Chad Wesley Smith’s Strength Block: Source and Example

A training summary and a complete program answer different questions. Use this guide to separate what is stated, what an example adds, and what still needs an answer.

Source scope: The full video has not been independently reviewed.

The written source

Juggernaut’s 2015 summary recommends 4 to 6 reps at 70 to 85 percent, rotating relatively light, medium and heavy efforts, and more variation farther from meets.

An editorial four-week example

Editorial example, not Smith’s program or load recommendations.

An example’s missing inputs are part of the example. Do not fill them with a guessed maximum, a borrowed backoff rule or an assumption that the fourth week must suit every lifter.

What does the percentage refer to?

Consider two fictional records: a 150 kg competition squat and a 125 kg paused-squat reference. Multiplying each by 0.80 gives 120 kg and 100 kg, respectively.

Both calculations are correct, but they answer different arithmetic questions. The example does not establish that either reference is current, comparable or appropriate for a session.

Before interpreting a percentage in a written plan, identify the exercise, the reference value, its date and whether it was measured or estimated. If one field is missing, record it as unknown rather than silently substituting another lift’s number.

This is a static arithmetic example, not a maximum-testing instruction or a load recommendation.

Record the choices in the plan

Use four short fields when reading a program. The aim is to make its assumptions visible before interpreting the result.

• Source: Copy the exact location of the instruction you are relying on.
• Editorial choice: Name what the example or planner added.
• Missing input: List information the source does not supply.
• Limit: Write the conclusion the information does not establish.

For the fictional calculation above, the reference exercise and value are explicit, but the reference date is unknown. Its result demonstrates multiplication, not that a particular workout will be recoverable or effective.

Keep planned and completed work in separate columns of your training log. If the exercise, assistance or reference changes, note that change before treating two numbers as a like-for-like comparison.

What the research comparison measures

Moesgaard and colleagues’ 2022 review included 35 studies and compared training conditions with total volume equated. The pooled one-repetition-maximum result favored periodized over non-periodized training, while the muscle-hypertrophy comparison did not show a clear difference.

For linear versus undulating training, the strength subgroup finding favored undulating training in trained participants, not previously untrained participants. Other periodization-model comparisons were not pooled because too few studies were available.

Those results do not validate this four-week example, select someone’s working weight or establish a universal best block sequence. Strength-test performance and muscle-size outcomes should not be treated as interchangeable.

Evidence scope: These statements use the review’s abstract, not a new full-manuscript assessment.

Keep the next decision specific

Instead of asking whether a block is good in the abstract, take one unresolved question to the person responsible for your program. For example: which lift supplies the reference, how are changes recorded, or what happens when the planned session cannot be completed?

A percentage chart cannot resolve pain, technique concerns or a medical restriction. Do not use successful arithmetic as permission to train through a problem.

For a wider learning calendar, see our beginner powerlifting planner. For a schedule comparison, see linear versus undulating periodization.

Watch the original video

References

Team Juggernaut. (2015). Creating A Strength Block.

Moesgaard, L., et al. (2022). Effects of periodization on strength and muscle hypertrophy in volume-equated resistance training programs: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 52, 1647 to 1666. Abstract.