Anthony Ditillo, ‘The Single and Double Progression Method’, The Development of Physical Strength (Wm F. Hinbern, 1982).

There can be a time when because of past injuries to various muscles and joints, trying to increase repetitions with a heavy weight becomes impossible due to the possibility of re-injury. In such a situation, the repetitions could remain constant and the sets could be increased, thereby decreasing chance of muscle or joint strain while progression is still possible. A good example of this would be my training partner, Dezso Ban. Due to past injuries to his knees, he found himself in quite a predicament when it came to squat training. Light weight and high repetitions became impossible due to the possibility of recurring muscle pulls. High poundage and low repetitions became necessary, although too high a weight would also most likely re-injure the knee joint complex. However, by manipulating this single and double progression system he was able to increase the amount of sets and reps with a heavy weight (485) and in time was capable of ten triples with this weight.

How many guys will work up to around 400 on the bench only to become stagnated and stuck. Do you know why? Because for most of us, 400 on the bench is quite a lift and this realization forces us to think of it as a limit. Also, when we use the double progressive system and finally work up to a weight like 400, we hate to reduce this weight back down to 360 or so and begin to schedule a peaking out double progression system even though it was this system which helped us initially.

Take this same man, who’s stuck at 400 in the bench, and forbid him to do any singles for a period of 3 months; reduce the bar down to 350 or so and have him systematically ass sets and repetitions with this weight and at the end of three months test him. He will have gained! When using a double progressive system, I myself have a personal favorite. I begin with a weight I can use for 7 sets of 3 repetitions. What I try to do is, over a certain period of time, increase the number of sets with this weight until 10 sets of 3 are possible. I then made one of two choices; I either keep the sets at 10 and increase the repetitions to 5, or I increase the weight by 20 lbs., and begin once again with 7 sets of 3’s. This type of scheduling of sets in a progressive manner was also coupled with two other types of progression to ensure continued progress over a long period of time. One schedule called for higher repetitions (5) and lower sets (7), and from their I would go from 7 sets of 5, to 7 sets of 7 and then I would increase the weight. This type of schedule is more suited for heavy bulk building or bodybuilding than for strict strength training but it is a basic useful tool, nonetheless.

One drawback that this second system had was the lack of appreciable strength increases as compared to muscle size. The first system increased both size and strength, however, the high number of sets (10) made it costly as far as training time was concerned. However, for the most part, both types of progressive cycling have their place in modern strength methodology.

Finally we come to the triple progression in training. By triple progression I mean increasing the sets, the repetitions and the weight at the same time. Powerlifters have used offshoots of this method for years, not knowing the name for what they were doing. Some call it the “pyramid” system, others call it “peaking out.” Whatever name you choose to call it is obvious it is the most accepted and most arduous system to use for any length of time.

Most lifters will follow something like this: 1×10/1×8/1×6/1×4/1×2/5 sets of 1 (5 singles at 90% max). Or else they will go 5-4-3-2-1 working up in weight to one maximum attempt that day. I’ve also seen many go to 3×3/3×2/3×1 thereby warming up and going to around 90% for 3 singles, drop 20 lbs., and go to 3 doubles, drop 20 lbs., and go to three triples and finish up with 3 sets of 5’s. Each of these three methods you will find effective if approached with caution and common sense. Each one uses triple progression and in each case, when the top weight choice is comfortably possible, all weights are increased in all sets on the next workout , while the sets and repetitions remain constant.

We also have the type of training used by various “supermen” throughout the years. Basic single progression (when carried to the extreme) will increase your exercise poundage, over a given length of time. Begin with a 90% limit weight. Each workout perform more and more single attempts until you are lifting the bar between 15 and 20 times. Such a simple method can yield much in the way of results.

Finally we come to a combination bulk and strength routine using double and triple progression interwoven through it. We would gave one basic strength move using triple progression such as bench presses for 10/8/6/4/2/1/1/1 and 2 or 3 assistance movements using double or single progression, such as dips, flyes, and triceps extensions for a given number of repetitions and the only changing variable being an increase in the number of sets we perform for each. 5x5s going to 8x5s or 7 sets of 3s going to 10 sets of 3s would be two good examples. It would also be possible to keep the static in certain movements and increase the repetitions per set, resulting in aerobic conditioning and muscle size increase as well as endurance.

While discussing our double, single and even triple progression system, we cannot overlook its ability to control our ultimate ability to absorb both training volume and training intensity. By training volume we mean the all-over training volume and training intensity. By training volume we mean the all-over amount of work we perform during our workout program. This sounds simple, yet it is quite complicated. first of all, we can increase the amount of work in three basic ways. We can increase the number of sets with a steady weight. We can increase the number of repetitions with a steady weight and finally, we can do both. Naturally, increasing both the number of sets and repetitions cannot and should not be done immediately, for such a “shock effect” would have a detrimental effect on our bodies and emotions. Since such an action would result in additional psychic strain, we should proceed with caution when attempting to increase training load through a double-progression system. However, as an evaluator of our training load, such a method is indispensable! Since we all should maintain a regular log, we can easily refer to it from time to time and compare past workout volume with our present training load, and it is here our volume conscientiousness comes into relevant importance. If we were to find that during the last few training weeks (4-6) we have neither increased our sets or repetitions with our training weights, then our training has been neither good nor bad, but relative to our momentary point in time and constant as far as ultimate goals are concerned.

It should be pointed out here that an increase in work load can be a goal in itself (particularly in bodybuilding). However, in strength lifting the ability of an increase in training load can mean the body is capable of accepting a heavier (more intense) stimulation and here is where training intensity comes into play.

Training intensity means how hard we work as compared to how much. Using a simple example: 3×10 with 100lbs. is not as intense as 3×15 with 100lbs. or 3×15 with 110lbs. Training intensity can be easily regulated or controlled by using a double progression method and keeping the sets and repetitions constant and the increase in strength brought about by increase in weight (resistance).

This method of strength training is widely accepted be weightlifters and strength seekers throughout the world. However, its one drawback is that sooner or later we reach a point of diminished returns where we can no longer generate their mental or emotional psyche needed to add heavier weight onto our bar and it is at this point where staleness sets in.

By using a double or triple method of progression we insure a longer ability of our bodies to adapt to the continuous stress of physical endeavors. Surely a revamping of our opinions concerning these basic systems is in order for, indeed and usefulness is highly underrated and misunderstood.