Adarq.org

 I am sure there is no scientific backing to Broz' claims. But I find the reasoning somewhat plausible. The technical execution becoming more staple when doing a movement A LOT certainly makes sense as well.
But no matter the mechanism, it is certainly true that via very high frequency the training intensity HAS to be lower compared to what it could be when training in a rested state.

If we would assume for a second that higher intensity increases the risk for injury and higher volume makes for more opportunities for an incident to happen, albeit not increasing risk via an additional mechanism, then high frequency training would have you train at safer weights while still providing a very potent training stress. This look at things puts the Bulgarian method, that gets critiqued in the article, in somewhat of a different light. It also leads to the question what the training percentages in the article actually mean: What is 80% of 1rm? 1rm of that particular day? Training 1rm? Competition 1rm? And did every writer always mean the same thing with those?

  
 Good point, I would say that the Bulgarian(ish) approach could actually be even less risky, due to the reasons you listed, and also the very frequent "practice".

  Its kind of funny when people react to this type of training as "harder" and "insane" etc.  Imo, its actually easier, and a lot less draining than many other set ups.  The use of the word "max" is partially to  blame.  Ive mentioned it  before,  but if you look at most of  the a.b.g. videos, theyre not showing a grinding, screaming, true MAX, MOST of the time.  Its more of a routine, heavyish lift, that looks like it could  be repeated if need  be.

 There is a coach named David Woodhouse, who has recently pushed his program nicknamed the "syyyystem", that entails lifting only 2 x a week, and VERY low volume on those days.  It entails front squatting to a MAX, along with doing the classic lifts in a similar fashion.  This would entail more of a "real" max, and here is an example of one of his guys on a "max" front squat in one of their sessions.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgLpAzGfH0I" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgLpAzGfH0I</a>

ABG guys, lifting daily, and here is what you tend to see most often as one of their "max" lifts, daily.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-SEt13Wyhc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-SEt13Wyhc</a>


It would be more accurate, to say woodhouse has his guys going for a personal best each session, and the a.b.g. guys are going to a daily "heavy single based on autoregulation".  When training that frequently, the autoregulation will happen to some degree regardless of desire or will power to lift past a certain point.    

 I was reading earlier an interesting programming thread on Glenns forum where some of this is discussed and found some of the experiences to follow along with the same line of reasoning.


http://www.pendlayforum.com/showthread.php?t=3168&page=5

  I hope you do well, and I think it would work, for a while, at least until supercompensation is complete from your previous training, and the peaking effect of that style of training wears thin.  Its only my OPINION, but the guys who seem to do well with that type of set up are .1) newbs and 2.) guys that are slightly or massively over reaching, whether they know it or not. 

 For 2. it almost seems like magic for a while, then gains stop and usually things start to go backwards.  Ive seen that scenario play out lots with guys switching to a HIT type plan, they swear its the golden truth and magical in providing progress.  Whats really happening is its a a GREAT way to deload, pushing intensity so gains continue throughout the deload, but a massive drop in volume and frequency.

 Once supercompensation is done, and the actual gains from their previous training have come through, coupled with the peaking type effect those low freqency/low volume/high intensity programs provide, lifts, gpp levels, etc., start to slide.

 Im not saying I dislike Woodhouses methods, and its nice to have some trains flying in from both sides of the high/low frequency issue, but I do think people make up their mind too quickly about whats happening with that type of program, and why its happening.   Most of those gains are often made in their previous training cycle, not the peaking/deload program that allows those gains time to simply be realized.

 So that you have some info from two sides of that coin, here is one of the guys who didnt feel like that set up worked well for him.



http://weightliftingexchange.com/smf/index.php?topic=6202.0