You are currently exploring the Fundamentals Library , which is designed to provide a basic overview of the topics that are covered in other longer articles. This article is a part of the Progression section.
Progression VS Scaling Up
Although progression is one of the most fundamental aspects of programming, it remains one of the most misunderstood concepts in training. That's because in training and exercise, the word "progression" refers to many different concepts. There are "progressions" of bodyweight exercises, there are "progression models" and "progressive overload".
The process of progression is based on the phenomenon of adaptation to training, visualized by the fitness-fatigue model . Through the adaptations that our body accumulates over time, it becomes more capable of dealing with certain types of stressors. The increase in this capacity is progression.
However, progression is often confused with the process of scaling the demands of exercise. We can manipulate the variables in training to make them more difficult for our bodies to handle. Just because we've made something harder, however, doesn't mean that our body has become more capable of dealing with that demand.
Let’s take a look at this example:
- 1) 10KG x 10 reps (3rir)
- 2A) 10KG x 13 reps (0rir)
- 2B) 12KG x 10 reps (2rir)
If session 2A or 2B follow session 1, some would say that the progress was being made. And yes looking independently at some variables we could say so.
But this is why tracking all variables is more insightful. In reality, in neither of these cases a noticeable progression can be detected.
Progression would occur in such scenarios:
- 2C) 10KG x 10 reps (2rir)
- 2D) 10KG x 11 reps (3rir)
- 2E) 12KG x 10 reps (3rir)
So there is a clear distinction between the two, but very often people try to force progression by increasing one variable at the “cost” of another variable. This is not necessarily a bad practice, but I want to raise some awareness that we can't call such a practice "progression".
Progression Models
The problem with progression is that it is impossible to know if it has occurred without testing it in some way. However, it is still useful to incorporate progression models into our training.
A progression model is essentially the planned increase in objective training demands to maintain relative training demands, with the supposition that progression has occurred. I'm aware that the above sentence may be a bit difficult to understand at first, so let's break it down.
Increasing the objective demands means increasing the weight lifted or the number of seconds & repetitions performed with a given load, in some cases increasing the volume.
Maintaining relative training demands means that despite the increase in kilograms or repetitions, the characteristics of the training remain the same for us in terms of some variables. Imagine you are doing squats at 60 KG and you do 3 sets of 5 reps. At the end of this program you are doing 75 KG for 3 sets of 5 and it feels just like 60 KG at the beginning of the program. This is the perfect example of increasing objective demands while maintaining relative demands.
Finally, the supposition that progression has occurred means that our progression model is typically based on a hypothesis. We assume that we will get better at a certain rate. However, this is just an estimate that we make based on the training history and characteristics of an athlete.
We differentiate two distinct progression model types:
- Fixed Progression Models
- Autoregulative Progression Models
Each one of them has certain benefits and shortcomings. You can read about the specifics of each one of the methods in the linked articles.
Risks of Not Having a Progression Model
When not applying a proper progression model to our training, we run a risk of:
- Making training too light
This happens when we do not increase either the load and rep range. Over time, training becomes very easy, the load becomes relatively lighter, and we stop stimulating the adaptations we want from a strength and hypertrophy standpoint.
This is a typical problem of a "training routine" that assumes the same number of repetitions with the same weight every week and every workout.
- Changing the characteristics of the workout
This happens when we do not increase the load according to our progression while maintaining the reps in reserve. Over time, we will go outside of the rep range and relative load that we were doing before and change the characteristics of the workout, such as making it more endurance based.
An example of this is doing pushups without any increase in objective load until we are doing 40+ reps and the training stops being effective for strength and muscle building and starts having endurance characteristics.
The opposite thing can happen if we change our training demands too abruptly (unless it is a planned periodization strategy).
- Lack of purpose & motivation
Let's not forget one important function of the progression model, which is to set expectations and goals for the training session.
Without a progression model, we run the risk of not taking our sessions and sets as seriously and not being as motivated to push past the level of discomfort that is often required.
Execution Form as a Progression?
Finally, it's worth noting that in some cases, specifically in calisthenics, we don't need to increase repetitions or resistance. For some exercises, we may be trying to improve our form so that it is more congruent with given standards and at the same time more challenging for our body.
In this case, we would treat "exercise form" as an objective load, and we can use it to scale up the demands. Just as 70 KG OHP is more than 60 KG OHP, a handstand push up with a straight back is more than a HSPU with a curved back.
