Block 2 Review — Power Development (Weeks 5–8)

Date: April 19, 2026

Athlete Feedback: “Motivation was generally good, kinda hard. Mondays grinding through peak squat and deadlift loads off a Sunday long run were rough — PRs weren’t as good on Monday as on the deadlift day. 10K race was an eye-opener for holding pace at high HR — running performance has improved dramatically, long runs easier, HR lower, tempos moving up.

Track workout was a math problem that got fixed. Speed is progressively getting better. Strength has gotten so strong this block — even with the back squat plateau feeling, leg press, upper body, general strength all well balanced. DEXA says 11% BF, which is on target, but I’m still not thrilled with ab definition.

Arms need to get bigger. Shoulders doing great — got a compliment at the race, not getting too flared. Direction is right: continue recomposition, build muscularity, get the muscle-in-motion sinewiness going.”

Section 1: Block Summary

Block 2 delivered exactly what Power Development should deliver: every primary lift moved, explosive power expression improved, body composition hit the program target (11% BF per DEXA), and the aerobic base deepened into a race-ready state. Back squat jumped from 281 → 324 lb e1RM (+15%) despite the athlete’s subjective sense of Monday “plateaus” — the data refutes the feeling. Deadlift reached 458 lb (92% of the 500 lb goal).

Bench reached 259 lb (96% of the 270 lb goal, with a PR logged Apr 8). The Cap Metro 10K produced an 8:52/mi average on a 300-ft-climb course at 156 bpm with 3.4% aerobic decoupling — the single cleanest cardiovascular expression of the program so far.

Block 2’s most important finding: the body composition primary goal is effectively achieved. At 10.7–11.5% BF (DEXA-confirmed), the program has arrived at its target range. The remaining subjective dissatisfaction (ab depth, arm size, chest detail) is not a fat-loss problem any longer — it’s a muscle-density and lean-mass-placement problem.

Block 3 should stop chasing leanness and start protecting and building lean mass, with nutrition shifting from deficit toward training-day maintenance. Sleep remains the only system that is underperforming (avg 5h 41m), unchanged from Block 1. The training is still absorbing, but the ceiling sits uncovered.

Section 2: Progress Against Goals

Notes on Strength Progression

The back squat, bench, and deadlift progression rates are slowing, as expected. Block 1 posted 20–25% jumps because baselines were deliberately conservative; Block 2 posted 3–15% — this is the normalized rate of progression. The back squat’s 15% jump is still outsized for a Power block and reflects genuine expression through the 80–92% intensity range. Bench and deadlift progressions are smaller but meaningful, and both lifts are now in striking distance of their goal targets.

Notes on Squat Clean & Push Press Stalls

Squat clean (from floor) last tested Mar 13 at 195 lb — no fresh data. Pause Squat Clean sits at 201 lb (Apr 10), which is incremental. Clean Pull jumped from 222 → 265 lb (+19%), dramatically outpacing the receiving-position lift. The Block 1 Watch Item for this signal has now fired: pulling strength is materially ahead of receiving-position strength. This does not indicate a plateau in Olympic capacity overall — it indicates the hole position is the limiter. Block 3 keeps pause squat clean as the primary and adds pause/tempo front squats to the Friday stack.

Push press 194 → 195 lb is a flat reading. This is the first stall of the program. Load has been the same for three sessions, bar speed has not broken through. Two plausible drivers: (1) the Wednesday upper-day sequencing puts push press after bench, at cumulative fatigue; (2) leg drive expression under the bar has not been emphasized the way squat has. Block 3 addresses this by rotating push press to Friday’s Olympic slot (where it is fresher) for Weeks 9–11, and keeping strict OHP on Wednesday.

Notes on Leg Press

Leg press e1RM jumped from 324 → 536 lb (+65%). Week 6 workout notes flagged this as a calibration discovery (“Leg press weight is plates only not inc tare weight”) — the machine tare was not being counted previously. The 536 lb number is the corrected reading. Treat the jump as a data-cleanup event, not a training adaptation.

Section 3: Recommended Modifications to Weekly Plan

Strength Modifications

HOLD on primary lift plan. Block 3’s prescribed progression (Week 9: 4–6 @ 85–90%; Week 10: 5–6 @ 88–92%; Week 11: 2–4 @ 90–95%) is the correct next step for back squat, bench, deadlift, RDL, and OHP. Every primary lift is in position to handle the intensity step-up.

Specific load prescriptions for Block 3 Week 9 using current e1RMs (85–90%):

• Back Squat: 324 × 85–90% = 275–292 lb for 4–6 reps
• Bench Press: 259 × 85–90% = 220–233 lb for 4–6 reps
• Conventional Deadlift: 458 × 85–90% = 389–412 lb for 4–6 reps
• RDL: 395 × 85–90% = 336–356 lb for 4–6 reps
• OHP: 183 × 85–90% = 156–165 lb for 4–6 reps
• Front Squat: 243 × 85–90% = 207–219 lb for 4–6 reps
• Barbell Row: 256 × 85–90% = 218–230 lb for 4–6 reps
• Pause Squat Clean: 201 × 75–80% = 150–160 lb (Olympic progression, not a straight % goal)
• Clean Pull: 265 × 85–90% = 225–239 lb
• Weighted Pull-Ups: current tested at +27 lb; work at +15 to +20 lb for 5–6 rep targets during Block 3 primary sets

MODIFY — Push Press sequencing. Move Push Press out of Wednesday’s upper block and into Friday’s Olympic slot for Weeks 9–11. Return to strict OHP on Wednesday as the vertical press primary. Reason: push press has stalled at 194–195 lb across three sessions. Fresher placement and pairing with Olympic-day intent (clean pull, squat clean) will give leg-drive expression the CNS context it needs. Revert to Wednesday placement in Week 13 (Block 4 Peak) if progression resumes.

MODIFY — Add a “hole” variation to Friday. Add Tempo Front Squat (3-second descent, 2-second pause at parallel) as a secondary on odd-week Fridays in Weeks 9 and 11. Reason: the Block 1 Watch Item on receiving-position weakness has now fired (clean pull +19%, squat clean flat). Front squat + pause work is the lever. This is an addition to the existing Friday accessory stack, 3 × 3–5 @ 65–75% of front squat e1RM (~160–180 lb).

Running Modifications

HOLD the Weekly Plan prescriptions for Thursday and Sunday. Block 3’s transition from Aerobic Base to Threshold Development is the right move — the aerobic base has earned it. Long run decoupling has stabilized in the 4.9–6.0% range at 10-mile distances, threshold tempos are being executed cleanly at the prescribed modifier, and the 10K race confirmed durability at race effort.

Updated threshold for Block 3 pace calculations:

• LT Pace: 8:05/mi @ 155 bpm (grade-adjusted, from latest 15-run regression)
• AeT Pace: 8:48/mi @ 142 bpm

Block 3 prescribed paces derived from these:

• Week 9 Thursday Threshold -2%: 8:05 × 1.02 = 8:15/mi for 40 min continuous
• Week 10 Thursday Threshold 0%: 8:05/mi for 45 min continuous
• Week 10 Long Run finish: 20 min @ Threshold 0% = 8:05/mi
• Week 11 Thursday VO2 +10%: 8:05 × 0.90 = 7:17/mi for 8 × 800m
• Week 12 Thursday Threshold -3%: 8:05 × 1.03 = 8:20/mi for 35 min

Note on LT regression: The grade-adjusted LT pace of 8:05/mi is ~8 sec/mi slower than the unadjusted Block 1 estimate of 7:57/mi. This is a methodology normalization, not a regression — the new calculation strips out elevation gain from hilly Austin sessions. The corresponding HR dropped from 158 → 155 bpm, which reflects real aerobic improvement. Use 8:05 as the working basis going forward.

MODIFY — VO2 interval execution protocol (Week 11). The Week 7 track session (Apr 9) delivered threshold work, not VO2. HR averaged 136 and peaked at 152–154 on work intervals — Zone 4, not Zone 5. Same pattern as Week 3. The prescription is correct; the execution is the gap. Two changes:

1. Reduce recovery between intervals from 2:25 min to 2:00 min. Shorter rest keeps HR elevated so the next rep begins inside the VO2 zone rather than climbing from Z3.
2. Extend warm-up with 2 × 200m strides at target pace before the first interval. This primes the cardiovascular system to reach Z5 on interval 1 rather than using intervals 1–3 as warm-up.

Apply to Week 11 (8 × 800m @ +10%) and forward VO2 sessions through Block 5. Log these in the Week 11 workout file.

FLAG — Recovery run HR drift remains unresolved. Tuesday/Saturday recovery runs continue to show 10–15% aerobic decoupling with HR drifting into Zone 3 by miles 3–4. This pattern has not improved across two blocks. It correlates with sleep duration (elevated baseline HR from sleep deficit) and probably with the Monday/Wednesday strength residual. Not a plan-level change, but worth a coaching note in every weekly file: walk hills, hard ceiling at 140 bpm, cut to 35 minutes if the HR trend reverses.

Volume/Conditioning Modifications

MODIFY — Add 1 set of direct arm work per week in Block 3. Arms: overall size was flagged in the Apr 19 (deload week) subjective rating — this is the highest-fidelity window in the block. Late-block flags carry elevated weight per the Reaction Framework. Athlete voice feedback explicitly confirmed: “I’d like for my arms to be bigger.”

Implementation: add 1 set to Wednesday’s direct arm block (bicep or tricep, rotated weekly) and 1 set to Saturday accessory (the other head). This is a total of +2 sets/week across heads, sourced cleanly without offsetting other volume because Block 3’s Performance Integration theme can absorb it.

HOLD on all other physique volume. Abs depth remains the most-flagged area, but per the framework that is now a muscle density / BF-stability problem, not a volume problem. Core volume has been substantial and sustained. Adding more core work will not produce the deep shadows the athlete wants — protein sufficiency, training-day fueling, and time at maintenance BF will. Chest inner separation and Quads above-knee definition fall in the same category: visible as lean mass fills out at maintained BF, not as more isolation volume.

Recovery/Deload Modifications

HOLD on deload protocol. The Week 8 deload executed with the mid-week revision (Monday converted to bike-erg recovery + sauna) was the right call. HRV data during the deload window showed a modest rebound (HRV 78–83 ms on Apr 16–18 vs. mid-block averages of 40–55 ms), readiness stabilized in the 72–79 range, and the long run today (Apr 19) delivered 129 bpm avg at 6.0% decoupling over 10 miles — the body is absorbing.

FLAG — Sleep remains the primary limiter, unchanged from Block 1.

• Average sleep duration: 5h 41m (target: 7–9 hours) — identical to Block 1’s ~5h 40m
• Sleep Balance contributor: 49 (Block 1: 46) — marginal improvement, still below the 75 threshold
• Recovery Index: 48 (Block 1: 43) — improving
• HRV Balance: 88 — strong aggregate signal, but masks high night-to-night variance (26–83 ms range)
• Five nights under 5 hours across the 4-week block (Mar 27, Apr 3, Apr 5, Apr 13, Apr 18)

This is the second consecutive block where sleep has been flagged as the unaddressed ceiling. The adaptation the athlete is getting is occurring despite this — which means there is meaningful headroom if sleep closes toward 6h 30m average. This is still outside the programming, but it is load-bearing enough that it deserves its own line in the Watch Items and a note in every weekly workout file.

Section 4: Goal Target Updates

No targets raised or lowered. The body fat goal status changes from active to maintained; the strength targets hold pending Block 3 and Block 4 test windows.

Section 5: Nutrition Plan Adjustments

Observed averages (25 days, Mar 23 – Apr 16)

• Calories: 2,834/day (Block 2 design: ~2,979/day → under by ~145 cal/day)
• Protein: 195g/day (Block 2 target: 190g → on target, modestly exceeding)
• Carbs: 343g/day (Block 2 target: ~366g → under by ~23g/day, nearly closed from Block 1’s 60g gap)
• Fat: 74g/day (Block 2 target: 74g → on target)

Adherence tightened materially from Block 1. The carb gap closed, protein held, fat is dialed. The sub-plan caloric intake is small (~145 cal/day) and is producing the intended body comp outcome (DEXA 11.5%, latest 10.7%).

Protein constant check (mandatory at every block review)

Current constant: 220g/day (raised from 190g at this review per Macro Targets.md changelog).

LBM math at latest (187.5 lb, 10.7% BF):

• LBM = 187.5 × 0.893 = 167.4 lb
• 220g ÷ 167.4 lb LBM = 1.31 g/lb LBM
• 220g ÷ 76.0 kg FFM = 2.90 g/kg FFM

This lands squarely in the Helms recomp zone (1.2–1.4 g/lb LBM, 2.6–3.1 g/kg FFM) for a lean, advanced, hybrid-training athlete. Block 2 averaged 195g on a 190g target — demonstrated adherence capacity is there. The jump to 220g is implementable.

Decision: Raise the protein constant from 190g → 220g, effective Week 9. Propagate the new number into Block 3’s weekly workout macro callouts. Log in Macro Targets.md changelog (already drafted as pending). Rationale: body comp target is achieved — the next job is protecting and building lean mass while holding BF at 10–11%. 190g was maintenance-grade; 220g is building-grade for this LBM.

Block 3 caloric intent

Shift from Block 2’s slight deficit to training-day maintenance / rest-day slight deficit.

Rationale:

• Body fat target is achieved (DEXA 11.5%, latest 10.7%).
• Block 3 is Performance Integration — volume peaks in Week 10, intensity peaks in Week 11. Energy demand rises.
• Size Look at 4/5 with Lean Look declining to 2.2 places the athlete in the “Big But Soft” quadrant per the Reaction Framework. The framework’s prescribed response is nutrition adjustment, not added training volume. The specific nutrition adjustment for Big But Soft when BF is at target is hold or shift toward recomp, not increase deficit.
• Arm size flag + athlete request for more muscularity = lean mass building environment, not deficit.

Implementation: day-type calorie adjustments

Protein remains the constant at 220g. Carb/fat split flexes per the existing framework — carbs prioritized on training-day maintenance bumps, fat holds on rest days.

Net weekly caloric intent: approximately 650–1000 cal closer to weekly maintenance than Block 2’s design. This should arrest the downward weight trend and allow lean mass to build under the higher protein and training stimulus.

Day-type split quality check

Block 2’s day-type framework worked. Heavy gym day Mondays averaged 2,900–3,050 cal with 200+ g protein; run days averaged 3,000+ cal with appropriate carb loading; rest days pulled back as designed. No structural changes to the framework — only the Block 3 caloric intent numbers per the table above.

Update Macro Targets.md

• Confirm the 2026-04-19 entry in the changelog (raise 190 → 220) is finalized, not pending.
• Add a new entry documenting Block 3 caloric intent shift to training-day maintenance / rest-day slight deficit.

Section 6: Subjective Physique Rating Assessment

Aggregate scores

• Lean Look: avg 2.2, range 2–3, trend declining (3 → 2 after Mar 27)
• Size Look: avg 3.7, range 3–4, trend improving (3 → 4 after Apr 3)

Quadrant classification

Lean Look 2.2 (≤ 2.5) + Size Look 3.7 (≥ 4) places the athlete in the “Big But Soft” quadrant per the Reaction Framework (Section B).

The framework’s prescribed response: modify nutrition, not training volume. Training is building mass; the remaining dissatisfaction is definition-driven and sits at the intersection of fat loss stability and time-at-lean-mass. Adding training volume to solve this problem would compound fatigue without addressing the root cause.

Important context: DEXA confirmed 11.5% BF — the athlete is objectively inside the target range. The “soft” impression is muscle density, pattern-of-fat-distribution (midsection), and lean-mass visibility — not overall adiposity. This is a common phenomenon in athletes who reach their target BF for the first time: the mirror lags the scan by 4–8 weeks as gland and subcutaneous water normalize.

Lagging area flags (full-block vs. final 7–10 days)

Cross-reference with objective data

• Lean Look 2.2 at 10.7% BF (or 11.5% DEXA): This is the mismatch that matters most. The athlete is at or below the 10–11% target, yet the subjective lean look is declining. Per the framework, when objective fat is at target but subjective lean look isn’t responding, the problem is muscle visibility underneath, not fat on top. Response: build lean mass (which requires caloric support), not cut harder.
• Size Look 3.7 with strong e1RM progression: Strength is building visible mass. Correct direction. The Size Look flicked from 3 → 4 around Apr 3 and has held at 4 since — consistent with the e1RM gains.
• Arms flag + overall size flag + athlete voice request: Alignment across three signals. Arm volume increase in Block 3 is justified.
• Abs depth at 6x and terminal: At 10.7% BF, the six-pack at rest is a question of rectus abdominis thickness (muscle) plus water/inflammation state on that given day. Not a volume problem. Not a cardio problem.
• Chest inner separation + lower shelf at 4x and 2x: Both are details that emerge at sub-11% BF combined with sufficient pec mass. Chest bench work is progressing, Size Look on chest is visibly improving per athlete voice (“starting to see the sinew and definition in my chest”). Hold volume, bias pressing toward contracted-position tension (cable crossovers, dips with forward lean) as already done in Block 2.

Recommended response summary

1. Arm volume: +1 set bicep + 1 set tricep per week across Block 3 (addresses “Arms: overall size” late flag + athlete voice request).
2. Nutrition: training-day maintenance / rest-day slight deficit + 220g protein constant (addresses “Big But Soft” quadrant + lean-mass build mandate).
3. Hold all other physique volume. Abs, chest details, and quad definition are not volume-limited; they are BF-stability and lean-mass-density limited.
4. No movement selection overhaul needed. Block 2’s MODERATE variety physique rotations produced Size Look movement from 3 → 4; continue the cadence into Block 3 with new selections at the Week 9 rotation point.

Section 7: Key Watch Items for Next Block

Watch 1: Sleep duration Signal: Average sleep duration remains below 6h through Block 3 Weeks 9–10. Response: Sleep is now the second consecutive block’s primary flag. If performance stalls mid-block despite correct programming and adequate nutrition, the training question becomes a lifestyle question. Do not reduce training load to compensate — the fix remains sleep. Flag in every weekly workout file’s overview and every session’s recovery note.

Watch 2: Bench press approaching goal Signal: Bench e1RM reaches 265+ lb during Block 3 Weeks 9–11. Response: Schedule a formal bench test for Block 3 Week 11 (inside the RPE 9 / 90–95% week) or hold for Block 4 Week 14. If 270 is hit, raise target to 285 lb in Program Goals.

Watch 3: Push press progression Signal: Push press e1RM remains at or below 195 lb through Week 11 despite the sequencing change (Friday Olympic slot + Wednesday strict OHP separation). Response: The stall is structural, not fatigue-related. Consider shifting to behind-the-neck push press or split jerk in Block 4 as the power-overhead primary. Strict OHP becomes the sole vertical press primary.

Watch 4: VO2 execution Signal: Block 3 Week 11 track session (8 × 800m @ +10%) HR profile averages below 155 bpm on work intervals. Response: If the shorter recovery + strides warm-up doesn’t close the VO2 gap, the track session is not the right modality for this athlete at this threshold level. Consider moving VO2 work to a treadmill (precise pace control) or hill repeats (inherent HR elevation) in Block 4.

Watch 5: Body composition stability under training-day maintenance Signal: Weight drifts upward past 192 lb through Block 3 without a corresponding DEXA or estimated-BF drop below 10%, OR subjective Lean Look stays at 2 through the block. Response: Caloric intent is too generous — pull heavy gym / run day calories back 100–150 cal. Conversely, if weight drops below 185 lb, the intent isn’t producing the lean-mass build it’s designed for — add another 100–150 cal to training days. Use the mid-block DEXA (if scheduled) as the objective anchor; use the Apr 19-equivalent weekly subjective rating as the secondary.

Watch 6: Recovery run HR drift Signal: Aerobic decoupling on Tuesday/Saturday recovery runs remains above 12% through Block 3 Weeks 9–11. Response: This has persisted across two blocks. If paired with a rising RHR trend, reduce recovery run duration by 5 minutes (40 → 35 min) and tighten the HR ceiling to 138 bpm. Pattern correlates with sleep deficit; the structural fix is upstream.

Plan Diff

WEEKLY PLAN MODIFICATION — Block 2 to Block 3 Transition
File: 20 Week Plan Dynamic Restated w Running (v3).md

NO PLAN MODIFICATIONS — hold current Weekly Plan through Block 3 (Weeks 9–12).

Justification: Every domain progressed in Block 2. Strength e1RMs moved
through the Power Development intensity range as designed. Running
threshold work is earned; Block 3's shift from Aerobic Base to Threshold
Development is the correct progression. Body fat goal is achieved and
the plan's structure supports transition from recomp deficit to training-
day maintenance through the weekly workout files and Macro Targets.md.

The required modifications live one level down from the Weekly Plan:
- Weekly Schedule / weekly workout files: push press sequencing change
  (Wednesday → Friday for Weeks 9–11), tempo front squat addition on
  odd-week Fridays, +1 bicep set + 1 tricep set per week in Block 3
- Macro Targets.md: protein constant finalized at 220g, Block 3 caloric
  intent set to training-day maintenance / rest-day slight deficit
- Week 11 workout file: VO2 interval execution protocol — 2:00 recovery
  (from 2:25) + 2 × 200m strides in warm-up

Load prescriptions for Block 3 Week 9 (4–6 reps @ 85–90% 1RM) should use
the following validated e1RMs:
- Back Squat: 324 lb
- Bench Press: 259 lb
- Conventional Deadlift: 458 lb
- OHP: 183 lb
- RDL: 395 lb
- Front Squat: 243 lb
- Barbell Row: 256 lb
- Weighted Pull-Ups: +27 lb (intentionally moderated; work +15 to +20)
- Squat Clean (floor): 195 lb — retest in Week 9
- Pause Squat Clean: 201 lb
- Clean Pull: 265 lb
- Push Press: 195 lb (flat — sequencing change in Block 3)
- Leg Press: 536 lb (corrected basis, tare included)

Threshold paces for Block 3 pace calculations:
- LT Pace: 8:05/mi @ 155 bpm (grade-adjusted)
- AeT Pace: 8:48/mi @ 142 bpm

Block 2 did what Power Development is supposed to do: made the athlete fast under load, confirmed the body can hold up at target body fat, and closed most of the gap to the primary strength goals. The physique target is reached in the numbers; the mirror will catch up as lean mass builds under training-day maintenance. Block 3 stops chasing leanness and starts protecting the gains that got us here. Sleep is still the unlock.