The “ABC” of program design
In 1980 I set out on my professional journey to find answers to the question ‘What is the best way to train?’ How to design training programs was integral to finding these answers, as the decisions made in program design shape the training outcomes.
One of the components of training design is the decision as to what days to perform certain training on. I refer to this program design step as the allocation of training, specifically exercises and or muscle groups to training days.
This refers to all forms of training, not just strength training. However, in relation to strength training it was apparent there were three dominant approaches – the method that referred to a sequential number of the training day within the week e.g. Training Day 1, Training Day 2 etc.; the method that referred to the day of the week that certain training was to be performed on e.g. Mon, Wed, Friday; and the method that referred to the muscle groups to be trained in the workout on that day e.g. Leg day; chest, shoulders and triceps day; and back and bicep day.
These three approaches to allocation of training were evident over decades, and therefore, I suggest they earned the title as ‘traditional’ approaches. They were also evident in a broad range of strength training disciplines and across cultures, therefore earning the title of ‘dominant’ approaches.
I considered these traditional dominant approaches and soon found significant limitations with them, based perhaps on the fact that the bodies that I was testing and refining my training solutions on were athletes in diverse sports as opposed to general population or athletes limited to one sport, and the fact that I moved away from an exclusive muscle group approach to include my Lines of Movement concept. In summary, I found these traditional approaches for the allocation of training to be limiting, presumptive and restrictive in nature. So, I did what has become a half-century habit – I innovated. This is discussed in full later in this article.
The aim of this article is to review the influences and adoption of these three traditional, dominant approaches to allocation of training, and to outline the alternative I developed to overcome the limitations of these traditional approaches.
The dominant approaches to the allocation of training
From my professional entry point in 1980, I identified three dominant approaches to the allocation of training. They were as follows.
Allocation of training to a sequential number of training days within the week
The allocation of training to a sequential number of training days within the week resulted in the workout being named as a number, e.g. Workout 1, Workout 2, etc.
| Workout 1 | Workout 2 | Workout 3 |
| Exercise 1 | Exercise 1 | Exercise 1 |
| Exercise 2 | Exercise 2 | Exercise 2 |
| Exercise 3 | Exercise 3 | Exercise 3 |
| Exercise 4 | Exercise 4 | Exercise 4 |
| Etc. | Etc. | Etc. |
Allocation of training to the day of the week
The allocation of training to the day of the week resulted in the name of the day being used to identify that workout. For example, a three-day-a-week strength program would be depicted as below, and it was either ‘Monday’s workout’, or ‘Wednesday’s workout’, or ‘Friday’s workout’.
| Monday | Wednesday | Friday |
| Exercise 1 | Exercise 1 | Exercise 1 |
| Exercise 2 | Exercise 2 | Exercise 2 |
| Exercise 3 | Exercise 3 | Exercise 3 |
| Exercise 4 | Exercise 4 | Exercise 4 |
| Etc. | Etc. | Etc. |
Allocation of muscle groups to workouts
The allocation of muscle groups to the workout approach resulted in the name of the muscle groups being used to title that workout. For example, a three-day-a-week strength program would be depicted as below, e.g. the ‘chest/shoulders/triceps’ workout might be done on say Monday, the ‘Legs’ workout may be done on Wednesday, and the ‘Back & Biceps’ workout might be done on Friday. Realistically, the frequency of training may be higher; however, this was kept simple for illustrative purposes.
| Chest/Shoulders/Triceps | Legs | Back & Biceps |
| Exercise 1 | Exercise 1 | Exercise 1 |
| Exercise 2 | Exercise 2 | Exercise 2 |
| Exercise 3 | Exercise 3 | Exercise 3 |
| Exercise 4 | Exercise 4 | Exercise 4 |
| Etc. | Etc. | Etc. |
The traditional influence on these dominant approaches to the allocation of training
From my professional entry point in 1980, I began collating training reference material as part of my search for the answer to the question, ‘What is the best way to train?’ This reference material indicated that there was a strong enough history to describe these three dominant approaches to allocation of training as traditional.
As I began to develop, test, and refine an alternative approach from the early 1980s onwards, the reliance of these dominant approaches to the allocation of training continued for another two decades. Therefore, these three methods dominated program design for a minimum of thirty years (1970-2000).
It was not until after I published my 1998 book ‘How to Write Strength Training Programs’ that the alternative approach that I had developed gained traction, as evidenced in program design-related publications.
The global acceptance of these dominant approaches to allocation of training
The use of these two dominant approaches to the allocation of training has not been restricted to one country. They have appeared in literature in many different countries.
The strength training genre adoption and preferences to these traditional dominant approaches to the allocation of training
A number of different strength training genres contribute to strength training as a whole. These include but are not limited to, weightlifting. powerlifting and bodybuilding. There are also sports such as track and field that have led the way in the use of strength training for sport. There are also professional genres, such as the American concept of ‘strength and conditioning coach’ (originally referred to as ‘strength coaches’),that have made a significant contribution to strength training as it is now known. All of these genres had adopted these traditional dominant approaches to allocation of training.
There does appear to be a historic preference amongst each strength training genre for one or the other of these two traditional dominant approaches to allocation of training.
For example, weightlifting may have a historic preference for the allocation of training to a sequential number of training days within the week approach.
Powerlifting may have a historic preference for the allocation of training to the day of the week approach.
Bodybuilding may have a historic preference for the allocation of muscle groups to the training days approach.
The ‘strength & conditioning’ genre has a historic preference for the allocation of training to the day of the week approach.
And in some cases, referenced the muscle group to training days ala bodybuilding.
The limitations of these traditional dominant approaches to the allocation of training
Each of these dominant traditional approaches to allocation of training presented specific limitations, especially in the application of program design to the bodies on which I was testing and refining my training solutions on. My niche since 1980 has been the physical and athletic preparation of elite athletes in diverse sports and countries, as opposed to a one-sport focus, or domestic-based athletes, or lower-level athletes or the general population.
The limitations of each traditional dominant approach to the allocation of training
In addressing the limitations of each of these three approaches to allocation of training, I will reverse the order to work from most restrictive to least.
The most presumptive and restrictive is what I will refer to as the bodybuilding approach, which groups muscle groups together in a broad-brush method and allocates them to training days, e.g. the ‘back’. Before my Lines of Movement concept being published, and in some situations, I am sure this continues to today, the ‘back’ refers to both horizontal and vertical pulling muscle groups. I found this approach inadequate and replaced it in the 1980s with my Lines of Movement approach to allocation of training days.
The second most restrictive approach, although not to the extent of the above, is what I will refer to as the powerlifting approach, which nominates a day of the week. This suits domestic-based, stable competition; however is more clunky for the internationally competing athletes, who competition is not a regular one day of the week, on a predictable cycle e.g. every weekend for some weeks, e.g. American football is played domestically, and in many leagues up u on the same day each week, or a primary day of the week. This approach is not suitable for many sports.
Thirdly, what I will refer to as the weightlifting approach, simply adds a number to the more workouts in a week planned. This is a more flexible approach.
It is interesting to note the historic influence adopted by more recent influences, such as the US National Strength and Conditioning, which in its relatively short history, appears to have favored what I refer to as the powerlifting approach to allocation of training day, with a lesser inclusion of bodybuilding.
Below is an example from what I believe is the origins of the NSCA – a powerlifting strength coach with a major focus on servicing American football players – in the case of this program shared by the late legendary Bill Starr, the author of the iconic book ‘The Strongest Shall Survive’.
An alternative approach to the allocation of training
In the early 1980s, I was following the powerlifting approach. Here is an example of this from a program I wrote in 1983.
However, during the 1980s, I adopted a new approach of allotting training days by sequential letters of the alphabet. Here is an example from 1990.
You will see this practice of muscle group allocation to the sequential letter of the alphabet in all my published works from about the mid-1980s onwards. Here is an example from my 1998 book, How to Write Strength Training Programs. [12]
Allocation of muscle groups to training days in strength training refers to the decision of which muscle groups to place on which training days. Once the number of training days and which training days have been selected, this is somewhat like filling in the spaces.
The steps involved in allocating muscle groups to training days include:
- Determine all the muscle groups to be trained: Simply brainstorm and list all the muscle groups you wish to train. The following is a sample list, not in any order:
Figure 1 – A sample list of muscle groups, not in any order.
_______________________________________________
vertical pulling (i.e. scapula depressors e.g. chin ups)
biceps
abdominals
vertical pushing (i.e. arm abduction e.g. shoulder press)
hip dominant (e.g. dead lift and its variations)
horizontal pulling (i.e. scapula retractors e.g. rows)
quad dominant (e.g. squats and its variations)
triceps
lower back
calves
horizontal pushing (i.e. horizontal flexion e.g. bench press)
forearm extension/flexion
________________________________________________
- Determine how many days of training per week or microcycle: Now decide how many training days per week or microcycle. For the purposes of the example we are using, I have chosen four (4).
- Determine which days will be training days within that week or microcycle: Now determine which days you will train on – the following table builds on the example we are developing.
Table 1 – Number of training sessions and which days in the week.
| SUN | MON | TUE | WED | THUR | FRI | SAT |
| A | B | C | D |
The popularization of my alternative approach to the allocation of training
The following are examples of the application of this method for the allocation of training. These tables are from my 1998 book How to Write Strength Training Programs. [14]








Despite about a decade and a half of use and publishing about this method, from the mid-1980s to 2000, it was not until my work was published in the US online bodybuilding magazine known at that time as t-mag.com that it gained popularity, and this approach became more common. When you consider that significant training methods such as the West German sport scientist Dietmar Schmidtbleicher’s alternating accumulation and intensification did not get much notice from its earlier publishing in the early 1980s until it was published by a different author on t-mag.com, it should not be a surprise. The fact that it takes a bodybuilding magazine to gain traction is not lost on me, however.
References
[1] Qld Amateur Weightlifting Association, Preliminary Certificate Course
[2] Kazmier, B., 1981, The Bench Press
[3] Fleck, S.J., and Kraemer, W.J., 1987, Designing resistance training programs, Human Kinetics
[4] The United States Weightlifting Federation Coaching Manual, Vol. 3 – Training Program Design
[5] National Coaching Accreditation Scheme, Australian Powerlifting Federation, Interim Level 1 Powerflifting Manual, 1 Jan 1994
[6] Keller, L., 2000, The Men’s Health Hard Body Plan, Rodale Publishing
[7] Baechle, T.R. (Editor), 1990, Essentials of strength training and conditioning, National Strength and Conditioning Association of America
[8] Baechle, T.R. (Editor) et al, 1994, Essentials of strength training and conditioning, National Strength and Conditioning Association of America
[9] Starr, B., 1979, The strongest shall survive
[10] King, I., 1983, Bodybuilding programmes (Booklet), unpublished
[11] King, I., 1990, Program written for an athlete
[12] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Chapter 3 – Allocation of muscle groups
to training days
[13] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Chapter 3 – Allocation of muscle groups
to training days
[1] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Chapter 10 – Frequency of training
[2] King, I., 1998, How to Write Strength Training Programs, Chapter 10 – Frequency of training
© 2025 Ian King & King Sports International. All rights reserved.








I recall it being called the ‘Trail’ – when I was walking it as a child, but I have since been corrected by many (who have never been there!) that it is ‘Track’!
On September 7th 1943, at Jackson’s Field (Drome) a US Liberator bomber laden with fuel clipped a tree on take-off and crashed into a convoy of trucks carrying soldiers of the 2/33rd Australian Infantry Battalion. The result:
