July 1, 2026
by KILO Crew

Step Loading Without Microplates

July 1, 2026
by KILO Crew

Step loading is one of the most effective methods for progressing primary exercises because it allows for controlled exposure to higher intensities while maintaining a lower average training demand across the session. Rather than performing all working sets at the same load, step loading distributes intensity progressively across sets within a prescribed intensity spread.

This provides exposure to a peak load while simultaneously maintaining a lower average load, which improves technical execution, intermuscular coordination, and recoverability. Over time, this creates a more sustainable pathway toward long-term strength development.

The practical issue is that not every trainee has access to microplates. When the smallest available increase is 5lbs, it becomes difficult to create smooth progressions in loading, particularly when absolute loads are relatively small or when a wider intensity spread is being used. This becomes increasingly problematic when attempting to maintain a weekly progression of approximately 2-3%, which is often ideal when progressing toward repetition maximums.

To understand the issue, consider a trainee with a 6RM of 100lbs performing 5 sets of 6 repetitions using a 10% intensity spread.

Standard Step Loading With Microplates

With access to microplates, the progression is straightforward.

Week 1

Set 1: 90lbs × 6
Set 2: 92.5lbs × 6
Set 3: 95lbs × 6
Set 4: 97.5lbs × 6
Set 5: 100lbs × 6

This produces the following session metrics:

Peak Load: 100lbs
Average Load: 95lbs
Peak Estimated 1RM: 120lbs
Average Estimated 1RM: 114lbs
Tonnage: 2,850lbs

In Week 2, the progression is created by beginning with the load used for Set 2 during Week 1. This allows for approximately a 2.5% increase across all primary loading metrics.

Week 2

Set 1: 92.5lbs × 6
Set 2: 95lbs × 6
Set 3: 97.5lbs × 6
Set 4: 100lbs × 6
Set 5: 102.5lbs × 6

Session metrics now become:

Peak Load: 102.5lbs (+2.5%)
Average Load: 97.5lbs (+2.6%)
Peak Estimated 1RM: 123lbs (+2.5%)
Average Estimated 1RM: 117lbs (+2.6%)
Tonnage: 2,925lbs (+2.6%)

The same process is repeated in Week 3.

Week 3

Set 1: 95lbs × 6
Set 2: 97.5lbs × 6
Set 3: 100lbs × 6
Set 4: 102.5lbs × 6
Set 5: 105lbs × 6

Resulting in:

Peak Load: 105lbs (+2.4%)
Average Load: 100lbs (+2.6%)
Peak Estimated 1RM: 126lbs (+2.4%)
Average Estimated 1RM: 120lbs (+2.6%)
Tonnage: 3,000lbs (+2.6%)

Across the mesocycle, the progression becomes highly controlled:

Peak Load: +5%
Average Load: +5.3%
Peak Estimated 1RM: +5%
Average Estimated 1RM: +5.3%
Tonnage: +5.3%

This is the ideal application of step loading because all primary loading variables progress at relatively similar rates while maintaining manageable increases in weekly demand.

The Problem Without Microplates

Without microplates, this smooth progression is no longer possible. If the smallest available increase is 5lbs, load progression becomes significantly more aggressive. In the previous example, progressing the top set from 100lbs to 105lbs requires a 5% increase in peak load rather than the more manageable 2-3% weekly progression typically desired when step loading toward repetition maximums.

Attempting to increase all sets by 5lbs each week would rapidly become unsustainable, particularly when working near repetition maximums.

Instead of manipulating load every set, progression must come from manipulating how often each load is used within the session.

Week 1

Set 1: 90lbs × 6
Set 2: 90lbs × 6
Set 3: 95lbs × 6
Set 4: 95lbs × 6
Set 5: 100lbs × 6

This produces:

Peak Load: 100lbs
Average Load: 94lbs
Peak Estimated 1RM: 120lbs
Average Estimated 1RM: 113lbs
Tonnage: 2,820lbs

Rather than increasing load every set, loads are repeated within the session while remaining inside the prescribed 10% intensity spread. The objective is to remain conservative with load distribution early in the mesocycle while still exposing the trainee to a peak load.

In Week 2, progression occurs by redistributing exposure to higher loads throughout the session.

Week 2

Set 1: 90lbs × 6
Set 2: 95lbs × 6
Set 3: 95lbs × 6
Set 4: 100lbs × 6
Set 5: 100lbs × 6

This results in:

Peak Load: 100lbs (+0%)
Average Load: 96lbs (+2.1%)
Peak Estimated 1RM: 120lbs (+0%)
Average Estimated 1RM: 116lbs (+2.7%)
Tonnage: 2,880lbs (+2.1%)

Importantly, peak load has not changed. However, average load, average estimated 1RM, and total tonnage have all increased approximately 2-3%. The progression of the session therefore remains intact despite the absence of an increase in peak intensity.

The work completed during Week 2 then builds the capacity required for Week 3, where the peak load can now increase.

Week 3

Set 1: 95lbs × 6
Set 2: 95lbs × 6
Set 3: 100lbs × 6
Set 4: 100lbs × 6
Set 5: 105lbs × 6

This produces:

Peak Load: 105lbs (+5%)
Average Load: 99lbs (+3.1%)
Peak Estimated 1RM: 126lbs (+5%)
Average Estimated 1RM: 119lbs (+2.6%)
Tonnage: 2,970lbs (+3.1%)

Across the mesocycle:

Peak Load: +5%
Average Load: +5.3%
Peak Estimated 1RM: +5%
Average Estimated 1RM: +5.3%
Tonnage: +5.3%

What is important here is that although peak load increases occur less frequently and in larger increments, the average demand of the session still progresses at a more sustainable weekly rate. Manipulation of load distribution allows average load, average estimated 1RM, and tonnage to continue progressing approximately 2-3% week to week despite limitations in available loading increments.

The stimulus is still progressing. The progression is simply occurring through average demand rather than through peak load every session.

Practical Application

This approach becomes increasingly relevant when absolute loads are lower. On exercises such as the overhead press, where total loading is generally smaller, a 5lb increase represents a much larger percentage increase in intensity. In these situations, forcing weekly increases in peak load becomes impractical and often unsustainable.

Manipulating load distribution becomes an effective strategy for maintaining progression without excessively increasing fatigue.

This concept can also be extended to even lower absolute loads.

Consider a trainee with a 6RM of 50lbs performing 5 sets of 6 repetitions while still limited to 5lb loading increases.

Week 1

Set 1: 45lbs × 6
Set 2: 45lbs × 6
Set 3: 45lbs × 6
Set 4: 45lbs × 6
Set 5: 50lbs × 6

Session metrics:

Peak Load: 50lbs
Average Load: 46lbs
Peak Estimated 1RM: 60lbs
Average Estimated 1RM: 55lbs
Tonnage: 1,380lbs

Week 2

Set 1: 45lbs × 6
Set 2: 45lbs × 6
Set 3: 45lbs × 6
Set 4: 50lbs × 6
Set 5: 50lbs × 6

Session metrics:

Peak Load: 50lbs (+0%)
Average Load: 47lbs (+4.4%)
Peak Estimated 1RM: 60lbs (+0%)
Average Estimated 1RM: 57lbs (+3.6%)
Tonnage: 1,410lbs (+2.2%)

Week 3

Set 1: 45lbs × 6
Set 2: 45lbs × 6
Set 3: 50lbs × 6
Set 4: 50lbs × 6
Set 5: 50lbs × 6

Session metrics:

Peak Load: 50lbs (+0%)
Average Load: 48lbs (+2.1%)
Peak Estimated 1RM: 60lbs (+0%)
Average Estimated 1RM: 58lbs (+1.8%)
Tonnage: 1,440lbs (+2.1%)

Across the mesocycle:

Peak Load: +0%
Average Load: +4.3%
Peak Estimated 1RM: +0%
Average Estimated 1RM: +5.6%
Tonnage: +4.4%

This example demonstrates that progression can still occur despite the absence of increases in peak load. Through increased exposure to higher loads within the session, average session demand continues to rise across the mesocycle.

Primary Takeaway

The primary takeaway is that progression does not always need to come from increasing the top set. When smaller loading increments are unavailable, progression can instead be created through manipulation of load distribution within the session.

By increasing exposure to higher loads over time, average load, average estimated 1RM, and total tonnage can continue to progress in a controlled and sustainable manner without forcing excessively aggressive increases in peak intensity.

The stimulus is still progressing. The mechanism of progression has simply shifted from peak load to average demand across the training session.