Questions (and Answers) on Program Design

I recently received the following e-mail from one our members, and I wanted to share part of our exchange with all of you.  I hope it will answer some questions some of you may have regarding our program design, and also encourage some further discussion regarding why we prescribe things in the manner that we do; "I've noticed that you've referenced training cycles on the blog. As an educator, I'm always very interested in learning about pedagogy - so I'm interested in the decisions you make as the programmer. It's mostly an intellectual curiosity, but also I'm interested in deepening my own understanding of how/why I see the results I do in my own performance.So i guess my big questions are:1) Have we always done training cycles but I've never realized it, or have you been shifting the programming and making that shift more transparent?2) What is the benefit of training cycles and is there a general structure that all cycles follow?3) What are your go-to resources for developing programming at FRCF?" I could go on for a very long, long time about this topic.  This isn't because I have all (or even most) of the answers, but because I've been doing it long enough to get a good idea of what the questions are that we should be asking when looking at a training program.One of the most important aspects to programming, in my opinion, is progression.  The underlying idea behind everything that we do is that you will try to improve on the last time you did it (whether that be to use more weight, to move more quickly, to take less rest, to keep stricter technique, etc.)  I'm going to talk right now specifically in regards to strength training. So, for example, if a Fitness workout calls for 4 sets of 6-8 reps of a Back Squat, the assumption will always be that you are trying to go as heavy as possible within that range, and naturally, that will be heavier than last time because your body has adapted and overcompensated, thus making you stronger.There comes a point, however, where this natural progression halts, and we need to be more deliberate in our loading.  This is where percentage-based work comes into play, especially with the core and olympic lifts.  This comes from the idea of "greasing the groove;" the idea that becoming more and more comfortable with sub-maximal loads will lead to an increase in your 1-RM (assuming that that is your ultimate goal). Prescribing percentages to groups can be very tricky, especially with beginners; The less developed one's nervous system, the less "space" there will be between their 8 rep max, their 5-rep max, and their 1-rep max.  So, telling someone to do a set of 5 @ 85% of their 1-RM can be a walk in the park or THE HARDEST SET EVER OMFG, or something in between, depending on the person.This difference in nervous system development and recruitment is one (of many) reasons for our Fitness/Performance split.  Low rep, high load lifting just doesn't have the same effect on someone that is new to a movement, since they can't dig deep enough into their nervous system to muster an effort that will require 2-3 minutes of rest.  That, coupled with the fact that newer folks need more exposures to movements in order to develop consistently good movement, is the reason that we prescribe higher rep ranges to the Fitness group.With that in mind, let's address your questions:1) We have always done SOME sort of cycling of our program, at least as it pertains to the Performance group.  Quite simply, we prioritize certain movements for certain amounts of time.  Generally, the rep ranges will lower (and the weight will, presumably, increase) every time you see the movement.  After 5 or 6 weeks, we will test the 1-RM of that movement.  This can be going on concurrently with multiple movements.HOWEVER, other than the occasional squat cycle, we rarely did the same movement on the same day each week, due largely to the fact that many people come on random days from week to week, and we didn't want anyone to miss squatting altogether, or pressing altogether, etc.This, as you have noticed, has recently changed.  We are now organizing our strength work into "cycles," generally for a length of 6 weeks (We will actually be doing a quick 3-week cycle leading up to Christmas, but that's forced on us by how the calendar falls).Now, we are alerting people as to what to expect on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, in the way of strength work.  We still vary the conditioning workout and accessory work based on what we are trying to achieve.  For the Fitness group, there is even more variation, since we generally include more movements in our Part A portions than we do with Performance.We made this change after 2 and a half years of prescribing, observing, experimenting, getting feedback, and collecting data.  Though it is very early on to tell, we are liking the results so far.  Not only are people hitting solid PR's, but they are enjoying the journey, and understanding the process a little better (or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part :))2) A couple of benefits include: a natural progression of getting comfortable with a movement at increasing weights over the course of several weeks; a chance to focus on certain movements for a period of time, with the knowledge that you will shift to something else after a while; a planned out time period (the transition week) to take things a bit lighter and recover both physically and mentally.Training microcycles usually vary from 4 to 12 weeks, though several microcycles combine to make up mesocycles, which combine to make your training year (or 4-year period for Olympic Athletes).  While we keep it pretty balanced across the entire year, there is a general trend of doing more strength work in the summer (which is the "off" season for those competing in the Open), and ramping up the conditioning as we approach the Open in February.3) There are so many great resources out there with regards to training philosophy, but I will try to just give you a couple.- Taking the CCP Assessment and Program Design Courses from OPEX Fitness (formerly OPT) built the foundation for the way I approach programming at Full Range.  James Fitzgerald has distilled 20 years of training knowledge and practical experience into a toolkit for coaches that goes far beyond "constantly varied functional movements," and I would recommend it to anyone that is interested in coaching fitness at any level. Period. http://opexfit.com/- CJ Martin, owner of Invictus in San Diego, CA, is arguably one of the most successful CrossFit coaches in the world, having coached dozens of athletes to the Games, plus having his team win the affilliate cup this year.  Not only that, but he has, since 2011, been just cranking out amazing content at their blog, on a variety of subjects.  Our competition track cycles get their structure maingly from the Invictus Competition blog, and you will see workouts that he has either written or inspired all over the place, including at FRCF.-Catalyst Athletics is an Olympic Weightlifting gym run by Greg Everett.  If you want to learn how to Snatch, Clean, and Jerk, read his book "Olympic Weightlifting: A Guide for Athletes and Coaches."  He also puts out training cycles on his blog, for free, though these are based entirely on weightlifting, and not for general or competitive, work-capacity-based fitness- Other great sources: https://www.trainingthinktank.com/, http://breakingmuscle.com/ Again, I hope that all of our members feel comfortable asking questions regarding our programs, our methods, or anything else that will help you get more of your time at Full Range.  If you would like your questions to be answered publicly, via this blog, email me directly at: adam@fullrangecrossfit.com