The Problem with Programming
Why pre-packaged programs are rarely the solution and what to do about it.
What People Want
What people often want from me is a stand-alone training program. Stand-alone in the sense that the program is undertaken alone, without support and without intervention (coaching). I fully understand and appreciate this desire.
What people want is a plan that they can follow that will allow them to achieve their goals. They typically believe that with a good enough program they can get there. That it’s simply a matter of “do this work, in this order” and bingo bango . . . achievement!
Generic Programs for Generic People
Unfortunately, the process of achieving notable performance goals requires good programming, but it also requires nuance. Let’s examine a generic goal as an example - a specific target for 2000m on the Concept2 RowErg. Because the distance is generic and the machine is standardized, it would appear that there’s a typical process one could follow to achieve their best possible outcomes.
The reality though, is that even if a test is standardized, a person never is. Let’s take two men (for the sake of simplicity) that both have 2k performance goals. One is aiming for sub 6 and the other sub 7. Immediately there will be differences that are challenging to overcome merely by gradating training outputs. What about 2 men with the same exact target, for example 6min 30sec? What if one of the men is from more of an endurance background and the other has more of a functional fitness/strength base? What about if one bloke has 20 hours of available training time each week and the other has 5? What about if one person has access to cross-training options like a bike or treadmill and the other doesn’t?
The possible variants are literally endless and in order to maximise the preparation for a best possible performance they must all be taken into account. There are people though who don’t want to eek out every last molecule of ability. They might just want a program that’s good enough. That situation would require a program that is a generic as possible.
3-4 sessions a week
Nothing over 60 minutes
Erg only
This is the sort of program that anyone with a 2k goal could reasonably follow, but it does have its limitations. It wouldn’t be close to the best possible plan for anyone, whether their goal is sub-6, 6:30 or sub-7. All variants would be underserved. I would either need to exclude strength training entirely (not great) or provide additional guidance somehow and hope that it’s included in some way that is beneficial, that also doesn’t corrupt the rest of the program (also not great). Another major limitation is as follows.
What Happens When Things Change?
For the sake of this article, let’s imagine a world where we are able to overcome the aforementioned limitations and provide a person with a training program. The program must be of a sufficient length because if it’s not long enough it won’t be able to provide a perceivable benefit. Like all good programs, the training sessions within the program must undulate in terms of intensity because we need to develop certain attributes and energy systems, which happens with different workouts. The sessions must also progress, in one form or another - this could happen week to week, month to month, or some other frequency, but it must occur in order to elicit improvements in capacity. We must also account for recovery, because that’s where progress actually occur.
Now, let’s assume I’ve written a perfect plan in principle. It takes into account their goal, their availability, their equipment, their preferences, their training history and observes all of the necessary physiological conditions. WTF happens when life intervenes and things change? There are a thousand versions of this, here are some -
The athlete gets sick
The athlete becomes injured
A family member gets sick
A night or more of terrible/no sleep
A car breaks down
Inclement weather
Work stress
Family stress
All of these could cause a session (or 2, or 3, or more) to be missed. What then? In this hypothetical, the athlete that’s following the program is then tasked with the responsibility of making the best adjustments possible under the circumstances. Do they simply accept the lost sessions? Do they adjust their goal? Do they make up for lost time?
There are better and worse ways to negotiate life’s curveballs, but most people aren’t fully aware and able to make these adjustments and feel confident about them. You can have a perfectly suited program, but because life is rarely perfect we must acknowledge that adjustments are likely and if the participant is incapable of making smart alterations then things either need to go perfectly, or things goes off the rails.
Novel Goals Equal Uncertain Programming
So far we’ve examined some of the pitfalls that can occur when a goal is straightforward. But what if it’s not? A person with novel goals or unique characteristics cannot be properly catered for with a generic training program. Take the example of a professional cyclist that wants to run a fast marathon. They may be a relative novice in running, but they have a massive engine and a significant training history. Their plan for a first marathon should look a lot different than someone else with the same goal, but who has different training and performance background.
What about if someone is trying to do something that hasn’t been done before? The process will be less predictable because there’s no prior example, so the person doing the programming will be unable to predict with certainty how things will progress. My current goal is to deadlift 300kg and run a sub 3 hour marathon. Plenty of people have deadlifted 300 and lots have run sub 3. There are many examples of how to prepare for either of these targets. Because nobody has combined these goals, the programs that plan for one, or the other, are almost irrelevant. Unprecedented aspirations can only occur in uncharted waters.
There’s also the reality that if you haven’t achieved a certain goal before then you are uncharted waters even if many other people have reached the standard. Also, if you have hit a certain benchmark previously there’s that notion of “no man stands in the same river twice because it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man”. You change even if the goal doesn’t.
The other element to acknowledge is that when a person is pushing against the absolute upper limits of their capacity there will likely be moments in training where they push past what’s tolerable. Either the aggregation of volume, or the intensity of a particular session, or both, or some other variant, is likely to occur. A coach will then make the adjustments that make sense, and ideally the process continues to move forward. A set program cannot account for this. Because every person is different, as is their lifestyle, we cannot fully predict when an athlete will run into a wall in training. All programs should account for this with various forms of load management, but that’s not easy to do when the load is unprecedented, for that person or for humanity.
How a Program is Executed is as Important as the Program Itself
Another constraint of a program is in the execution. We can take one exercise in one session as an example. Let’s say that a program has high bar barbell squats programmed as part of a full-body session on Monday morning. Let’s say that the prescription is 2-4 warm-up sets, then 3 working sets at ~70% of that person’s 1RM. Two people could both do the work, tick the box, and achieve far different outcomes over 2-3 months purely based on intent.
Person A could focus on perfect technique and maximal bar speed every rep, while Person B does the work without this level of attention. Person A will progress faster, which would therefore require a different program that person B, and we can’t entirely predict who is doing the program when it’s written. There are existing ways to work around this, like conveying if a program is for someone that’s advanced or intermediate, but these tend to be unable to also account for all the previously mentioned variables.
Successful Programs
With all this skepticism, it begs the question - are there any good programs? Based purely on the elite performances we can observe in various realms, we know that there must be lots of successful programs. The reality is though, that most of these programs are bespoke, flexible and accompanied by coaching. Those 3 characteristics are what make all the difference. First, a program needs to make sense practically and then there needs to be plenty of scope for smart adjustments as things change. If there’s not scope within a program to navigate some wiggle room, it will be hard for the program to make sense when wiggle room is what’s required.
The programs that work (are followable and provide successful outcomes) build in the wiggle room proactively. An example of the sort of program that assumes variability is Jim Wendler’s 5/3/1. 5/3/1 allows the loading to match a person’s actual rather than theoretical progress. The program also provides different options for target movements, which accommodates variability of anatomy, preferences and equipment. There are also many varieties of 5/3/1, which speaks to the reality that although the base program has in-built accommodations, there persists the need for further options to account for different nuances in the person, and the goal.
A running or rowing program that has in-built variability would be a program that has a range of cross-training modalities, a target pace range for certain sessions, some optional sessions, and enough supportive information to account for any likely or possible adjustments.
How I Program
The truth is, I don’t really program. I write lots of programs, or components of programs, like certain microcycles or session progressions, but I rarely “program” in the sense that you might imagine, like a 12 week plan of certain sessions. Everytime I do, for myself or others, because things change - travel, equipment, niggles, family, work, the remained of the program generally ceases to make sense.
What I do instead is a whole article in itself, but the general idea is that I come at it from both ends. I contemplate the goal, and think of what micro-targets along the way would have me, or me and the athlete, feel confident that the macro-goal is achievable. From there I think about the what would be necessary in terms of preparation to achieve those micro-targets. It brings the process closer that the end-goal and makes it more digestible.
I then focus on the current status of the athlete, their recent & historical training history, strengths and weaknesses, lifestyle, resources, availability, and start to build a microcycle that makes sense within the context of their lives. Then, we begin to bridge the gap from their current capacity to their necessary target capacity, with consideration for the other athletic and life goals they may have. Each week I then make adjustments based everything discussed thus far - how its progressing, how they’re feeling, any unpredicted life events.
What You Can Do
1. Choose Principles, Not Just Programs
A program can be useful, but understanding the principles behind it matters more. If you know the purpose of certain sessions you’ll be far better equipped to make adjustments when life inevitably disrupts the plan. You’ll know what sessions you can move and which you need to let go of. If you miss a workout, or feel unusually fatigued, you’ll be more able to confident adapt and keep moving things forward.
2. Have a Small Set of Reliable Sessions
Instead of relying on a fixed program, it’s often more useful to have a handful of sessions that you can regularly deploy to develop certain attributes.
For example, an endurance athlete might have certain moderate aerobic base sessions, speed sessions, threshold sessions and longer sessions. A strength athlete might have strength, power, structural, or recovery-focused workouts. Many athletes have a combination of all of these.
3. Organise Your Micro-cycle (your weekly plan)
You don’t need to exactly know what you’re doing 12 weeks from now, but you do need to know what you’re doing today, tomorrow and this week. That means having a template for what training happens, on what days, at what time (early AM, AM, middle, PM, later PM).
The more experience you have, the later the specifics can be determined (auto-regulation), but there’s a benefit to planning the intent of each session.
3. Progress Gradually, Not Perfectly
Improvement does not require a flawless block of training. It requires consistent exposure to slightly greater demand over time. Progress might come from higher volume, higher intensity, or improved technique. If life disrupts the week, simply return to the process rather than trying to catch up. Trying to compensate for missed work is often how training derails.
4. Know When Guidance Is Worth It
Many people can make solid progress with a well-designed program and some common sense. But the closer someone moves toward the limits of their potential, or towards a novel goal, the more valuable external guidance becomes.
Coaching isn’t just about writing workouts. It’s about gauging progress, interpreting feedback, making adjustments, supporting consistency of execution and keeping the process aligned with the goal. The more ambitious or unusual the objective, the more this kind of support tends to matter.
Programs are very useful as reference, but they are rarely the whole solution. Progress tends to come from understanding the needs of the athlete and the goal, having a framework, consistent commitment to the process, and adjusting intelligently when reality inevitably intervenes.
I don’t love writing conclusions as I’ve already said what I needed to say. What I will add is a thank you. Thank you for reading and for supporting my work. I hope it helps inform your perspective and amplifies your ambitions. If you believe my writing may be of value for others - please share it. I want to spread the good word, and more readers helps support my writing.