In two articles for CoachLogik, I explored how to structure the training day and training week (or microcycle). In this article, I will zoom out and think about structuring training over a training block, commonly known as a mesocycle.

I’m not here to claim that any one structure is the best – I want to give examples as food for thought. There’s no single way to plan a mesocycle, as many different approaches can and do work in practice.

However, understanding the concepts underpinning a mesocycle can lead to better decision-making when planning training for yourself or your athletes.

Progressive Overload

When considering long-term training, we often encounter the principle of progressive overload. The idea is straightforward: for the body to continue adapting to training, the stress placed on it must gradually increase. You may have heard this concept illustrated through the story of Milo of Croton.

Legend has it that Milo carried a newborn calf on his shoulders every day. As the calf grew, so did Milo’s strength. Eventually, he was carrying a fully grown bull. His body adapted day by day, week by week, becoming stronger as the calf grew heavier.

Whether or not Milo could carry a bull is up for debate, but the concept of progressive overload makes sense. As the body becomes more capable, it needs to be challenged more to continue adapting. It relates to the idea discussed with the general adaptation syndrome model when planning the training week.

However, many people understand progressive overload as deliberately adding weight to the bar or increasing training volume each week. But that’s putting the cart before the horse.

It isn’t adding weight each week that creates an adaptation — it’s adapting that allows you to add more load to the bar.

Driving the point home again: adding more weight to the bar each week isn’t what causes adaptation. It’s your adaptations that allow you to lift more weight.

Early in the training process, you might see consistent weekly increases — adding a few kilos to the bar or squeezing out an extra rep. But that phase doesn’t last forever. As you become more trained, meaningful progress takes longer.

Instead of chasing overload by force, consider a different perspective.

Overload happens because you’ve adapted — you’re stronger, faster, or more capable than before. If you’re training with intent and applying the right stimulus, progression will happen. 

When planning mesocycles, it’s not just about adding more weight or hard sets each week. It’s about ensuring you continue to apply an appropriate challenge to the body — enough to stimulate adaptation without just number chasing.

Consistency is Key

Before we dive into specific examples, I want to touch on something critical to this discussion: consistency.

In this case, I’m not talking about training consistently. That should be a given — if you want results, it’s a given to train regularly. Here, I’m talking about keeping aspects of the training itself consistent.

You need to train in a way that ensures you are consistently exposed to similar movements. Doing something once and then changing it completely the next week probably isn’t the best way to approach your training.

However you structure your training week, throughout a mesocycle, you’ll want to expose yourself — or your athlete — to similar (often the same) movements. If you change the exercise every week, the body doesn’t adapt as well because it only experiences that specific stress once.

In each example regarding mesocycle structure, movements will be consistent throughout. These examples only apply to your main strength exercise of the day.

With that background out of the way, let’s look at a few ways you can structure a mesocycle to drive strength gains.

Examples of Mesocycle Structure

To show some of the ways you could structure a mesocycle, we’re going to speak at a high level about a few options. Again, none of these are perfect — each comes with its potential advantages and drawbacks, and it is far from an exhaustive set of progression models.

At the end of the day, all of them aim to achieve progression for the athlete across a training block. The goal is to help the athlete progress toward the specific goal of the block, whether that's building maximal strength, growing muscle, or improving technical proficiency.

For simplicity, I’ll use four-week blocks in the examples, focusing only on the prescription for the main strength exercise of the day. However, the underlying concepts we’re discussing can be easily applied to shorter or longer blocks.

Example One: Weekly Increases in Load (Constant Volume)

This approach increases the load lifted each week while maintaining the number of sets and repetitions. It could look like:

Week One: 3x5 at 80% (of 1RM)

Week Two: 3x5 at 82%

Week Three: 3x5 at 84%

Week Four: 3x5 at 86%

At first glance, it might seem like this method is trying to force progressive overload. In reality, the first week will usually be submaximal, and the aim is for the final week or two to be genuinely challenging.

You anticipate an increase in strength by the final week, but you’re not asking the athlete to push to a max effort each week. 

This method is simple to apply, works well for intermediate lifters, and is easy to replicate across groups of athletes. It is likely to work best for a strength-focused block.

Its limitation is that there’s no built-in flexibility — if the lifter is having a bad day, the prescribed load could be more challenging than intended. However, this could be partly overcome by prescribing load based on RPE rather than strict percentages — for example, progressing from an RPE 6 in Week One to an RPE 9 in Week Four.

Example Two: Weekly Increases in Volume (Constant Load)

This approach increases the volume performed each week while keeping the weight the same. It could look like:

Week One: 3x5 at 80%

Week Two: 4x5 at 80%

Week Three: 5x5 at 80%

Week Four: 6x5 at 80%

As with the previous method, the goal is to start the block with a submaximal session and build toward something more challenging in the final week or two.

You’re predicting that the athlete will have developed the capacity to handle more volume by Week Four, so the earlier weeks shouldn’t be maximal.

This method is simple to apply and works well during phases where the goal is to improve an athlete’s work capacity. It also suits hypertrophy-focused blocks, where accumulating volume is a key driver of progress.

As with the previous example, there’s no built-in flexibility, so on days when fatigue is high, the prescribed session may feel harder than intended. One way to manage this is by setting an RPE ceiling — for example, if any set exceeds a set RPE (e.g., 9), the load could be reduced by 5 kg for the remaining set(s).

Example Three: Increases in Load with Decreases in Volume

This approach increases the load lifted each week while decreasing the total volume performed. It could look like:

Week One: 5x5 at 80%

Week Two: 4x4 at 84%

Week Three: 3x3 at 88%

Week Four: 2x2 at 92%

This model often starts with relatively challenging sessions due to the total training load (volume × intensity), but across the block, the overall workload decreases as the focus shifts toward intensity.

This method is simple to apply and works well during phases intended to improve an athlete’s maximal strength. It suits periods where an athlete is building toward a heavy effort or a test of strength at the end of the training block (you could naturally see Week Five becoming a maximal single attempt).

As with the previous examples, there’s no built-in flexibility, so on days where fatigue is high, the prescribed session might feel harder than intended. However, a similar adjustment of applying an RPE ceiling could be used to manage fatigue if needed.

Example Four: Constant Training Throughout

This approach maintains the same workload across the training block in terms of load and volume. It could look like:

Week One to Four: 3x5 at 83%

In this case, nothing changes week to week. The athlete may find the first week relatively challenging, but week to week, the sessions should feel easier.

This is the simplest of the methods, as there are no planned changes to manage. As the athlete moves through the block and the sessions become easier, improvements in speed of movement and technical proficiency can emerge. For this reason, it can be a helpful option when balancing strength gains and technical improvements.

As with the other options, there’s no built-in flexibility for tough days. However, an RPE ceiling could again be an option to manage fatigue if needed.

Example Five: Emerging Strategies Approach

While I haven’t discussed any specific "named" models so far, I wanted to touch briefly on the Emerging Strategies approach developed by Reactive Training Systems, as it can also be used as a mesocycle structure.

This method is similar to the previous example, except that load adjustments can be made weekly based on the athlete’s readiness. It could look like:

Weeks One to Four: 3x5 @ 8 RPE

While the prescription remains the same week to week, the actual load on the bar can change — going up or down depending on the athlete’s RPE ratings each week. On good weeks, heavier loads might be used. On difficult weeks, loads might drop slightly to match the athlete’s preparedness.

It’s a simple approach: the stimulus applied remains consistent, but the load adjusts dynamically based on performance. Depending on the specific prescription, this method could be tailored to drive various adaptations.

Concluding Remarks

As you’ve seen, there are many ways to structure progression during a training mesocycle. The structure you choose should be driven by the specific goals of the block, the athlete’s experience level, and their recent training history.

There is no single "correct" approach. What’s important is viewing a mesocycle through the lens of progressive overload — ensuring that, over time, the athlete is exposed to an appropriate stimulus that drives adaptation.

The intention of this article wasn’t to cover every aspect of progressive overload. There’s been no mention of the role of recovery or deload phases or how these periods may fit into a bigger-picture model of periodization, but that’s beyond the scope of this discussion.

Hopefully, this article has got you thinking about how you create your mesocycles, giving you some food for thought about potential changes you might make or methods to try.

But most importantly, I hope it encourages you to design your training thoughtfully and intentionally.