your example looks like a giant word problem from a statistics course.[/quote]
Wow, I guess it does not work then.
[quote]heres what i do, its easy and it works.
take a weight, say its 80 pounds.
lift it in the 6-8 range for 4 sets then move up.
so for week 1 it might go like this
then you move up.[/quote]
An important difference is that this sort of program much more often winds up being undoable, not getting the increase in reps hoped for. Unless deliberately started underperforming so that there’s enough margin that no actual gains are required to get the increases.
A one rep increase represents, ordinarily, at least a 2% increase in strength. It may be as high as 5%.
It isn’t the case that one can assume being able to gain 2% strength after 2 weeks. That’s a 1% per week increase. Again, how many experienced lifters, who have been experienced for some years now, who let’s say are now benching 400, were benching only 265 a year ago and will be benching over 600 a year from now and over 900 a year from that?
Second thing, overall you’re assuming in your example being able to increase from 80 lb for 7 reps to 85 lb for 7 reps, if that’s what you mean by going up, in 6 weeks.
Actually that’s the same problem but just manifesting itself in a different aspect of the program: assuming that continued 1% per week strength gains are sustainable.
While you may consider what I described to be more complex than you prefer or can handle or I don’t know what – at any rate you object – what I described in fact addresses the microloading concern and is achievable long term.
But people that I know know better, if they stopped and thought about it, say it all the time though, or make statements that are of the equivalent sort.
E.g., providing a program that assumes being able to maintain 1% per week rate of increase, in the context of an experienced lifter.
As I said, not many 400 lb benchers that have been at it some time were benching 265 a year ago and will be benching 600 next year and the year after that. But if the rate of increase you propose as “it works” were doable long term, that sort of thing would be happening all the time.
I believe what happens is that people look at periods in which they did a program that seemed to them to give such gains, and don’t actually stop and look at the results for the whole year, nor actually work things out (I guess that would be “a giant word problem for a statistics course” and heaven forbid we should figure out what the consequences would be of what we are considering) and thus wind up with vast overestimations of what is doable on an ongoing basis.