
In a twelve-week strongman prep, a short Bulgarian-style overreach can act as the final sharpening tool: a way to expose the athlete to competition weights, harden the nervous system, and reduce fear of maximal loading. Used sparingly, it provides an edge in top-end strength and confidence. Used excessively, it becomes a straight path to exhaustion.
In essence, the Bulgarian method demonstrates both the power and peril of maximal specificity - it can elevate a lifter beyond their limits, but only for those few weeks where the body has not yet begun to break under the weight of its own ambition.
Applying Bulgarian Principles Effectively (Without Self-Destructing)
The reality is that almost no strongman athlete could - or should - attempt to train exactly like Abadjiev’s Bulgarians. The system was designed for athletes performing two lifts under highly controlled conditions, supported by full-time recovery, medical supervision, and no external stressors. Strongman, by contrast, is an ecosystem of chaos: shifting implements, variable event durations, and constant mechanical unpredictability. However, the principles that made the Bulgarian method effective can still be extracted and applied strategically within a broader framework - particularly Conjugate, DUP, or Block structures - without becoming self-destructive.
The key is to understand what those principles actually are:
Maximum Specificity – Skill and adaptation are strongest when the stimulus closely resembles the performance task.
High Frequency of Practice – Neural pathways solidify through repetition, provided fatigue is managed.
Daily Readiness-Based Loading – Training intensity adjusts according to the lifter’s state, not the calendar.
Exposure to Maximal Intent – The body and mind adapt to producing force at the highest possible level.
These can be integrated into strongman training through selective application, without embracing the full extremity of the Bulgarian model.
1. High-Frequency Practice, Not High-Frequency Maxing
Instead of daily maxes, the coach might prescribe frequent exposure to competition implements with varying intensities. For example:
Train the Log Press three times per week - one heavy, one speed, one technique-focused.
Rotate event emphasis across the week so that the athlete touches a key implement almost daily but never repeats a maximal effort two days in a row. This preserves the neural familiarity and technical sharpness that Bulgarian systems prize, without overwhelming recovery capacity.
2. Max-Intent Sets within a Conjugate or DUP Framework
Bulgarian training teaches the value of intent - every lift performed with maximal focus and acceleration, even when submaximal in load. This can be implemented inside other systems:
Treat Dynamic Effort or Power days as “Bulgarian in spirit”: low volume, maximal speed, and technical precision.
Use top singles or heavy doubles (RPE 8–9) weekly to maintain neural readiness without constant failure attempts. This integrates the mental and neural intensity of the Bulgarian model into a more sustainable rhythm.
3. Short-Term “Neural Exposure Blocks”
Borrowing directly from Abadjiev’s philosophy, a coach might insert micro-blocks of near-daily heavy exposure for one event in the final 2–3 weeks before competition. For instance:
Daily singles on the Axle Deadlift for 7–10 days, with load adjusted to readiness.
Frequent heavy clean-and-press work for 10–14 days to desensitise the athlete to heavy logs. These short intensification waves trigger neural potentiation and sharpen technical aggression before tapering back into recovery. In practice, these are what strongman athletes already use - overreach phases - but executed with deliberate intent and load monitoring.
4. Readiness-Based Autoregulation
The Bulgarian model thrives on the principle that athletes must listen to their bodies. In modern coaching, that becomes autoregulation through objective and subjective feedback. Instead of forcing daily maxes, we track:
Bar speed or rep quality (velocity-based training, RPE, or coach observation).
Fatigue markers such as heart rate variability, grip recovery, or movement efficiency. This allows the athlete to train “maximally” relative to their capacity on any given day, preserving the spirit of the Bulgarian method without the burnout.
5. Event-Specific Neural Potentiation
Bulgarian-style exposure works best for short-duration, high-intensity events - max deadlifts, single-press events, or heavy carries under 20 metres. In a practical strongman setting, it could be used to fine-tune top-end performance while maintaining standard conditioning elsewhere. For example:
Train Yoke and Farmer’s at near-max intensities for very short distances (10–15 m), once every 3–4 days.
Perform Log singles multiple times weekly, alternating clean-and-press days with press-only variations. The goal is to heighten neural readiness and movement familiarity, not accumulate volume.
When Does It Stop Being Bulgarian?
At some point, yes, this becomes a different system - but that’s the point. The value of studying models like the Bulgarian system lies in the principles they reveal, not in copying their structure wholesale. Once you begin incorporating load variation, concurrent conditioning, and autoregulatory management, you have already transitioned into a hybrid model - a form of Conjugate or DUP that has absorbed Bulgarian principles into a more adaptive ecosystem.
The original Bulgarian approach was a method of extremity; the modern coach’s role is to translate its intensity into strategic intent. The principle of daily heavy exposure can survive in strongman programming, but only as a controlled dose - a neural stimulant, not a full diet. In this way, the system ceases to be Bulgarian by name, yet retains its essence: the relentless pursuit of mastery under maximal load.
The Tier System
The Tier System represents one of the most adaptable and coach-friendly approaches to modern strength and power programming. It was designed to bridge the gap between traditional periodisation models - focused on single-mode strength sports - and the multidimensional demands of team and field athletes who must balance strength, power, speed, and endurance simultaneously. Its flexible, rotating structure makes it exceptionally well-suited to strongman training, particularly during base-building or general preparation phases where multiple performance qualities must be developed concurrently.
The Tier System was originally conceptualised by Joe Kenn, an American strength and conditioning coach best known for his work in collegiate and professional football. Kenn first outlined the framework in his book The Coach’s Strength Training Playbook (2003), which has since become a cornerstone in applied sports performance programming. Drawing influence from both concurrent periodisation and Westside Barbell–style rotation, Kenn’s model provided a practical way to manage multiple training emphases within the same week without overcomplicating the process.
At its core, the Tier System is built on rotating emphasis across sessions - each training day belongs to a different “tier” or focus category:
Tier 1: Total-body emphasis (heavy compound lifts or event work).
Tier 2: Lower-body dominant movements and accessories.
Tier 3: Upper-body dominant movements and accessories.
Across the week, each tier rotates in importance, ensuring that no single quality or muscle group dominates the program for too long. This creates a balance between stimulus and recovery, while allowing multiple performance attributes - strength, power, hypertrophy, and conditioning - to be trained continuously.
Theoretical and Scientific Foundations
The Tier System reflects several key scientific principles from classical sports science and modern coaching theory:
Concurrent Development of Multiple Qualities: Based on the understanding that different strength qualities (max strength, explosive strength, strength endurance) can coexist and develop simultaneously, provided their respective intensities and volumes are balanced.
Alternating Neural and Metabolic Stress: Each tier alternates between high-intensity, neural-dominant work (e.g., squats, presses, pulls) and lower-intensity, higher-volume work (e.g., accessory circuits, conditioning). This oscillation allows for continual training without cumulative overload.
Microvariation and Rotational Emphasis: Variation is introduced not through complex block structures but through shifting the priority of training stress between sessions. Research on microcycle variation (Rhea & Alderman, 2004) supports this approach, showing that small, frequent adjustments in load and exercise order prevent accommodation and enhance long-term progress.
Holistic Athlete Development: Kenn designed the system around the needs of multi-quality athletes, reinforcing the idea that strength should not be developed in isolation but as part of an integrated framework that also improves work capacity, coordination, and durability.
These principles make the Tier System not just a method of programming but a philosophy of balance - an antidote to the one-dimensional focus of many traditional strength systems.
Key Themes and Concepts
Rotation of Emphasis, Not Exclusion: Every session contains total, lower, and upper components, but the order of priority shifts. For example, if Tier 1 (Total) is the priority on Monday, Tier 2 (Lower) becomes secondary, and Tier 3 (Upper) tertiary. Later in the week, that order rotates.
Total-Body Integration: The inclusion of full-body movements as primary lifts encourages coordination and transfer to sport-specific performance - crucial for strongman, where nearly every event is a full-body expression of strength and speed.
Concurrent Conditioning and Strength: GPP, accessory work, and energy system training are embedded directly into the tiers rather than separated into isolated blocks.
Flexible Progression: Intensity and volume can be waved week-to-week, allowing the system to serve as either a long-term base or the early stages of a competition prep phase.
Applying the Tier System to Strongman
For our U105 kg athlete preparing for Faux Britain’s Strongest Man, the Tier System provides a highly efficient base structure to maintain balance across the sport’s diverse event demands. It offers a way to combine static barbell strength, dynamic event practice, and conditioning without sacrificing recovery or adaptability.
A 12-week cycle might use the following structure, with the “Tier 1” emphasis rotating across training days:
Weekly Example:
Day 1 (Tier 1: Total Focus – Strength Base)
Axle Deadlift 5×3 (heavy)
Log Press 4×4
Yoke Carry 4×15 m
Core and posterior accessories
Day 2 (Tier 1: Upper Focus – Pressing and Power)
Log Clean & Press 6×2 (speed emphasis)
Incline Press 3×6
Rows, Pull-Ups, Triceps Accessories
Conditioning: Sled Drag or Assault Bike intervals
Day 3 (Tier 1: Lower Focus – Posterior Chain and Movement)
Safety Bar Box Squat 5×3
Deficit Deadlift 3×5
Farmer’s Hold 3×max time
GPP finisher: Sled Push Circuit
Day 4 (Tier 1: Event Integration)
Yoke 3×20 m @ competition load
Anchor Drag 3×20 m
Stone Series 3×5 (submaximal load)
Recovery: Mobility, loaded carries for distance
Each week, the emphasis rotates - so in Week 2, Upper might open as Tier 1, Lower becomes Tier 2, and so on. This ensures consistent exposure to all movement patterns and event types while varying neural demand across the week.
How It Handles the Competition Events
Max Axle Deadlift: Appears as Tier 1 or Tier 2 on Total or Lower days, depending on rotation. Heavy triples and singles are alternated with speed pulls or accessory posterior-chain work.
Log Press for Reps: Featured as a Tier 1 movement on Upper days and as Tier 2 or 3 elsewhere, maintaining both maximal and repetition focus.
Yoke Carry + Anchor Drag: Performed weekly within the Total or Lower tiers, balancing load progression and conditioning.
Farmer’s Hold: Slotted into Tier 2 or Tier 3 work for grip and postural endurance.
Stone Series: Integrated into Tier 1 or Event days to preserve technical consistency and anaerobic power.
This approach allows all events to be trained concurrently with shifting intensity, preventing stagnation while avoiding excessive fatigue from repeated high-intensity exposures.
Strengths and Limitations
Strengths:
Balances static, dynamic, and conditioning demands effectively.
Provides continual exposure to all performance qualities without interference.
Easy to modify based on recovery or equipment availability.
Excellent framework for off-season or base-building phases.
Limitations:
Lacks the aggressive specificity required for late-stage peaking.
Can become too balanced - athletes seeking maximal progress in a single lift may require more directed overload.
Requires discipline to manage load hierarchy; too many Tier 1 sessions can blur recovery structure.
Conceptual Summary
The Tier System offers structured balance in an unstructured sport. It organises chaos into a repeatable weekly rhythm where strength, power, and endurance coexist without competition for recovery. In a discipline like strongman - where athletes must be strong, fast, and conditioned all at once - the Tier System provides the ideal foundation.
For our twelve-weekFaux Britain’s Strongest Man scenario, it builds the necessary base of strength, work capacity, and technical repetition, preparing the athlete to transition seamlessly into a more specific peaking model (Conjugate, Block, or DUP) as competition nears.
In essence, it is the blue-collar system of strongman preparation: robust, practical, and endlessly adaptable - precisely what the sport demands.
Bridging the Systems: The Broader Landscape of Periodisation
Before moving into the Conjugate Method, it’s worth acknowledging the wider landscape of periodisation theory and the systems that have shaped modern strength training. The models explored so far - Linear, Block, DUP, RTS/Emerging Strategies, Bulgarian, and the Tier System - represent the major branches of applied strength programming. Yet behind and around them sit dozens of related or derivative frameworks, each contributing a distinct idea, emphasis, or mechanism to the evolution of strength science.
The classical foundations of modern periodisation begin with the work of Lev Matveyev and Tudor Bompa, whose theories established the structure of macrocycles, mesocycles, and microcycles, along with the concept of progressive specificity. These early systems - often referred to as Traditional or Linear Periodisation - became the blueprint for nearly every structured model that followed. Within this lineage, two main schools developed: Western Linear Periodisation, popularised by Bompa, which emphasised gradual overload and simple progression, and Eastern Linear Periodisation, developed through Soviet research, which introduced early wave-like variations and laid the groundwork for what later evolved into Block and DUP-style approaches. Transitional “non-linear” or undulating hybrids further blurred the boundaries between these systems, introducing small fluctuations in load and volume across mesocycles rather than long, linear arcs.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, high-intensity and high-volume systems explored the extremes of stimulus and recovery. Arthur Jones, Mike Mentzer, and Dorian Yates advanced the High-Intensity Training (HIT) model - minimal volume, maximal effort, to failure - pursuing efficiency and neural intensity above all else. Conversely, German Volume Training and other volume-based protocols represented the other extreme, maximising hypertrophy through relentless workload. Neither qualifies as a full periodisation system, but both illustrate how coaches have experimented with manipulating the balance between intensity and total stress to drive adaptation.
Other systems sought to refine load progression itself. Step-loading and wave periodisation models, exemplified by Dietmar Wolf, to an extent also Boris Sheiko, and the Norwegian powerlifting schools, used micro-waves of progressive load followed by partial deloads to create a rising staircase of performance. These wave patterns form the underlying logic for both Block Periodisation’s phase potentiation and Conjugate’s dynamic effort waves.
Moving toward more sophisticated models of concurrency, Yuri Verkhoshansky’s complex periodisation proposed that multiple strength qualities could be developed simultaneously within one macrocycle, provided that exercise selection was organised by transfer potential. This idea - organising training by how much each exercise contributes to competitive performance - became a conceptual bridge to both Tier and Conjugate thinking. Later, Tudor Bompa’s concurrent periodisation (vertical integration) formalised a milder version of the same logic, allowing simultaneous development of strength, power, and endurance through hierarchical emphasis rather than strict phase separation.
In more recent years, modern adaptive frameworks have emerged. Mladen Jovanović’s Agile Periodisation uses data and performance monitoring to make real-time adjustments to training stress, effectively digitising autoregulation. Karsten Jensen’s Flexible Periodisation represents a hybrid philosophy that integrates structured planning with ongoing adjustment - a middle ground between rigid cycles and fully reactive systems. At the far theoretical end, Anatoliy Bondarchuk’s Transfer of Training model provides perhaps the most advanced classification of exercise specificity ever devised, categorising movements according to their direct or indirect impact on competitive outcomes. His ideas on transfer effect and exercise rotation parallel modern Conjugate logic almost perfectly and will be explored in detail in Periodisation for Dummies.
Several other contextual systems also warrant brief mention. Some coaches follow “Westside-style” programming without implementing the full Conjugate framework, borrowing only the Max Effort and Dynamic Effort split. Modern Hybrid and Powerbuilding models (such as those popularised by Hybrid Performance Method) mix powerlifting structure with bodybuilding volume, essentially functioning as simplified consumer versions of concurrent periodisation. Even Polarised and Pyramidal models from endurance training - where athletes alternate between very hard and very easy days - mirror the same stress-recovery balance used in strength sports to manage heavy versus light sessions.
None of these systems are explored in depth here for a simple reason: most are either sub-structures within broader models or philosophical variations rather than full frameworks in their own right. Their concepts are woven into the DNA of the systems already covered - Linear, Block, DUP, Tier, RTS, and others - and they will all be discussed comprehensively in Periodisation for Dummies, where their relationships, overlaps, and distinctions can be mapped out in full.
What matters here is the continuum they collectively represent. Across decades of experimentation, every coach and theorist has grappled with the same fundamental challenge: how to organise training stress for continuous adaptation. Some sought simplicity and predictability, like Linear and HIT; others aimed for depth and segmentation, like Block and Step-loading; while others pursued concurrency and adaptability, like Tier, DUP, and RTS. The Conjugate Method inherits lessons from all of them - it borrows the wave structure of the Soviets, the concentration of Block Periodisation, the concurrent exposure of Tier, the autoregulatory feedback of RTS, and even the neural intensity of Bulgarian logic - then integrates them into a rotating, year-round system designed to develop every strength quality simultaneously.
It is at this intersection of structure and adaptability that Conjugate stands - not as an alternative to these systems, but as their synthesis and evolution.
The Conjugate Method (Conjugate Method for Strongman)
The Conjugate Method represents the most complete synthesis of modern strength theory - the logical endpoint of decades of Soviet sports science, refined through the practical experimentation of Louie Simmons at Westside Barbell, and expanded upon in modern applications like the JHEPC Conjugate Strongman System. It is not merely a template or rotation of lifts; it is a dynamic framework for concurrent adaptation - a system designed to build every strength quality year-round while allowing precise manipulation of volume, intensity, and specificity.
At its core, Conjugate rests on three fundamental principles:
Concurrent Development of Strength Qualities – maximal, explosive, and repeated effort methods coexist in a weekly structure, ensuring constant exposure to multiple force–velocity demands.
Rotational Variation and Wave Sequencing – exercise selection, load parameters, and intensity patterns rotate on structured cycles (usually 1–3 weeks) to avoid accommodation.
Dynamic Individualisation – load, variation, and frequency adapt to recovery state and goal specificity, creating a living system rather than a fixed plan.
Historical and Theoretical Foundations
The Conjugate system draws its DNA from the Soviet Conjugate Sequence System developed at the Dynamo Club in the 1960s–70s, where athletes trained multiple strength qualities simultaneously rather than sequentially. Louie Simmons transformed that theory into a practical methodology for powerlifters by blending it with Western intensity cycling, Olympic lifting-inspired velocity work, and ongoing rotation of max effort lifts to prevent stagnation.
Whereas Linear and Block Periodisation separate phases of training (e.g. hypertrophy, strength, power), Conjugate blends them concurrently. The result is continual adaptation - no quality is ever left behind. This makes it uniquely suited to strongman, where competition demands extreme strength, speed, work capacity, and technical skill within the same day.
Core Structure
A standard weekly Conjugate structure consists of four primary sessions:
Accessory and GPP work are layered beneath these sessions, forming the “80% of training” that develops hypertrophy, durability, and conditioning - a principle Louie Simmons often called the “glue that holds the system together.”
Max Effort Method (ME)
The Max Effort Method trains absolute strength and technical resilience under near-maximal load. For strongman, this includes barbell lifts and event-based or chaos lifts - axle deadlifts, log clean & presses, frame picks, heavy sandbag loads, or partial ROM squats. Lifts rotate weekly (or every 2–3 weeks) to avoid accommodation while exposing different weaknesses and joint angles.
Example 3-week Max Effort Wave for Strongman:
Each lift serves a diagnostic function - identifying where the athlete fails (off the floor, in transition, at lockout, under fatigue) and directing subsequent accessory work to correct it. As outlined in The Complete JHEPC Conjugate Strongman System, Max Effort work is distributed across six lift categories: squat-dominant, hinge-dominant, horizontal press, overhead press, event-based, and chaos-based. Rotation across these domains builds resilient, multi-directional strength.
Dynamic Effort Method (DE)
The Dynamic Effort Method trains the ability to apply maximal force rapidly - the bridge between strength and athleticism. In strongman, DE work extends far beyond box squats and speed benches: it includes speed pulls, yoke accelerations, sandbag throws, log or axle presses for velocity, and even dynamic loading drills.
Three-week DE wave sequencing typically follows this pattern:
Week 1: Straight weight, high bar speed (e.g. 50–60%)
Week 2: Bands or chains added (60–70%)
Week 3: Increased load or decreased rest (65–75%)
Strongman-specific DE sessions also integrate events:
DE Upper: Log press wave (6×2), sandbag tosses, or explosive incline work
DE Lower: Speed deadlifts, sled drags, yoke runs, or fast stone picks
The JHEPC Strongman System reframes DE work as both power development and fatigue management. It sharpens technical rhythm under moderate strain while driving the neural readiness required for peak-week events.
Repetition & Special Effort Methods
While ME and DE form the neural foundation, the Repetition Effort (RE) and Special Effort (SE) methods build tissue, stability, and positional control. RE work drives hypertrophy and muscular endurance (e.g. 3×15–20 for posterior chain, 4×12 pressing variations), while SE work targets force output in awkward or asymmetric contexts - for example, sandbag to shoulder, stone lap transitions, or carry medleys. These methods fill the “80%” of Conjugate’s weekly structure: hypertrophy, conditioning, GPP, and weak point development.
Wave Sequencing and Peaking
Conjugate doesn’t “peak” by abandoning variation - it peaks through rotation and wave convergence. A 12-week strongman peak under Conjugate might unfold as follows:
This structure allows continual improvement without stagnation.
Weekly Strongman Template Example
Monday – ME Lower: Axle Deadlift (heavy triple), SSB Good Morning, Hamstring Accessories
Tuesday – DE Upper: Speed Log Press (8×3), Incline DB Press, Rows, Triceps
Thursday – ME Upper: Log Clean & Press (1RM), Axle Bench, Lat & Shoulder Accessories
Saturday – DE Lower / Event Day: Yoke 4×20 m, Farmers Hold for Time, Sandbag to Platform, Sled Pulls
Accessories rotate every 2–3 weeks, DE waves every 3 weeks, and ME movements every 1–2 weeks depending on athlete readiness. Conditioning and GPP are layered between sessions for aerobic maintenance and recovery.
Integration of Events
Unlike powerlifting, strongman demands skill rehearsal under fatigue. Conjugate integrates events intelligently:
Moving events (Yoke, Frame, Farmers): Placed in DE Lower sessions for velocity emphasis.
Loading events (Stones, Sandbags, Kegs): Cycled in DE Upper or Event Days using speed or wave protocols.
Grip and endurance events: Used as RE or SE accessories for volume accumulation.
Static events (Log, Deadlift): Handled primarily via ME rotation and accessory transfer.
This ensures events develop alongside - not instead of - base strength.
Strengths and Adaptability
Conjugate’s greatest strength is its universality: it adapts to any athlete, phase, or limitation. Its rotational structure allows substitutions for injury, equipment restrictions, or schedule changes without derailing progression. It also scales seamlessly across populations - from PED-supported professionals to natural amateurs, female lifters, and masters athletes.
The Conjugate Method for Strongman is the culmination of every system that came before it. It inherits Linear’s progression logic, Block’s focused intensification, DUP’s concurrent variation, RTS’s autoregulation, the Bulgarian method’s intensity culture, and the Tier System’s structural balance - but it integrates them all into a single adaptive ecosystem.
Where other models phase out qualities, Conjugate evolves them concurrently. Where others depend on ideal conditions, Conjugate thrives in chaos - which is precisely why it fits the sport of strongman better than any other system on earth.
The “No System” System
There’s one more “periodisation model” that deserves mention, even if no one would ever admit to using it. It’s the one built on guesswork, repetition, and habit - the approach where the coach or athlete doesn’t really have a plan or they just copy whatever their old coach did.
You see it everywhere. The same template handed to everyone, regardless of bodyweight, recovery, or goals. A heavy lower day, a heavy press day, a bunch of half-finished accessories, and then one big “events day” at the weekend that’s more chaos than training. Every implement gets thrown in: yoke, farmers, stones, medley - all in one go, all as heavy as possible.
Weeks roll by with no structure, no rotation, and no real plan. Some lifts get stronger for a while, others fall apart. Athletes grind through fatigue, push when they should pull back, and somehow convince themselves that random effort equals progress. When things stall, they double down - heavier weights, more events, less recovery. When someone gets hurt, they call it bad luck.
There’s no wave, no balance between strength and speed, no consideration of fatigue or transfer. It’s just noise. And the frustrating part is that some people do get results - at least for a bit - which makes it even harder to see how fragile it all is. But as soon as life gets busy, recovery slips, or competition schedules ramp up, the cracks start to show.
This isn’t really periodisation at all. Strongman is already potentially chaotic; the job of a coach is to organise that chaos, not add to it.
Everyone starts here once. The good coaches are the ones who eventually realise that progress doesn’t come from grinding harder - it comes from knowing what the grind is supposed to do.
12-Week Simulation: ‘One Competition, Seven Systems’
Why These Events Were Chosen for the Analysis
To meaningfully compare how different periodisation systems approach strongman programming, the foundation has to be realistic. Each model - linear, block, DUP, RTS, Bulgarian, Tier, and Conjugate - produces very different outcomes depending on the demands of the competition it is built around. To make this analysis credible, we have anchored it to a standard five-event contest that reflects what most athletes encounter at Britain’s Strongest Man qualifiers, regional shows, and OSG-style formats.
Most mainstream strongman competitions revolve around five key movement or strength archetypes:
A maximal or static strength test
An overhead pressing event
A carry or moving event
A grip or endurance challenge
A loading or power event to close the show
This balance of static and dynamic demands captures what makes strongman unique. It rewards the athlete who is not only strong but also conditioned, fast, and technically adaptable.
Standard 5-Event Strongman Set (Benchmark Template for u105s)
Optional Variations (Regional Flavours)
The Yoke may be replaced with a Frame Carry or Husafell Carry. The grip or conditioning event might rotate between a different medley, Power Stairs, or Truck Pull. The final event can use Sandbags or Kegs in place of Stones, but the loading and power demands remain the same.
These substitutions preserve the underlying physical qualities being tested, keeping the structure consistent with the realities of most strongman contests.
Summary Scenario Used for Comparison
For the purposes of this article, we will imagine a 12-week preparation for a balanced, five-event strongman competition featuring:
Max Axle Deadlift (starting around 285 kg)
Log Press for Reps (120 kg target)
20 m Yoke Carry with Anchor Drag
Farmer’s Hold for Time
Stone Series Finale (120–160 kg to 52 inch platform)
This blend of maximal, dynamic, and endurance strength represents the most common competitive structure in modern strongman. It also provides the ideal testing ground for exploring how each periodisation system - linear through to Conjugate - would approach the same goal through entirely different programming philosophies.
This becomes the centrepiece - where you “show, not tell.”
Twelve-Week Simulations – How Each System Approaches the Same Competition
To make the differences tangible, here’s how each periodisation model would theoretically prepare the same U105 kg strongman for a five-event show (axle deadlift, log for reps, yoke + drag, farmer’s hold, and stone series). Each outline covers roughly twelve weeks - not exhaustive plans, but frameworks showing how each system thinks.
1. Linear Periodisation
Structure: 4 + 4 + 4 (Base → Max Strength → Peaking) Outline:
Weeks 1–4 – High-volume base building; lighter event practice.
Weeks 5–8 – Moderate volume; heavier compounds and event load progression.
Weeks 9–12 – Low volume; near-max lifts, reduced event frequency.
Sample Session: Back Squat 4×8 | Overhead Press 4×6 | Farmer’s 3×40 m | GPP circuit
Coaching Note: Simple, predictable, ideal for novices. Breaks down once multiple traits must be trained concurrently.
2. Block Periodisation
Structure: Accumulation (4) → Transmutation (4) → Realisation (4) Outline:
Weeks 1–4 – Hypertrophy, GPP, and general strength.
Weeks 5–8 – Power development, heavy partials, dynamic work.
Weeks 9–12 – Event specificity, taper, and technical rehearsal. Sample Session: Front Squat 5×5 | Power Clean 4×3 | Yoke 4×20 m | Core circuit Coaching Note: Excellent structure for controlled static-to-dynamic transition; risks losing qualities between blocks if events aren’t maintained.
3. DUP / Undulating Periodisation
Structure: Concurrent; rotating emphasis weekly or within microcycles.
Outline: Each week repeats Strength / Power / Hypertrophy / Events.
Sample (Power Day): Speed Deadlift 8×2 @ 60–70% | Push Press 5×3 | Sandbag Toss 4×5 | Reverse Sled Drag 3×30 m
Coaching Note: Maintains readiness for mixed events; high cognitive and fatigue management demands make long-term progression less predictable.
4. RTS / Emerging Strategies
Structure: 3-week “emergent” waves repeated based on feedback. Outline:
Weeks 1–3 – Baseline data microcycle.
Weeks 4–6 – Repeat with intensity adjustment.
Weeks 7–9 – Replicate best-performing wave.
Weeks 10–12 – Taper guided by fatigue trends.
Sample Session: Axle Deadlift 3×1 @ 8 RPE | Bench Press 4×3 | Stones 4×1 (ramp to top set) | Assistance as tolerated
Coaching Note: Highly precise and personalised; vulnerable to the noise and inconsistency of event training.
5. Bulgarian / Max-Specific
Structure: Near-daily maximal intensity, minimal volume. Outline:
Weeks 1–4 – Technique reinforcement.
Weeks 5–8 – Daily heavy singles on 2–3 core lifts.
Weeks 9–12 – Reduced accessories, short taper.
Sample Session: Log Clean & Press to 1 RM | Deadlift to 1 RM | Farmer’s 1–2 heavy runs
Coaching Note: Great short-term neural sharpening; unsustainable beyond brief intensification phases.
6. Tier System
Structure: Weekly rotation – Tier 1 (Total) / Tier 2 (Lower) / Tier 3 (Upper). Outline: Three-day rotation repeats weekly with load/volume waves. Sample Microcycle:
Day 1 – Squat + Clean + Carry
Day 2 – Deadlift + Press + Drag
Day 3 – Events & Accessory Work
Coaching Note: Balanced and sustainable; ideal for off-season general strength, though limited peak specificity without focused overload.
7. Conjugate Method (Strongman Application)
Structure: Concurrent rotation of ME / DE / RE methods; continuous 3-week wave sequencing. Outline:
Weeks 1–3 – Base wave: ME rotation + banded DE barbell work.
Weeks 4–6 – Intensification: event-specific DE and targeted accessories.
Weeks 7–9 – Specific power & event peaking with goal-oriented waves.
Weeks 10–12 – Specificity and realisation phase; full event rehearsals.
Sample Week:
ME Upper – Log Press variation to max triple
ME Lower – SSB Box Squat heavy single
DE Upper – Speed log press + loading drills
DE Lower – Speed pulls and yoke runs + moving events
Coaching Note: The only framework capable of developing all strength qualities simultaneously while adapting to chaotic event scheduling - structured yet endlessly modifiable.
Comparative Overview of Periodisation Systems for Strongman
What Strongman Teaches Us About Periodisation
If every sport is a test of a training philosophy, then strongman is the ultimate one. It exposes the strengths and weaknesses of every periodisation model more brutally than any other discipline. Where powerlifting rewards planned linear peaks, Olympic lifting thrives on technical precision, and field sports rely on cyclical balance, strongman demands everything at once: maximal strength, explosive power, movement speed, muscular endurance, and anaerobic resilience - often within minutes of each other, under unpredictable conditions, with no two competitions ever identical.
Strongman refuses to fit into any single box because it is the box - the container for every form of strength expression a human can produce. It is the perfect stress test for periodisation theory.
When a system succeeds in strongman, it succeeds everywhere.
The Concurrent Reality
Every strongman athlete must train concurrently. There is no true “off-season” in the traditional sense. Between qualifiers, finals, and showcases, competition schedules often span the entire year. Training must therefore develop multiple performance traits simultaneously:
Maximal strength for static lifts like the axle deadlift or log press.
Explosive power for events such as sandbag tosses or stone loading.
Work capacity and endurance for carries, medleys, and timed repetitions.
Speed and coordination for transitions between implements and movements.
This concurrent demand means that any system relying on long, linear progression or isolated block focus eventually collapses under the sport’s complexity. You can’t afford to spend six weeks “building a base” if you have an event medley next month. You can’t neglect conditioning for maximal strength without seeing performance fall apart halfway through a competition.
Strongman forces the coach to confront reality: periodisation can’t just organise strength - it must organise chaos.
Why Every System Works… Until It Doesn’t
Every model of training has its moment. Linear periodisation builds foundations. Block periodisation creates powerful short-term transformations. DUP maintains balance across traits. RTS individualises adaptation. Even Bulgarian intensity can provide short neural surges. But each system eventually meets the same wall - the limit of its own structure.
Strongman athletes constantly move between systems whether they intend to or not. A heavy event block becomes “Bulgarian” for a few weeks. A lighter, recovery-focused month takes on the qualities of a DUP wave. The sport itself enforces variation, fatigue management, and concurrency through necessity rather than theory.
That reality reveals an important truth: no single model is enough. Strongman requires a framework flexible enough to integrate them all - one that holds the logic of linear progression, the concentration of block work, the balance of concurrent methods, and the self-regulation of autoregulated models.
Why Conjugate Endures
I am biased but...
The Conjugate Method provides exactly that framework. It is not a fixed program but an adaptive infrastructure - a living, rotating system built to handle unpredictability. Its structure can absorb and repurpose the strengths of every other model:
From Linear, it borrows progressive overload and structure.
From Block, it inherits phase potentiation and directed focus.
From DUP, it maintains constant exposure to multiple qualities.
From RTS, it adopts feedback loops and responsiveness.
From Bulgarian, it captures neural intensity and maximal intent.
From Tier, it sustains balance and total-body integration.
By cycling Max Effort and Dynamic Effort work, Conjugate keeps the athlete strong and fast all year. By rotating movements and waves, it prevents stagnation without losing specificity. By blending repetition, special, and dynamic methods, it builds both the base and the peak simultaneously. And by integrating events throughout, it never lets the athlete drift from the sport’s unique demands.
It’s not that Conjugate rejects periodisation - it is periodisation, made more fluid and responsive to the modern athletic landscape.
The Lesson
Strongman teaches us that there is no perfect system - only adaptive ones. The lifter who insists on rigid structure will eventually be broken by chaos. The one who trains without structure will be buried by fatigue and inconsistency. The athlete who thrives is the one who can adapt - and that’s precisely what Conjugate was built to enable.
In the end, every system is a language for organising training. Strongman simply speaks them all at once. And Conjugate is the only one fluent enough to answer back.
If You Want to Understand All of This in Practice
This article barely scratches the surface. Each of these systems - Linear, Block, DUP, RTS, Bulgarian, Tier, and Conjugate - represents decades of experimentation, refinement, and evolution. But theory only becomes valuable when it’s translated into practice, and that’s where most coaches and athletes get lost. Knowing what periodisation models exist is one thing; knowing how and when to use them, how to combine their strengths, and when to abandon their rules entirely is another.
That’s exactly what I explore in Periodisation for Dummies, the latest entry in my For Dummies micro-ebook series. Inside, I take every system discussed here and unpack it in full detail - its origins, structure, mechanisms, and modern adaptations - before showing how to apply it to real-world strongman and powerlifting programming. You’ll see how to blend structured phases with concurrent methods, how to integrate autoregulation without losing direction, and how to build peaking sequences that actually work in competition environments where chaos is the norm.
If this article helped you see how each approach connects, Periodisation for Dummies will show you how to use those connections to build a living, breathing system that fits your athletes, your events, and your schedule - not just the textbook ideal.
It’s available now as part of the For Dummies micro-ebook series on TEAMJOSHHEZZA.com - the same series that includes The Conjugate Method for Dummies, Commercial Gym Conjugate, and Fix Your Weaknesses.
$50
Product Title
Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button. Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button
$50
Product Title
Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button. Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button.
$50
Product Title
Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button. Product Details goes here with the simple product description and more information can be seen by clicking the see more button.
Comments