Hey guys, I am following Op I/A right now simply because it fits my schedule better, not necessarily because I have exhausted gains on Op. I run an 8-day week that looks like this:
Op I/A + abs
HIC
Op I/A
Rest
HIC
Op I/A + abs
E/GC (alternating)
Repeat 3x for an Op I/A cycle.
Since I'm not on a 7-day week, I decided to go with Op I/A as it offers more flexibility. That being said, here's my question:
Why couldn't you do Op percentages on this schedule as well (70 3x/wk, 80, 90 for a 24-day cycle)? You could then do a second cycle with 75, 85, 95. Or a second question would be what is the reason behind the 75,75,75,80,80,80,85,85,90 of Op I/A?
This is more curiosity than anything. I'm running Op I/A as written because I've figured out that KB is smarter than I am. But the science/experience/reasoning behind it is of interest to me.
EDIT: Additional thought. I do realize that Op I/A allows for higher volume with more sets so it makes sense that you would work at lower percentages on the high end. However, with time constrains on my workout I never go over the allowed 5 sets on regular Op even when doing Op I/A.
Reason behind Operator I/A percentages
Reason behind Operator I/A percentages
Last edited by mikhou on Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Reason behind Operator I/A percentages
You could probably go for it with the percentages from Operator and see how it works out. You did mention it's just more convenient to run the 8 day week. If you had exhausted the ability to maintain the higher frequency of operator and needed that extra recovery afforded by Op I/A, then you might be wanting to work at those lower percentages and take a bit longer to progress.
From memory Operator is a 6 week cycle at bare minimum and Operator I/A works out to 4 or so weeks.
That means less time to adapt to the higher percentage and probably also has to do with the lower percentage towards the end of the program.
I am in no way an expert, but looking at your post that would be what immediately sticks out between the two cycles.
From memory Operator is a 6 week cycle at bare minimum and Operator I/A works out to 4 or so weeks.
That means less time to adapt to the higher percentage and probably also has to do with the lower percentage towards the end of the program.
I am in no way an expert, but looking at your post that would be what immediately sticks out between the two cycles.
Re: Reason behind Operator I/A percentages
Hey, Maxrip13. To clarify why I run the cycles the way that I do, it's for 2 reasons. First, being 43yo, I appreciate working 3 days on / 1 day off. Second, I like placing equal weight on strength and conditioning. I'm not training for my job or for competition. Just trying to stay fit as I get older.Maxrip13 wrote:You could probably go for it with the percentages from Operator and see how it works out. You did mention it's just more convenient to run the 8 day week. If you had exhausted the ability to maintain the higher frequency of operator and needed that extra recovery afforded by Op I/A, then you might be wanting to work at those lower percentages and take a bit longer to progress.
From memory Operator is a 6 week cycle at bare minimum and Operator I/A works out to 4 or so weeks.
That means less time to adapt to the higher percentage and probably also has to do with the lower percentage towards the end of the program.
I am in no way an expert, but looking at your post that would be what immediately sticks out between the two cycles.
-
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:17 pm
Re: Reason behind Operator I/A percentages
For my next cycle I'll be doing the 8 day week very similar to yours. I'll be doing the standard Op percentages though. My reasoning is I won't be going beyond the standard Op volume. I suppose I have nothing useful to add other than I'll report back with my experiences.
Re: Reason behind Operator I/A percentages
G2B, I look forward to hearing your experience. Thanks.
Re: Reason behind Operator I/A percentages
Right now my schedule works best if I train on a seven day week as much as possible. Otherwise, my plan would work a lot like this.mikhou wrote:Hey guys, I am following Op I/A right now simply because it fits my schedule better, not necessarily because I have exhausted gains on Op. I run an 8-day week that looks like this:
Op I/A + abs
HIC
Op I/A
Rest
HIC
Op I/A + abs
E/GC (alternating)
Repeat 3x for an Op I/A cycle.
Re: Reason behind Operator I/A percentages
If I didn't have a home gym, I wouldn't use this, but having a home gym offers SO MUCH flexibility. I would probably go to a 5-day schedule if i had to go to a commercial gym, and i would likely use regular OP, and 2 HICs per week with an additional long run sprinkled in occasionally.J-Madd wrote:Right now my schedule works best if I train on a seven day week as much as possible. Otherwise, my plan would work a lot like this.mikhou wrote:Hey guys, I am following Op I/A right now simply because it fits my schedule better, not necessarily because I have exhausted gains on Op. I run an 8-day week that looks like this:
Op I/A + abs
HIC
Op I/A
Rest
HIC
Op I/A + abs
E/GC (alternating)
Repeat 3x for an Op I/A cycle.
Re: Reason behind Operator I/A percentages
G2B and maxrep13, hey just something interesting that I noted here. By working in the 75% range and the 85% ranges and by keeping the 85-90% range work at 3 reps for only one week out of 3 (or 2 weeks out of 6), Op I/A is actually more volume in total than regular Op on both a 3-week comparison and a 6-week comparison. This is true even without exceeding 5 sets (and as you know up to 10 sets is allowed. So all things being equal, Op I/A offers more volume than Operator but without working in the 95% range. I can see using this with forced progression to take you quite far.Green2Blue wrote:For my next cycle I'll be doing the 8 day week very similar to yours. I'll be doing the standard Op percentages though. My reasoning is I won't be going beyond the standard Op volume. I suppose I have nothing useful to add other than I'll report back with my experiences.
Re: Reason behind Operator I/A percentages
There you go, so higher volume but at a lower intensity. That higher volume is crammed into a shorter time frame also.mikhou wrote:G2B and maxrep13, hey just something interesting that I noted here. By working in the 75% range and the 85% ranges and by keeping the 85-90% range work at 3 reps for only one week out of 3 (or 2 weeks out of 6), Op I/A is actually more volume in total than regular Op on both a 3-week comparison and a 6-week comparison. This is true even without exceeding 5 sets (and as you know up to 10 sets is allowed. So all things being equal, Op I/A offers more volume than Operator but without working in the 95% range. I can see using this with forced progression to take you quite far.Green2Blue wrote:For my next cycle I'll be doing the 8 day week very similar to yours. I'll be doing the standard Op percentages though. My reasoning is I won't be going beyond the standard Op volume. I suppose I have nothing useful to add other than I'll report back with my experiences.
It's not so applicable in your case, but for someone using it to manage things like shift work and other work related things(Police/Military), you can see why they might stay at the lower percentages.
I guess I do a bit of both, but I just think of it as operator+ conditioning + life. I use the operator percentages personally, but a training max always.
I try and get my 3 strength sessions + a finisher and then whatever conditioning I can through the week.
One of those will be a longer(5 km+) run or loaded walk. I try and do this in a hilly area if possible.
I have a pretty reasonable schedule up until feb next year and then it's back to shift work.
I will then do the Operator I/A percentages.
-
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:17 pm
Re: Reason behind Operator I/A percentages
Now I'm really battling with my decision to do an 8 day week. I was thinking about it and that's less than 3 days a week of lifting. As a guy with a heavy background in weightlifting that's a tough pill to swallow. That's very low frequency.