Yuri Fedorenko - Prep & Comp Cycle - Sheiko

Hi, I remember that about one week ago someone asked that he could not find Fedorenko’s prep and comp training cycle. I sent him the link, but to avoid being lost this link in another topic, so it would be good to create a new topic. Unfortunately, I don’t know how here to attach an attachment from Excel (I would welcome advice).
In my opinion, every athlete who uses strength training should have a very similar record in Excel. Many people underestimate such careful records, which is a shame.

http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=22777400345634394395 (just click on the green text “Plan For Training Fedorenko.xlsx”)

For more information: http://sheiko-program.ru/forum/index.php?topic=36.0

Important note: Be aware that Fedorenko was at a high level of training (MSIC - Master of Sport of the USSR, International Class), so it’s not wise to copy his workout as a robot but only to be inspired.

1 Like

This actually isn’t the same program that I was talking about, the training cycle for Fedorenko that I found in the Sheiko forum had him training 5 days a week. I tried to download this when you posted it the first time but there was something wrong with the link or website and nothing happened, I got it this time though.

I record all my training in a notebook, there is also a site called mystrengthbook that allows you to record your training and it will also calculate volume, tonnage, etc. and create graphs and charts. I don’t believe it’s free though. RTS has a free training log app if you are into RPE based training (and I know you aren’t).

On second glance, the program I saw before might have only been the prep cycle. This one has 5 days a week in the prep cycle and 4 in the comp cycle.

You could have seen Fedorenko’s program in another time of the year. These are only two months of the year.

I downloaded it from the same link in the same thread in the Sheiko forum, my computer died on me and at some point I tried to download it again but the link didn’t work. The program that I got before only had one spreadsheet, and it didn’t have the pretty colors either. I assume it is the same as the prep cycle, but if it’s not then at least it is similar.

You have to count on Sheiko having a lot of lifters who quite often publish any number of versions of his training programs…unfortunately, some are totally absurd or very difficult for an average person.

I don’t know if you noticed this, but the WRPF federation on Facebook wrote that the detailed book (500 pages) for the bench press by Boris Sheiko is already on the Russian market (see http://sheiko-program.ru/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/4154545.jpg)… I asked if she was going to be published in English and other countries, and Sheiko replied: “Do not know about English version nor shipping to other countries. Will inform you guys later.”

I saw that on Sheiko’s facebook page. His other powerlifting book is supposed to be in the process of being translated to English (by Mike Israetel) but it has been at least two years since that was announced and I haven’t heard any news lately. If the bench press book does eventually get translated, it won’t be for a few years. It’s a shame because I would definitely like to learn more about his training methods and style of programming, I would consider doing a Sheiko-style training cycle if I knew how to set it up but I can’t afford to hire him as a coach. I’m doing more American-style stuff, which works, but it would be worth experimenting with different methods to see what gives the best results.

I would also be very pleased with this eventual translation.

Sheiko’s training programs are largely based on numbers (number of lifts, relative and average intensity, total and average tonnage, etc.). For better understanding, only basic knowledge in Excel is sufficient. I also apply his methodology. I don’t believe the American philosophy in powerlifting, because it is very often not based on years of research.

People who don’t use Excel in the 21st century for periodization are 100 years for monkeys. They are very deprived of useful findings. Often it’s because of very low IQ and unwillingness to think more, especially in the Czech Republic.

The American (or at least non-Russian) programs that are well established may not have years of research behind them, but they certainly have years of practical application and results. If it doesn’t work then how come so many of the best lifters are American? Fred Hatfield actually spent quite a bit of time in Russia learning about their training methods and went on to become on of the best lifters in the world, he thought that the Russian methods were optimal for weightlifting but a different style of training would work better for powerlifting. It’s hard to say that he was wrong.

I guess I’m 100 years for monkeys. My programs are fairly simple and I only use percentages as a starting point for each block of training, I increase weights based on how things are going. I don’t see a reason for myself to use excel at this point, I did in the past and it seemed like a waste of time. RTS (your buddy Mike Tuchscherer) has a training log app on their site that tracks all sorts of metrics like number of lifts, tonnages, average intensity, and so on. I don’t really see the point of overcomplicating things to that point, if you are coaching several people then it makes sense but otherwise I don’t believe it’s necessary. How do you go about using excel for periodization?

You mention extreme and very talented examples. Very talented athletes are across almost all countries. When we focus only on the number of researches conducted and the number of medals in powerlifting / weightlifting, Russia or former USSR states they have no solid competition… I’m trying to say that I will always be in strength training to believe scientific researches rather than the “speculation” of American lifters, which often have no logic either.

I think you’re making a big mistake. Even if you don’t train anyone, it’s not a pretext for not using Excel.

The use is very primitive. First, I usually create a border of cells that I paint with a given color (each color means individually percentage of the RM). Subsequently, I will write the number of series, repetitions, basic and accessory exercises, tonnage, relative intensity, lifts and weight average… In the longer term, this process is very beneficial and clear.

The thing is that Fred Hatfield was more than just one single example, he was still doing seminars and sharing his knowledge up until he died last year. Josh Bryant, who was mentored by him, uses a lot of Hatfield’s knowledge and experience in addition to other things that he has picked up along the way. He is coaching some of the best lifters at the moment, and also coaches most of the top bench pressers at the moment. You could argue that it’s all due to genetics and drugs, but his methods definitely work.

I’m not going to do in-depth research to debate this point, but at 2017 IPF raw worlds the US came slightly ahead of Russia in the Men’s Open division. I’m not American, I live in Canada and I’m a Polish citizen so I have no attachment to either country. I’m just calling it as I see it. Some Americans (and other western lifters) train in a manner somewhat similar to the Russians (look up the free program on The Strength Athlete site for an example) but some Russians and eastern European lifters also use methods that seem more similar to the American style. Andrey Malanichev (who is obviously a unique example) does linear periodization, each lift once a week, and one heavy work set during meet prep. Krzysztof Wierzbicki does a lot of heavy singles, doubles, and triples, his training seems to revolve around heavy top sets. It’s not that one method is wrong and the other is right, there are just different ways to achieve the same goal.

I’m not opposed to using excel, I just don’t see why I should for myself at this moment. I pick assistance exercises and starting weights (sometime based on percentages) for each mesocycle but the progression is not predetermined, I adjust numbers based on how things go in training.

It depends, however, on how many lifters his training methods have helped. I think this will be a negligible number compared to with lifters led by Boris Sheiko. Sheiko’s lifters in IPF have won over 90 medals (mostly gold).

Again, you repeat the same “mistake” - you mention only very talented athletes who already have their functional training system.

Yes, it is true that many American trainers or lifters have been inspired by Russian training philosophy. But it is that many of them misunderstood Russian methods and often misinterpret them (for example, Simmons and Thibaudeau).

I have already written reasons, I will repeat them:
• a detailed overview of training data and numbers
• much better training records
• graphical summaries
• rigorous adherence to a training program

Loss of these eventually benefits is very bad for your training.

BTW, the original linear periodization invented by Matveyev is a 70 years outdated training program. Many scientific studies linear periodization for advanced athletes refuted.

I realize that Sheiko is the most successful coach in the history of powerlifting, nobody can argue with that. It seems that you are missing my original point, which is that part of the reason that I don’t use similar training to Shieko’s methods is that I don’t know how to write a program like that. If one day his book is translated to English then that may change. In any case, other methods of training do work and provide good results, maybe not better than a program written by Sheiko but certainly better than a poor imitation.

I don’t know about Thibaudeau (I believe you mean the guy who writes for this site?) but Louie Simmons is not who comes to mind when I think of American lifters/coaches using Russian-style training. He took certain things, some out of context and some misunderstood, and put together his own style of training which has many different methods and variation within it. I wouldn’t really criticize his methods either because they have produced a lot of great results, but I wouldn’t attempt to train that way myself because I don’t know how to make it work properly.

Yes, Christian Thibaudeau…

Simmons promotes the conjugated periodization that originated in the 1950s in the USSR and whose fathers are Dyachkov and Verkhoshansky. Unfortunately, he misunderstands the conjugated periodization. He does’t realize that this periodization is’t basically created for powerlifters, but for athletic disciplines. Simmons cleverly used a faster patent, but he did not know how to apply a lot of training facts.

However, this discussion is already longer incompatible with this topic. :slight_smile:

1 Like

This current discussion is much better than the original topic.

I’m in the USA, so everything I know is influenced and shaped by the “American Philosophy.” I’m surrounded by it. And I’ve only lifted weights in the USA. So it’s impossible for me to indentify the “American Philosophy.”

But I know it’s there. I feel like the “American Philosophy” is heavily influenced by body building (USA loves big muscles) and Taking Pride in Hard, But ineffective Work.

Can you help me understand the American Philosophy? What is it? What’s wrong with it?

I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a philosophy, it’s more like common practices and ideas among powerlifters in America and the western world. Basically it’s as you say, the typical American style is more similar to bodybuilding with lower frequency per lift, sets pushed closer to failure, regular PR attempts, and a heavy reliance on accessory work. The Russian style is based on weightlifting training where the reps are low and sets are many, somewhat higher frequency and full body workouts, PR attempts are saved for test days or competition, nothing is pushed close to failure, and accessory work is minimal. There is some overlap and exchange of ideas, but that’s basically a generalization.

A properly programmed Russian-style program, as you would get if you were coached by Boris Sheiko, may well be better than any American program and is at the least equal. The problem that I see is that it is more complicated to set up such a program yourself so if you write your own training then things might not go the way you want them to.

1 Like