At this point, the article analyzes the effect of losing speed in the series of repetitions within strength training.

In this series of articles we deal with some of the most important concepts of strength training, collecting notes from the recently published book Strength, Speed ​​and Physical and Sports Performance written by renowned researchers Juan José González Badillo and Juan Ribas Serna.

SUMMARY

• The loss of speed in the series can serve as a predictor of the degree of metabolic stress caused by training, and therefore it is a good indicator to estimate fatigue.
• Doing half or less of the repetitions achievable in the series produces notable improvements in muscular strength and sports performance.
• People who train for improved health should not do even half of the possible repetitions in the series.
• Most experienced athletes with medium-high strength needs will probably be able to perform at most half or 1-2 repetitions more than half of the possible ones.
• A subject should not lose more than 20-35% (depending on each exercise) of the speed of the first repetition in the series.

This is the second question related to the definition of the stress character (CE) as a solution to the problems raised by RM and XRM. Speed ​​control not only makes it possible to know very precisely the true effort that a given load (mass) represents when doing the first repetition of a series, but also allows complete knowledge of the degree of effort made by knowing in what proportion or percentage speed is lost as repetitions are made within the series.

And this is important because the loss of speed is a highly valid indicator to estimate fatigue (Edman, 1992; Allen, Lamb, 8 Westerblad, 2008). This validity is based on the high relationship that exists between the loss of speed in the series and the loss of speed at a certain absolute load measured before and immediately after making the effort.

speed loss is a highly valid indicator to estimate fatigue

In turn, the loss of speed in the series can serve as a predictor of the degree of metabolic stress caused by training. Indeed, Sánchez-Medina and Gonzalez-Badillo (2011) carried out a study with 15 types of effort in the bench press and squat, with loads that could be done between 12 and 4 repetitions per series. These intensities correspond to mean relative intensities between 70 and 90% of the RM, although each subject did not really make the effort exactly with said intensities, but with the absolute loads with which they could do the marked repetitions.

The absolute loads used were those with which 12, 10, 8, 6 and 4 maximum repetitions could be done, which, on average, corresponds to relative intensities of 70, 75, 80, 85 and 90% of the RM. , respectively. The greatest effort with each load consisted of doing three series with the maximum number of repetitions possible (or one less than possible in the first series) and the least effort in doing three series with half the possible repetitions.

In addition, one or two more efforts were made with an intermediate number of repetitions. For example, with the load that 12 repetitions could be done, four efforts were made, performing three series of 12, 10, 8 and 6 repetitions in the series, which were represented as follows: 3×12(12), 3×10(12) , 3×8(12) and 3×6(12).

In total, 15 efforts were made with each of the exercises: bench press and squat. The valuation of The degree of fatigue generated with each effort was determined through the loss of speed with the load that could be moved at 1 m*s-1 before making the effort., as well as the loss of jump (really loss of execution speed) pre-post effort when the squat exercise was performed.

Before starting the squat training, the vertical jump test (CMJ) was performed after a specific warm-up. In both exercises, the warm-up began with progressive loads and when passing through the load that could be moved at approximately 1m*s-1, three repetitions were performed with it and the value of the load and the concrete average speed of the three repetitions were noted immediately after making the effort, the measurement was made again. jump (after the squat) and the load of 1 m*s-1 in both exercises.

Since the minimum load with which the efforts were made was approximately 70% of the RM, an approximate load of 60% was always used in the squat during the warm-up (load that moves approximately 1 m*s-1). and 45% in bench press (load that moves approximately 1 m*s-1).

In addition, after each effort, lactate and ammonium levels were measured. In figure 1 you can see the scheme of the execution of the efforts and the initial and final tests, in this case in the bench press exercise and with the load that could be done 12 repetitions: 3 series of 12 repetitions being able to make 12: 3×12(12).

In this case, the average speed before the effort with the load of 1 m*s-1 was 1.03 m*s-1. The subject continues his warm-up until he reaches the load with which he has to carry out the effort of the day: 3×12(12) and performs the 3 series at the maximum possible speed, with 5 minutes of recovery between series.

The speed with each repetition in the three series is represented by the three groups of central bars with a tendency to decrease. Immediately after (10-15 s) the last repetition of the last series, the load with which the speed of 1 m*s-1 was initially reached was measured again. In this case, the final average speed of the three repetitions was 0.71 m*s-1. The loss of speed, in this case 31.1%, reflects the quantification of fatigue.

The loss of speed, in this case 31.1%, reflects the quantification of fatigue.

Figure 1. Outline of the protocol followed in an effort of 12 repetitions, being able to do 12: 3×12(12), in the bench press exercise. Red bars, speed with the load of 1 m*s-1 before and after making the effort. Rest of the bars: speed with each repetition in the three series performed with the expected load (Sánchez-Medina and González-Badillo. Med. Sci. Sports 2011)

As a result of this study, high relationships were found between the loss of speed in the series and the loss of speed with the load that moved 1 m*s-1 before the effort, both in the bench press (r = 0, 97) as in the squat (r = 0.91), and with the loss of height (loss of speed) in the jump after the squat (r = 0.92). These results confirm that the greater the speed loss in the series, the greater the fatigue.

Later on, it will be analyzed more precisely how the degree of fatigue (loss of speed with the load of 1 m*s-1 and loss of jump) is dependent on the speed of the first repetition (real percentage of the RM) and of the series loss. Likewise, high curvilinear relationships were found between the speed loss in the series, the jump loss and ammonium [R2 = 0.89 in the bench press; R2 = 0.85 in the squat and R2 = 0.86 in the CMJ (figure 2).

Figure 2. Relationship between velocity loss and ammonium concentration with bench press (top figure) and squat (middle figure) exercises, and relationship between vertical jump losses after squat exercise and ammonium concentration (bottom figure). ). Note that from an approximate loss of speed in the series of 40% in the bench press, 30% in the squat, and 12% in the vertical jump, the ammonium concentration shoots up. (Sánchez-Media y González-Badillo, 2011)

An important and unique observation to date is that for an increase in ammonia to occur it was necessary to perform 1-2 repetitions more than half the number possible at any load and in both exercises. This can be seen in figure 3. The horizontal dotted line represents the baseline ammonium value. Only when more than half of the possible repetitions in the set are performed does the ammonium spike with an exponential trend.

For an increase in ammonium to occur, it was necessary to perform 1-2 repetitions, more than half of those possible, at any load.

This occurs in both the bench press and the squat, with very similar behaviors. Figure 2 also shows this trend.

Figure 3. Evolution of ammonium concentration in relation to the number of repetitions performed in the series with the bench press (left) and right full squat exercises. It is observed that for the ammonium to exceed the resting values, marked by the dotted line, it is necessary to do 1-2 repetitions, more than half of those possible in the series (Sánchez Medina and González Badillo, 2011). Figure taken from Sánchez-Medina’s Doctoral Thesis.

This behavior of ammonium could be at the base of the explanation of the proposals or hypotheses (based on experience and systematic observation, not on experimental data, when speaking of training to failure).) made in the 80s, with studies of the effect of non-maximal volumes (65 and 85% of the maximum achievable), or of training with half or less of the possible repetitions in the series of the National Field Hockey team of the 90s, or the first experimental studies that were designed in which one group did half the repetitions possible in the series and the other all the possible ones.

the appearance of ammonium above the basal values when lifting weights may mean that the effort is at the limit that should be reached.

And this is so because the appearance of ammonium above the basal values when lifting weights (in other types of exercises it may be different, and it certainly is) may mean that the effort is at the limit that should be reached.

The measurement of the loss of speed in each repetition and the degree of fatigue generated -measured through the loss of speed with the load of 1 m*s-1 and loss of jump- allow us to add much more precise information about this behavior. of ammonium than the simple count of the repetitions performed.

These speed losses in the series from which the ammonium is fired correspond to certain speed losses with the 1 m*s-1 load and height loss in the jump. The data with the following:

• With a loss of 40% speed in the bench press, ammonium is triggered (figure 2) and would correspond to a loss of speed of 17% with a load of 1 m*s-1.
• With a 30% loss of speed in the squat, ammonium is triggered and would correspond to a loss of speed of 12.5% with the load of 1 m*s-1.

With a 12% loss in jump height, ammonium shoots up and would correspond to a loss of speed in the series of 32% (Sánchez-Medina and González-Badillo, 2011).

It can be observed how the same fatigue generated when performing the squat, with 30 and 32% loss of speed in the series, is estimated in an equivalent way by the loss of speed with the load of 1 m*s-1 (12.5 %) and height in the jump (12%), respectively. This indicates that the loss of speed is an accurate indicator of fatigue, since its quantification before the same effort (loss of 30-32% of speed in the squat) can be done at different speeds, giving practically identical results.

In this case, the initial speed of 1 m*s-1 in the squat and the speed of the vertical saint have been used, which, on average, is performed at a clearly higher average speed, which could be approximately more than 1.5 m-s. * on average, which would be equivalent to a little more than 45 cm of initial jump.

If now the two variables used are analyzed: the loss of speed in the series and the number of repetitions performed, it can be confirmed that in the bench press exercise the loss of speed when half of the possible repetitions has been done is between 25 and 30% (González-Badillo et al., 2017) of the speed of the first repetition, that is, slightly below the loss caused by the ammonium shot, and that in the complete squat the loss of speed when doing half of the possible repetitions it would be approximately 15-20% (Rodríguez-Rosell et al., 2019), that is, also below the loss of speed caused by the increase in ammonia.

Therefore, if it is known what degree of effort (degree of fatigue) means each percentage of speed loss in the series, the application of speed as a training control method is very useful, it is probably the best procedure to estimate with high precision and immediately the training load.

ammonium concentration above quiescent values can be controlled by the loss of speed in the series

This load would be determined by the degree of fatigue caused by the joint effect of the volume and intensity used in training. Therefore, the ammonium concentration above the resting values can be controlled by the loss of speed in the series, since there is a close relationship between the loss of speed in the series and the percentage of repetitions performed (González-Badilo et al, 2017; Rodriguez-Rosell et al., 2019).

If, furthermore, it is known, through extensive practical experience, that doing half or less of the repetitions achievable in the series produces notable improvements in muscular strength and sports performance, it would not be very advisable to frequently exceed (in some cases it would never be necessary) half of the repetitions that can be done in a series. This practical experience has been reinforced by experimental studies in which it has been proven that losing 10-20% of the speed in the series, which is equivalent to performing half or less of the possible repetitions in the series, in the exercise of squat offers better results than losing 30-40%, which leads to a situation at the limit of ammonium increase (30% loss) or very close to muscle failure (40%) (Pareja-Blanco et al., 2017 ; Rodríguez-Rosell, Doctoral Thesis).

In addition to the relationship with ammonium, velocity loss also showed high positive linear correlations with lactate concentration: [r = 0.95 in the bench press, r = 0.97 in the squat, and r = 0.97 in the the jump (figure 4)].

Figure 4. Relationship between velocity loss and lactate concentration with bench press (upper figure) and squat (middle figure) exercises, and relationship between vertical jump losses after squat exercise and lactate concentration (lower figure). ). (Sánchez-Medina and González-Badillo, 2011).

Doing half or less of the repetitions achievable in the series produces notable improvements in muscular strength and sports performance.

If the regression equations corresponding to each of the relationships of the three exercises with lactate are applied, it is verified that before a 40% loss of speed in the bench press series, which is when ammonium is triggered, the lactate would be 5.3 mmol/L, in the squat, when ammonium increases, when losing 30% of the speed, lactate would be 7.2 mmol/L, and in the jump, when 12% is lost jump and the ammonium increase begins, the lactate would be 7.7 mmol/L.

As can be seen, the height loss in the vertical jump (12% jump loss and 32% speed loss in the squat) when ammonium is fired it corresponds to practically the same concentration of lactate than when ammonium is triggered by the loss of speed in the series in the squat exercise (30%).

Which corresponds to the behavior observed when analyzing ammonium. Therefore, ammonium begins to rise when lactate is 5.3 mmol/L in the bench press and 7.2 mmol/L in the squat (figure 15.14). From this relationship it can be deduced that, although it is not the most practical and viable option, if one wanted to analyze the possible behavior of ammonium without measuring it, given its greater difficulty and price, one could measure lactate to predict at what moment the lactate begins to be triggered. ammonium.

Although, naturally, the most precise, economical, easy-to-perform procedure and with immediate information is the control of speed loss in the series.

Figure 5. Relationship between lactate values and ammonium firing in bench press and squat exercises (Sánchez-Medina and González-Badillo, 2011)

There were also high relationships between stalling and testosterone (r=0.83), growth hormone (r= 0.82), and insulin (r= 0.88). These relationships increased for ammonium (p = 0.94-96) and lactate (p = 0.98) when Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used (data from the same unpublished study). All these relationships indicate that the higher the speed in the series, the greater the mechanical, metabolic and hormonal stress tends to be, the greater the degree of effort generated.

the greater the speed loss in the series, the greater the mechanical, metabolic and hormonal stress tends to be, the greater the degree of effort generated.

The question that should be asked as a result of this knowledge is what should be the optimal loss of speed in each case. This question, of course, does not have an easy answer, but being able to ask it, and having the appropriate mechanical and physiological data available to try to find an answer, is already a great advance.

In the next articles, useful studies for the practice of training and that provide answers to many of these questions will be reviewed.

Conclusions

From the above it can be deduced that the knowledge of the relationship between the loss of velocity in the serle and the loss of velocity with the load of 1 m*s-1 and the height of the CMJ, as well as the metabolic stress allows us to conclude the following:

• The fatigue caused by a training session of three sets with loads that allow you to do between 12 and 4 repetitions per set depends on the percentage of speed lost in the set.
• The training load can be quantified by the loss of jumping capacity and the loss of speed before a determined load (mass) in each session.
• The relationship between the loss of jump and the loss of speed could be verified before a determined load per session and the effect of the training.
• The loss of velocity in the series with the load of 1 m*s-1 and in the CMJ are accurate estimators of the metabolic stress caused by the training session.
• Depending on the metabolic stress generated, a subject should not lose more than 20-35% (depending on exercises) of the speed of the first repetition in the series:
  • Performance is probably not better if you lose a higher percentage of speed. In the squat exercise, an average loss of speed in the set of 10-20% offered better results than a loss of 30-40%.
  • In the bench press exercise, a mean loss of 27.7% outperformed losing 53.3% (unpublished laboratory data).

a subject should not lose more than 20-35% (depending on exercises) of the speed of the first repetition in the series

• If you do a training session of three sets with any load between those with which you can perform between 12 and 4 repetitions per set, performing a range of repetitions between half and the maximum of the possible repetitions in the series, ammonium increases exponentially from a loss of speed of 40% in the bench press and 30% in the squat. In the case of the vertical jump, the increase in ammonia occurs when a pre-post effort jump loss of 12% is reached.
• As a practical application of synthesis, it is suggested:
  • People who train for improved health should not do even half of the possible repetitions in the series.
  • Most experienced athletes with medium-high strength needs will probably be able to perform at most half or 1-2 repetitions more than half of the possible ones. Although we also estimate that athletes with lower strength needs probably, even if they are very experienced, do not need to perform even half of the possible repetitions in the series at any time.

The main contributions of execution speed in training are summarized below, and which have been explained in this other previous article. They are divided into four sections: the contributions of the speed of the first repetition, loss of speed in the series, percentage of repetitions performed with each loss of speed and the Effort Index.

In this series of articles we deal with some of the most important concepts of strength training, collecting notes from the recently published book Strength, Speed and Physical and Sports Performance written by renowned researchers Juan José González Badillo and Juan Ribas Serna.

SUMMARY

• Assess a subject’s strength and accurately determine their true percentage of 1RM without ever needing to perform a 1RM test or XRM test
• Program, dose and control training with high precision.
• Use strength training with all subjects regardless of their age and physical condition.
• Know the degree of individual adaptation pre-post training (in all cases) and the evolution of individual adaptation over time.
• The loss of speed in the series, together with the speed of the first repetition allow estimating training fatigue.
• The effort index is an independent variable that allows you to compare any training.

Contributions derived from the knowledge of the average velocity (average propulsive velocity, preferably) of the first repetition of the first series of an exercise

• Evaluate the strength of a subject without the need to perform a 1RM test or an XRM test at any time.
• Determine with high pressure what actual percentage of 1RM the subject is using as soon as he performs the first repetition at maximum speed with a given absolute load:
  • Therefore, if the speed is measured every day, it can be determined with high precision if the absolute load proposed to the subject (kg) faithfully represents the true degree of programmed effort (% of real 1RM) as soon as the speed of the first repetition is measured. .
• Program, dose and control training with high precision through speed, and not through a theoretical percentage, not a real one, in most of the steps, of 1RM.
• Use strength training with all subjects, from children to the most advanced athletes or adults and older people who want to improve their health, without the need to do maximum effort tests (1RM, or XRM, for example) in any case. .

• Estimate the change in performance each day without the need to perform any tests, simply by measuring the speed with which an absolute load moves. If, for example, the difference in speed between 70 and 75% of the RM of a specific exercise were 0.08 m s^-1, when the subject increases speed by 0.08 m s^-1 Given the same absolute load, the load with which he trains will represent 5% less than the RM of the subject at that moment, so this will have increased in value. Naturally, if what occurs is a loss of speed at the same absolute load, we can be fairly sure that the subject is below its previous performance, and to a degree proportional to the loss of speed.
• If the speed of the first repetition is measured daily, weekly or simply before and after the training period or cycle, you can:
  • Know the degree of individual adaptation pre-post training (in all cases) and the evolution of individual adaptation over time (if speed is measured daily OR weekly).
  • Discover the degree of disparity in the adaptive responses of each subject.
  • Check the effect of improving strength on other types of performance or exercises, trained or not.
  • Assess the strength of athletes with minimal effort.
  • Check what real relative intensities have caused the training effect: something completely unknown until now in the history of training.
  • Verify that, in many cases, it may be enough to maintain an adequate progression of the absolute load, even though the relative intensity is stable or even tends to decrease throughout the training cycle.
  • Show that it makes no sense to talk about “periodized training or not” (assuming the term should ever be used, which we don’t think is necessary), as it “ideal” is that training “does not have to be periodized”, well keep the same relative intensity (according to the usual termology, “non-periodized training”) and even if the relative intensity tends to decrease (which could shock some and be described as “detraining”), as the absolute intensity increases of training is clear proof that the effect of training is very positive. In addition, a wide range of upper relative intensities is kept available and useful which might need to be applied at later stages.
  • Knowing what the minimum and maximum relative intensity at which each athlete trained really was and, therefore, not only knowing what the average effect was on the group, but also the individual effect of training and the load that caused it in each subject.
  • Know specific data on the possible magnitude of the differences in the training load that can occur between subjects, with the same characteristics, that, theoretically, they had to do the same training, having verified that there can be differences in relative intensity between subjects of up to 20% at the end of the training cycle which, supposedly, was the “same” for all.
  • Know the characteristics of the subjects as responders to training: differences in adaptation or response to training stimuli.
  • Be aware of the need to consider the importance of training individualization: by nature, it is not possible to train a group of subjects with “the same training.”
  • Realize that it is not possible to affirm that a certain training is “the best”. So we could say that “there are no trainings, but subjects who are trained or trainable subjects.”
  • Discover new approaches to reflect on the relationship between the burden and its effect in general terms and on each person individually.
  • Improve the training methodology, based on the contributions indicated in the previous points.
• Measure the speed with which RM is achieved. This is the only way to be able to consider an RM as “true” or “false”:
  • Two MR values ​​of the same subject cannot be compared if the values ​​of the speeds with which they have been measured are not the same or very similar.
  • If the speeds at which the pre-post training RMs have been measured are different, with differences ≥0.03 m s^-1, these RMs are not equivalent, so comparing the values ​​of the RMs (weights lifted) pre-post training would lead to wrong decisions, considering that there have been some changes of force (in the MRI) that are not real. In addition, the speeds with each percentage would appear to be different after training, without meaning that they really are.

• It allows to apply the best procedure for the assessment of the training effect, such as re-measuring the speed reached before the same absolute loads that were measured in the initial test:
  • This procedure is the most consistent, since allows us to check if the objective of all strength training is met: to improve speed at the same absolute load, and, in addition, to it is the most accurate, since the effect of strength training is measured by the change in velocity under the same absolute load.
  • Adjust the Load (intensity) to the actual physical situation of the subject in each training session.
  • Guarantee the control of a determining variable of the load and the performance, such as the relative intensity. If not controlled, this variable would become a powerful foreign variable, which would undoubtedly influence performance, so its control is necessary, which had never been possible to date.. We do not know of (probably does not exist) any more precise procedure to control / match the relative intensity than the speed of execution with the first repetition of the series.
  • Even the control of the loss of speed in the series, which we discuss below, no tendría sentido si no se tiene información precisa de la intensidad relativa de cada sesión, porque las pérdidas de velocidad serían ante intensidades relativas diferentes, con lo cual the loss of speed would lose all its power to control the load.
  • Know the real average relative intensity of the maximum intensities applied during a training period. Which can be expressed as average speed or, more intuitively, simply expressing the average speed as a percentage of the RM, since we know the percentage that a certain speed represents. For example, if the average speed has been 1 m^s-1 in the squat, the real relative intensity of the entire training cycle expressed in percentages of the RM would be 60% of the RM, and if the speed was 0.75-76 m·^s-1 would correspond to 75% of the MR.
  • Know the actual average relative intensity of all applied intensities, not just the maximum ones, during a training period.
  • Check the effects of training at different speeds (light, medium and high loads), as well as at the average speed of all common loads moved pre-post training. This type of measurement allows more information about the effect of training and minimizes the possible error in the quantification of its effects. For this reason, it is a measurement that clearly exceeds what the usual MRI measurement offers to assess the effect of training.

Contributions derived from the knowledge of the loss of speed in the series

• Fatigue depends on the speed of the first repetition in the set and the percentage loss of speed in the set.
• The training load can be quantified by the loss of jumping ability (actually, loss of speed) and the loss of speed at a given absolute load in each session.
• It allows checking the relationship between the loss of jump and the loss of speed at a given load (load of m·s^-1 in our case) per session and the effect of training.
• The loss of velocity pre-post training session with the load of 1 m s^-1 and the loss of CMJ are accurate estimators of the metabolic stress caused by the training session..
• At loads of approximately 70-90% RM, ammonium increases exponentially from a loss of velocity of ~40% in the bench press and ~30% in the squat. In the case of the vertical jump, the increase in ammonia occurs when a pre-post effort jump loss of ~12% is reached. The same can be expressed by saying that it is necessary to do 1-2 repetitions more than half of the possible in the series in any of the two exercises so that the ammonia exceeds the resting values.

• Depending on the metabolic stress generated, a subject should not lose more than 20-35% (depending on exercises) of the speed of the first repetition in the series:
  • Performance is probably not better if you lose a higher percentage of speed. In the squat exercise, an average speed loss in the set of 10-20% provided better results than a loss of 30-45%. In the bench press, a loss of 25-40% was better than 50-55%.
  • People who train for health probably shouldn’t do even half of the possible reps in the set. For example, they shouldn’t lose even 20% speed on the full squat set or 25-30% on the bench press.
  • For most experienced athletes with medium-high strength needs, it will probably be enough to perform at most half or 1-2 repetitions more than half of the possible ones. Although it is also estimated that athletes with lower strength needs probably, even if they are very experienced, do not need to perform even half of the possible repetitions in the series at any time (no more than 20% loss of speed in the series in the full squat or 25-30% in the bench press).
• Know the real average speed with which you have trained throughout the cycle individually and as a group.
• Know the real time under tension of the entire training.
• It is possible to know exactly the average speed lost in the series by different groups and by each participant:
  • If it is taken into account that what is always programmed is an EC / degree of effort, knowledge of this data is the most relevant of what can be expected in relation to the load applied or generated by the training already carried out.
  • Therefore, these indicators of fatigue are the ones that can get us closest to finding the relationship between the training performed and the effect produced:
• It allows us to reflect on the fact that with the same relative load, a difference of a few hundredths of more^-1 (0,08-0,1 m·s ^-1Therefore, these indicators of fatigue are the ones that can get us closest to finding the relationship between the training performed and the effect produced: and in some cases obtaining statistically significant differences in their favor.
• Together with the knowledge of the speed of the first repetition in the series, it solves the problem of distributing the repetitions performed by RM percentage zones when trying to quantify the training load. since this procedure encompasses all the drawbacks associated with the use of MRI as a reference to dose and assess the training load:
  • The solution to this problem lies in the use of speed zones instead of percentage zones, because the speed at which the charges have moved expresses very precisely what real relative intensity the subject has used.
  • This type of distribution makes it possible to analyze discrepancies in the training effect when the same repetitions have been programmed for all subjects at the same relative intensity.
  • If you don’t do it like that, following the traditional procedure of programming the same repetitions per set for all subjects, the least fatigued (those who can do more repetitions per set at the same relative intensity) they will present a greater number of repetitions at a higher speed, and, therefore, a higher average speed, which would not be reflected if the repetitions were distributed by percentages and not by speed zones.
  • It allows to locate all the repetitions in their true zone, which is not possible if the percentage of the RM is taken as a reference.
  • We understand that this type of information is the most relevant and precise to be able to carry out an analysis of the true load that has caused a certain effect., because it reflects very clearly the degree of effort made: number of repetitions with each relative intensity (in zones of one tenth of m·^s-1 difference).

• If we add to the above the information provided on the loss of speed, the average speed and the average maximum speed of the entire training cycle, we will probably have the series of variables that allow a better analysis of the applied load.
• Talking about the average speed lost during the entire training cycle, knowing the speed of the first repetition of each maximum training load, is like talking about the degree of fatigue generated for each group and each subject individually. If we take into account that what is always programmed is a CE / degree of effort, which represents a degree of fatigue, which, in turn, validates the CE itself, the knowledge of this data is the most relevant of what can be expected in relation to the knowledge of the load applied or generated by the training already carried out.

Contributions derived from the knowledge of the percentage of repetitions performed before each percentage of speed loss in the series

• Given the same loss of speed in the series, the relationship between the repetitions that are done and those that can be done in the series is the same or very similar in all subjects. This allows us to affirm the following:
  • When a certain percentage of the speed of execution in the series is lost, the same percentage of the possible repetitions in the series has been performed for each subject at intensities between 50 and 70% of the RM in the bench press.
  • If the intensities are 75, 80 and 85%, given the same percentage of repetitions performed, the necessary speed losses will be 2.5, 5 and 10% less, respectively, than the losses corresponding to the intensities of 50 to 70%.
  • If it is the squat exercise, given the same percentage of speed loss in the series, from 50 to 65% the percentage of repetitions performed is the same, and increases from 70% of the RM.
  • It seems that the increase in the percentage of repetitions performed for the same loss of speed in the series occurs when the number of repetitions possible in the series is approximately 10.
  • Being able to do the same number of repetitions in a series before a determined absolute load (individual loads for each subject) does not mean that you are training with the same percentage of the RM. For this reason, performing the same number of repetitions at the same relative load means that most athletes make a different effort than others. This is because the number of repetitions performed by each subject at the same relative intensity may be sufficiently different.
• If we take the loss of speed in the series at the same relative intensity as a reference, the efforts made will be very similar, although the number of repetitions made in each series is different for each subject.

• If a non-maximum number of repetitions is performed in the series, but common to all the subjects, each one will have done a different percentage of the total number of possible repetitions in the series:
  • This means that having trained with the same relative intensity and the same number of repetitions in the series, the degree of fatigue, degree of effort or character of the effort could have been different in each case.
  • It is the loss of velocity in the set that equalizes the effort, not the number of repetitions performed in the set at the same relative intensity.
• Therefore, the loss of speed in the series equals the efforts, the degree of fatigue generated, even if two people have done a different number of repetitions before the same relative load:
• This means that what would best express the degree of effort, and what should be programmed, is the speed of the first repetition and the loss of speed in the series, not the number of repetitions to perform in the series under a load (relative to or absolute).
• If the speed can be measured, the repetitions in the series should never be programmed, but the loss of speed in the series.

Applications derived from the knowledge of the Effort Index (IE) as an indicator of the Character of Effort

Remember that de Effort Index (IE) is the result of multiplying the speed of the first repetition (best repetition, which should be the first repetition in almost all cases) in the series by the percentage loss of speed in the series. Therefore, it is conditioned by the two key variables: the speed of the first repetition and the loss of speed in the series:

• The high validity shown by the expression of the CE through the IE as an indicator of fatigue or degree of effort, allows to advance the knowledge of the load (effort) that is programmed and, especially, of the load that has been generated in each subject once the training has been carried out.
• if we wanted compare the effect of different intensity ranges about the changes in force, or in other types of performance, it would be necessary to ensure that the IE was equivalent, and for this it would be necessary for the speed losses in the series or session to be different for each relative intensity, so that the efforts were equalized. Only if this is done in this way, it could be accepted that the independent variable of the study is truly the relative intensity.
• Therefore, it is not pertinent to affirm that training with a relative intensity is better or worse than with another, if the IE that has been generated with the different intensities has not been controlled.
• The CE expressed through the IE can have at least the following applications:
  • Act as an independent variable of any study on the effect of training.
  • It is necessary and decisive as a control variable.
  • It is very useful for a better analysis of the effects of any design, because it allows checking the relationship between the IE (degree of fatigue) and the effects produced.
  • The choice of the speed of the first repetition and the choice of the loss of speed in the series or session can be done and in some cases should be done depending on the IE or degree of effort that we want to program.

The greater or lesser amplitude of the recovery time between repetitions and series is what is known as cluster training or CLT.

In this series of articles we deal with some of the most important concepts of strength training, collecting notes from the recently published book Strength, Speed ​​and Physical and Sports Performance written by renowned researchers Juan José González Badillo and Juan Ribas Serna.

SUMMARY

• Cluster training refers to the modification of recovery times in repetitions and series of a workout.
• It is mistakenly thought that using cluster training, more power is developed than with traditional training.
• The benefits of metabolic stress related to short recovery times (30 seconds or less), high or medium number of repetitions per series, and very high character of effort (EC), do not allow sufficient recovery of muscle strength between series, which it can compromise the ability to apply force on subsequent sets.
• The strength-enhancing benefits appear to be directly related to the recovery time between sets, so a 3-minute recovery rest between sets is recommended.

At least since the 1990s (Rooney et al., 1994), although still without using the term “cluster”, which appears a decade later, they began to study the effect that the introduction of a certain pause between the repetitions of each could have. series compared to no recovery within series. The aforementioned study by Rooney et al. It was carried out in order to “learn the role of fatigue in the series”.

Just taking the objective of the study as a reference, two ideas can already be obtained that can be useful for understanding training as a general concept, not just as a “cluster”. The first is that the studies must be defined, fundamentally, by their objectives and variables, not by misleading names, which do not provide the necessary information to understand what has been done or the conclusions of the study. The title of the study by Rooney et al. (1994), in which no terminology was introduced that could lead to confusion, was: “Fatigue contributes to the strength training stimulus”,

The second idea is that, without the need to carry out any study, it is already known that given the same relative intensity and the same number of repetitions in the series, not pausing between repetitions causes greater fatigue than when the series is completed with some pause for recovery between repetitions.

In this case, we start from the premise that not taking breaks in the series will lead to greater fatigue, since otherwise the objective would not have been to verify “its role” as a component of the stimulus that improves strength.

Not taking rep breaks in the set leads to increased fatigue

Well, regarding the first idea, since the beginning of this century numerous versions have been appearing about the introduction of a pause between repetitions and within a series. This has been called “cluster training” (CLT), moreover, in English for everyone. The term “cluster” would have to be translated by something like “group” or “grouping” and we would be left with “training by groups or by grouping”. Having to warn that what is grouped or divided into groups is the number of total repetitions that are planned to be done in a series.

Although one could also speak of “ungrouping”, since the repetitions that make up a series are already “grouped” in a single group, in such a way that the set of all the “groups” of repetitions constitutes the training session.

So the grouping thing is still somewhat confusing. The most common is that in the CLT these groups are of one repetition, although for “testing”, the groups could be of all the repetitions that the grouper can think of. A typical expression of this “new terminology” is that of “cluster set” (CS). With this term it seems that the question is somewhat clarified, and the accent is placed on the fact that the “cluster” is made in the series or with each series.

To make it clearer, training without pauses between the repetitions of a series will be called “traditional training” (ET), by calling it something, as opposed to CLT. If, as seems logical, the objective of applying the CLT is to check whether or not it is more favorable than the ET, the possibility of applying different values ​​or levels of the independent variables such as “recovery time between repetitions”, “intensity in each series ”, the “number of repetitions per set” and “recovery time between sets” is very broad.

Only considering these four variables and the 6-7 levels, as a minimum, that could be applied to each one, so many load alternatives can be given that it would be inappropriate to say that, according to the result of a specific study or design, the CLT is better or worse than the ET. Naturally, if these levels of the variables are well defined, it will be possible to progress little by little and find that in some situations one is better and in others another, and also that one is more favorable for some objectives and the other for others.

As for the objective, the most important is to check what effect each of them has on performance at other speeds, since performance is measured by the change in speed at each load, although unfortunately, this is not what has been studied. until now.

Apart from the possible variables previously described, there is one that nullifies the possibility of comparing both types of training. This is the recovery time between sets. If, in addition to applying recovery times between repetitions, recovery time between series is also modified, we are introducing a new independent variable that prevents us from considering that the effects of both training sessions are exclusively due to the variable “recovery time between repetitions”, which is what defines, properly, the training type CLT.

What is done in these cases is to reduce the recovery time between series in the CLT with respect to that applied in the ET, so that the total training time is the same for both types of training. If this is done in this way, apart from the fact that the recovery effect between repetitions is no longer being compared, the “supposed advantage” of the CLT is lost, which is to perform all repetitions with less fatigue.

The problem is that this advantage is largely negated if the recovery between sets is reduced, thus contributing to the overall fatigue of the CLT training session. Therefore, this is one of the frequent serious errors of this type of design: looking for an apparent equalization or control of a variable (time that the session lasts), a contaminating variable is introduced in an attempt to verify if the rest between repetitions is better. or worse than not resting.

What is done in these cases is to reduce the recovery time between series in the CLT with respect to that applied in the ET, so that the total training time is the same for both types of training.

As in most of the designs, the training is carried out with the typical XRM, sometimes another important mistake is made, such as increasing the number of repetitions in the series, since it is normal that with the recoveries between repetitions more repetitions can be done with the same relative intensity (the “same intensity” is theoretical, since in practice this is unlikely to be achieved), which would lead to the realization of a greater volume, which is sometimes considered as “something positive for improvement” of maximum force.

This, once again, introduces one more polluting variable, since it is no longer the “cluster” that is being studied, but rather the effect may also be conditioned by a greater number of total repetitions, a variable that may have a positive or negative influence. negative, in the result.

However, this is justified by arguing that by doing more repetitions (more volume) it is possible to achieve a greater stimulus that produces a greater improvement in “maximal strength” and hypertrophy, without considering then that the “cluster” is not really being compared. , but the greater or lesser volume and therefore, the direct effect of the recovery between repetitions is not contrasted.

Another alternative that is usually proposed in this sense is that since resting between repetitions can do a greater number of repetitions in the series, with the CLT a higher relative intensity could be used to do the same repetitions as the ET group. Here we run into two problems.

The first is that we are not comparing: the effects of the recovery time between repetitions, but the relative intensity of the training, since the intensity would be different for both groups. And the second has to do with the “intuition” that someone has to know what is the absolute load that should be added to each subject so that with the same higher relative intensity for all subjects and a certain recovery time (also variable, according to the design), the subject did exactly the same repetitions that another subject with a lower relative intensity does. And all this without taking into account, in addition, that each subject can do a different number of repetitions with the same relative intensity (González-Badil al., 2017).

In short, something practically impossible to design and carry out. However, everything is generally considered as something that “… would be very beneficial because it would provide a greater stimulus for the improvement of hypertrophy (which is not lacking) and maximum strength.” A typical misinterpretation, and often justifiable, of the CLT is that applying it improves the “power” more than with the ET.

This should not even be discussed, because by definition of the terms of “force” and “power”, the proposal is impossible. It is even proposed that with the ET the “maximal strength” was improved more (generally 1RM, as usual) but with the CLT the power improved more. The analysis is erroneous because in the best of cases for the CLT, it could be said that under light loads the CLT improved more than the ET, but that under high loads the ET improved more.

A typical misinterpretation of cluster training is that by applying it you can improve “power” more than with traditional training.

This would have a possible explanation: if we start with the same number of repetitions per series for both groups, and the ET group reaches muscular failure, as usual, less fatigue would be generated with the CLT and a higher average speed would be reached. in the set of repetitions, so it would be more probable, in the best of cases, that in the CLT there is a tendency to improve more with light loads, of greater speed than with the ET.

But if we take into account the relationship between strength and speed and power, this would necessarily mean that ET would improve power more when faced with loads in which strength has improved more, and that CLT, which supposedly has improved more power, it would only improve more before those loads in which the strength had improved more than the ET.

But the problem —one more— is that the training effect is measured very poorly: what they usually call “maximal force” is measured exclusively with MRI, and what they usually call “power” is measured only with a load that, supposedly , is the one with which more power is generated. Naturally, the proper approach—and solution—to this problem is to measure the effect of training with a wide range of absolute loads (which would represent the same number of relative loads) that can be moved from high speeds to moderate or low speeds, although never reaching RM (minimum speed for an exercise).

In this way, we would have information on the effect of training on a wide range of the force-velocity-power curves, although the information on power when external loads are moved has no application, because all the information that power could provide already comes explained by speed, and with greater precision, ease and economy of means.

Studies analyzed on cluster training (clt)

Rooney el al. (1994)

In the study by Rooney et al. (1994), although the term “cluster” was not used, a design was carried out that was adjusted to what was later called CLT. We wanted to verify the effect of fatigue on strength performance. For fatigue to be the true independent variable, the training was organized with the same intensity and volume (6RM with several series), but one group performed all the repetitions without rest between repetitions and the other group rested 30 seconds between repetitions.

In a parallel study with a part of the sample, it was found that the group that did not recover between repetitions fatigued more than the group that did recover. The subjects were resistance-trained individuals and the exercise performed was elbow flexion. The results indicated that the group that did not recover between repetitions improved strength (1RM) significantly more (+56.3%) than the group that recovered (+41.2%). The conclusion of this study was that the processes associated with fatigue contribute to creating the stimulus through which training leads to further improvement in strength.

it was verified that the group that did not recover between repetitions of the series fatigued more than the one that did recover.

Based on these results, one might be tempted to think that the greater the fatigue, the better the outcome. But this is neither reasonable nor real, so for an interpretation of the results we should add that within the maximum fatigue value reached in this study, strength tends to improve more significantly than if, given the same intensity and volume, Fatigue is reduced by introducing a 30 second rest between repetitions. Therefore, it seems that 30 seconds of recoveries between repetitions, given the intensity and volume used in this study, is not the best stimulus to improve RM.

Therefore, it could be deduced that a recovery time of 30 seconds is too long, and therefore that it is not part of the best stimulus to improve strength, that is, that it does not generate the degree of fatigue that provides the best effect.

It would then remain to be verified what happens with other lower recovery times, since if they are greater than 30 seconds, it is reasonable to admit that the results would tend to be less.

Unfortunately, this study was conducted with sets to failure in the group without recovery between repetitions. There will always be a question about what would have happened if the least fatigue —because it is what is sought with the CLT— had been achieved by doing fewer repetitions in the series with the same relative intensity, and not by resting between repetitions.

According to Lawton et al. (2004)

In the study by Lawton et al. (2004), according to the authors, the objective was to analyze the effect of performing all repetitions continuously (ET) in the series versus recoveries within the series (CLT) in the bench press exercise.

Although it was not really what was done, since the CLT group reduced the rest between series to equalize the total execution of each session with respect to the ET. The recovery time between repetitions and between series is not indicated in the document, but only the total duration of the sessions.

It is assumed that an adjustment was made to the CLT times to match the ET(?) times. The study was carried out for 6 weeks with 26 junior soccer and basketball players. The 6RM and the power in the launch of 20, 30 and 40 kg were measured. The intensity ranged between 80 and 105% of the 6RM, with 4 series of 6 repetitions for the ET group and 8 series of 3 repetitions for the CLT. The total work time in the concentric phase of the exercise was slightly higher in the ET group than for the CLT, indicating a slightly higher mean speed of execution in the CLT.

The ET group improved the 6RM significantly more (9.7%) than the CLT group (4.9%), but the improvements in throw power (between 5.8 and 10.9%) were equivalent in the two groups. The conclusion was that ET (continuous repetitions) improves strength (and hence 6RM) more than CLT, but both improve power in throwing loads of 20, 30 and 40 kg to the same extent.

This is one of the studies in which the existence of one of the previously mentioned errors is verified: the reduction in recovery time between series. The goal and reason for doing the CLT is to be able to do all the repetitions with less fatigue, that is, at a higher average speed (or more “power”, for most) for the same number of repetitions.

Therefore, in this case it cannot be said that doing all the repetitions without pausing between them is better than doing them with a pause, since the less fatigue that was reached in the first series of 3 repetitions was partly canceled out by the lesser recovery between each repetition. series of 3 repetitions.

That is to say, in order to be able to affirm what is concluded in this study, 2 series of 3 repetitions should have been done, with a first determined recovery between them, which would be equivalent to a series of 6 repetitions of the ET group. At this point, the same recovery should have been done between the second and third series that ET carried out between his series, and then the remaining 6 series should be done with the same protocol.

In this way, it could be affirmed that the ET was superior to the CLT. Regarding the equivalence in the improvements of the launch power, we are left with doubts about the way to measure the power (with a 100 HZ encoder of measurement frequency), although it is also possible that these results are due to to the fact that the CLT performed the movements at a mean speed slightly higher than that of the ET group, which could have benefited the speed of execution under light loads, even though the 6RM improved less.

Naturally, also present in this study and in all the ones we will see, is the fact that the training effect is poorly measured: only with a magnitude of load.

Hansen et al. (2011)

The aim of Hansen et al. (2011) was to test whether CLT training improved jumping power of elite category rugby players.

The 18 players were divided into two groups of 9 subjects, who carried out the ET and the CLT. Before and after the 8-week training period, with 2 sessions per week, together with the rest of the rugby-specific training, the force-speed-power profile in the loaded jump (JS) and the “maximal force” were measured. (estimated 1RM) in the squat with the bar behind the head, but to a “visually high” angle of 90 degrees.

The intensity in the squat exercises (front and back) ranged between 80 and 95% in each session, and from 8 to 3-4 repetitions per set, which were 5 per session. That is, the training was practically with XRM (although 3 reps with 95% is not likely to be done).

Two-stroke jerks and power cleans were also done with similar intensities. Recovery time between sets was 3 minutes. CLT training was done with the same volume (sets x repetitions x loads). The recovery time between repetitions was 20-30 seconds, with an unstable distribution (?), difficult to explain, but this recovery time between repetitions was subtracted from the recovery time between sets to equalize the session times.

Both groups improved squat strength, but the ET group improved significantly more (18.3%) than the CLT group (14.6%). Neither of the two groups improved significantly in the variables measured in the jump exercises with loads (peak power, speed and force).

The results of this study confirm what was found in the previous one. The same design error is made, which does not allow a proper comparison of the effect of the CLT, the “maximum force” improves more in the group that does the ET and there are neither improvements within the groups nor differences between them in the performance indicators at high speeds (jumps). Therefore, all the comments on the previous study would be applicable in this case. However, the authors indicate that “evidence was given to support the possible benefit of the application of the CLT for the development of the power of the lower limbs, and that it should be preferable to the ET”.

It is surprising that it is considered reasonable to recommend the CLT without having found any positive effect with its application with respect to itself (intra effect) in “potency” (which seems to be the “preferred effect” by the researchers), and with less effect on the ” maximum force” than with ET. It seems that the justification for this conclusion is that “if our hypothesis is not confirmed now, it will be confirmed another time… But we continue to maintain it, …and that is why we recommend the CLT for everyone”.

In Gonzalez-Badillo’s opinion, the scant effect on jumping performance may be due, fundamentally, to the excessive load and fatigue generated by the so-called strength training with the squat exercises. In addition, all the repetitions were done at a low and very low speed, given that, on the one hand, the intensities were high or very high (from 80 to 90-95% of the RM), which means that the first repetition already it is done at a low speed, and also, it was reduced until it reached the minimum possible for the subject in the exercise.

High fatigue and low average speed are probably the two elements that can have the most negative effect on performing actions at high speed. The lower effect of the CLT group could hardly be explained by the lower fatigue generated, rather it is possible that the lower recovery between series generated as much or more fatigue than with ET.

Oliver et al. (2013)

The objective of the study by Oliver et al. (2013) was to determine if hypertrophy training with recovery within the series produces greater gains in strength and power compared to hypertrophy training than traditional training.

In the ET the number of repetitions per series was double (10) than with the CLT (5) and a recovery was made between series of 2 minutes, which is also double that applied in the CLT (1 minute of recovery between series). The ET group did 4 sets of 10 reps with 2 minute recovery between sets and the CLT did 8 sets of 5 reps with 1 minute recovery between sets. It is specified that all the repellers had to be carried out “explosively”, that is, at the maximum possible speed. The total execution time of the session was equivalent for both groups.

The training was carried out for 12 weeks, in three blocks of 4 weeks in which training was carried out 4 times a week in the first 3 weeks of each block and twice in the fourth week, although the exercises evaluated in the study (the bench press and squat) only trained 2 times a week each. Every 4 weeks a new MRI test was done to adjust the loads. The participants were 22 young subjects with experience in resistance training.

The big difference between this study and most, including those discussed so far, is that, in each 4-week block, the relative intensities were: 65, 70.75 and 60% of the RM, in this order, in such a way that the ET group only in 6 sessions of the 42 performed was close to or reached the maximum possible number of repetitions in the series in the bench press and squat exercises (up to parallel). This occurred when he trained with 75% and 10 reps to go. In the rest, the number of repetitions performed was on average between 2 and 7 repetitions below the possible repetitions, on average, in the series. Another important difference is that the recovery time between sets in the CLT group was 1 minute, versus 2 minutes in the ET.

Both groups significantly improved bench press and squat strength and power and jumping power, but in this case, the CLT improved more in bench press and jumping power and bench press and squat strength compared to ET.

The power was measured with the load of 60% of the RM in both exercises, when it does not seem that the maximum power is reached with the same percentage in all the exercises (González-Badillo, 2000). It really should have been said that “the load that represented 60% of the RM improved the most”, since, if they measured that 60% correctly, the speed should have been practically the same before and after training in each exercise, and therefore, the change in power would be directly due to the change in absolute load used, not to the change in speed with said load, and, therefore, to the change in the force applied before a determined absolute load, which in this case represented 60% of the MRI.

That is, it would have improved power by increasing the mechanical work done, not by reducing run time. In short, what they really did was measure the change in force (load) at the same percentage of the RM, or at the same speed, but, as usual, it seems that if it is said that what improved was the power, the effect seems to be better or more interesting.

This design also does not allow us to state whether one form of training or another is better, since the recovery after the same number of repetitions, which in this case would be the 10 performed by the ET group in a series, was not the same. But, in Gonzalez-Badillo’s opinion, the possible explanation for these results, which are partly opposed, especially in strength, to those we have seen in other studies, could lie in the little fatigue that the CLT group has endured.

This is due to two reasons. On the one hand, because in each series this group was very far from the possible repetitions in the series, reaching a maximum of half of those possible, and this was only in six sessions during a period of 12 weeks of training, when 75% of the RM was made.

Secondly, because the recovery time between groups of repetitions has been 1 minute, clearly higher than usual and than applied in previous studies. This means that after doing a number of repetitions in the series equivalent to, at most, 50% of those possible, the loss of speed in the series has been approximately 20% in the squat and 25% in the bench press. , and minor losses in the rest of the sessions, which means having reached a degree of fatigue very close to the one that has been shown to offer the best results in both exercises for ranges of intensities between 55 and 85% of the RM (Couple -Blanco et al., 2017; Rodríguez-Rosell, Doctoral Thesis).

This means that, in this case, the recovery time between groups of repetitions could have been sufficient so that fatigue, which would naturally tend to be greater as more sets of 5 repetitions are performed, has not even been equivalent to the reached by the TE group, especially in the 6 sessions of each exercise in which muscular failure was reached. From the characteristics of all these load indicators, it can be deduced that the average speed with which the CLT group executed all the repetitions must have been clearly higher than those of the ET group, which may also have a relevant relationship with the training effect. , especially in actions that are executed at high speed.

The title of this study indicates that the effect on strength and power of hypertrophy training is to be verified. It really is strange, because the characteristics of the applied training do not seem to be specific for the development of hypertrophy.

In this sense, the two groups improved the volume of lean mass, with no differences between them. In both groups there was a decrease in the percentage of type IIX fibers and an increase in IAI, with no significant differences between groups. In other words, it does not seem likely that these structural changes have had a different appreciable influence in each group in terms of the effects on performance in the exercises under study.

In short, it is likely that the factors that most influence these results are the degree of fatigue generated (loss of speed in the series) and the average speed of execution in all the repetitions.

As indicated, one of the typical reasons for using CLT type training is the less fatigue that doing the same number of repetitions with rests between repetitions in a series means doing them continuously.

This, as discussed at the beginning of this article, raises the issue of whether or not recovery time is positive for performance improvement. In addition, this question can have many different answers if we take into account that it has not always been proposed to recover between repetitions, but in many cases the recovery is done between groups of repetitions, the recoveries between series and repetitions are different, even Sometimes all the repetitions performed, in the ET in several series, in the CLT are done with the same recovery time as if it were a series…

Mora-Custodio et al., 2018

To try to address one aspect of the problem raised, a study was carried out (Mora-Custodio et al., 2018) to try to find out what was the effect of introducing two different pause times between repetitions compared to doing all the repetitions of each series continuously.

In this case, the recoveries were only between repetitions of the same series, maintaining the same recovery time between series in all protocols. This is what allows us to truly see what the effect of recovery between repetitions is compared to doing all the repetitions of the series continuously, since the rest of the possible intervening variables are controlled.

A group of 30 subjects, accustomed to strength training, performed four training protocols of 3 series of 6, 5, 4, and 3 repetitions per series with intensities of 60, 70, 75, and 80% of the RM, respectively, with the full squat exercise.

The subjects were randomly distributed to form three groups equivalent in their strength performance: group without recovery between repetitions (GSR), group that recovered 10 seconds (G10) and group that recovered 20 seconds (G20) between repetitions of the same series. Fatigue estimation was made immediately after finishing the last repetition of each session. The indicators of fatigue were the loss of jumping capacity (CMJ) and mean propulsive velocity before the load moved prior to the session at a mean propulsive velocity of 1 m/s-1 (VMP) (Sánchez-Medina and 2011).

As indicated, the recovery between series was the same for the three groups. It should also be taken into account that the intensities and repetitions per series used have been those that have shown to offer a very positive effect on the full squat, both on the improvement of RM as well as speed with medium and light loads, as well as on the CMJ and the 20 m race (Pareja-Blanco et al., 2017, Rodríguez-Rosell, Doctoral Thesis… among others).

The number of repetitions per series before each relative intensity is, on average, slightly below half of the repetitions that a subject with the characteristics of the study participants can do.

It should also be taken into account that in this study the intensity was adjusted in each session through the speed of the first repetition in the series (Sánchez-Medina et al., 2017), which gives us high confidence that the efforts were carried out with the programmed relative intensities.

If we analyze the mean values ​​of this study in relation to the two variables used to estimate fatigue, it can be observed that the losses achieved by the G10 were lower than those of the GSR by 19.5 and 26.6% for the variables of CMJ and VMP, respectively, but the loss reduction in G20 compared to G10 was very low: 0 and 3% for the CMJ and VMP variables, respectively.

Therefore, these results suggest that, given the relative intensities and repetitions per set used in this study, including 10 seconds of recovery between repetitions of the series, maintaining the same recovery time between series, can mean significantly reducing fatigue for the same number of repetitions and series. However, increasing the recovery time between repetitions does not lead to a greater reduction in fatigue, as has been observed when recovering 20 seconds.

Once the influence that certain recovery times between repetitions can have under certain loads is known, the next step in this line of research would be to check to what extent these recovery times between repetitions, or, in other words, to what extent the reduction of different degrees of fatigue for the same number of repetitions, series and relative intensities, influence performance in different physical variables.

To verify this, a study was carried out whose objective was to analyze the effects produced by three strength training programs differentiated exclusively by the recovery times between repetitions within each series. These recovery times were the same as in the previous study: 0, 10, and 20 seconds, for the GSR or G10 and G20 groups, respectively. The relative intensities (60, 70, 75, and 80), repetitions per set with each intensity (6, 5, 4 and 3, respectively. for the indicated intensities), the series with the maximum load of the session (3) the recovery time between series (3 minutes), the characteristics of the subjects were also the same than in the previous study. 16 sessions were carried out during eight weeks, at two sessions per week. Each maximum relative intensity was trained in four sessions. The training effect was measured by sprint performance, loaded and unloaded vertical jump, and lower extremity strength: RM estimation, mean speed with loads common to the initial test, speed with light loads (> 1 m*s-1), with high loads (< 1 m*s-1) and relative strength: ratio between 1RM and body weight (1RM/BP) in the full squat exercise.

No significant differences were observed between the groups, and only G10 and G20 presented a significant interaction (P <n 0.05) in 1RM/PC in favor of G10. In the 20 m race, only the GSR (p <0.05) improved significantly with respect to itself, in the 10-20 m distance. The GSR improved significantly (p <0.001) in the remaining 8 variables, the G10 in 5 and the G20 in 7. The percentage changes in the three groups, always in this order: GSR, G10 and G20, were as follows:

The results of the study confirm that recovery between repetitions of 10 or 20 seconds does not appear to have a significant effect on performance other than performing all repetitions of each series with no pause in between., in addition to the fact that it seems that the performance has a tendency, not significant, to decrease when the pauses are introduced.

Given that a 20-second pause does not have any different results than a 10-second one, and in turn, that a 10-second pause is no better than no pause, it is reasonable to assume that a longer 20-second pause would not provide much benefit either.

adding a pause between repetitions would not provide any benefit on lower limb strength, acceleration capacity and jumping ability.

Therefore, within the characteristics of the load applied in this study, adding a pause between repetitions would not provide any benefit on the strength of the lower limbs, the acceleration capacity and the jumping capacity.

So, if we want to get the best training benefit and save training time, we should not pause between repetitions, at least with the loads applied in this study. But if we want to obtain a similar effect, but with less general fatigue, during phases, during short phases or in sessions close to the moment of maximum performance, we could introduce pauses between 10 and 20 seconds between repetitions for the same number of repetitions and series.

Issues to take into account for the application of Cluster Training.

As indicated, these conclusions must be adjusted to the characteristics of the training carried out; For a better assessment of these characteristics and the possibilities of generalization of the results to other types of loads, the following issues should also be considered very seriously:

• The range of relative intensities used has shown to have a very positive effect in subjects who are at least moderately trained in strength and who practice active sports (Pareja-Blanco et al., 2017; Rodríguez-Rosell, Doctoral Thesis).
• The intensity applied in each session has been programmed, since each day was determined by the speed of the first repetition. That is to say, each day the subject trained with the programmed intensity, something completely determinant to be able to pronounce on the effect of a training session.
• The character of the effort (speed of the first repetition and loss of speed in the series, or, in other words, number of repetitions performed in the series at each relative intensity with respect to those possible as an average) has been at most moderate or medium, which would be applicable to almost all athletes.
• The only independent variable has been the recovery time between repetitions in the series: 0, 10 and 20 seconds. The rest of the known possible intervening variables: intensity, volume, training frequency and rest between series were controlled by their equalization between groups.
• The recovery time between series (3 minutes) could be considered adequate since this time has offered better results than shorter times.: 3 minutes of recovery offered better results in the squat (7.26%) than 1.5 minutes (5.8%) and 0.5 minutes (2.4%) and in the CMJ (3.9, 1.7 and 0.0%, respectively) (Robinson et al., 1995).
• Subjects knew and were familiar with the training exercise and with all the exercises that made up the dependent variable.
• The measurements of the subjects in the running and jumping tests turned out to be highly reliable: ICC between 0.94 and 0.99 and a maximum CV equal to 3%.

Therefore, if we want to have confidence in a study that intends to analyze the effect; the recovery between repetitions within the series, we should compare its characteristics with what has just been indicated, to see what percentage or proportion of them is fulfilled in said study. Only breaking one of them, one should consider whether information is really being given about the effect of introducing recovery times between repetitions.

Recovery time between sets should also be considered. The interval time between sets may be a factor influencing the effect on muscle mass and performance. Recovery between sets has a lot of influence on metabolic and hormonal factors.

However, the benefits of metabolic stress related to short recovery times (30 seconds or less), high or medium number of repetitions per series, and very high effort character (EC), do not allow sufficient recovery of muscle strength between series, which may compromise the ability to apply force on subsequent sets (Ratamess et al., 2007). Therefore, the possible benefit of increased metabolic stress and its effect on muscle hypertrophy also presents the possible negative effect of reducing the force applied in each action, so that fatigue can be excessive and be counterproductive for improving performance. the force.

the strength-enhancing benefits appear to be directly related to recovery time between sets, at least up to 3-4 minutes of recovery.

On the contrary, if recovery times are long, strength enhancement benefits (Miranda et al., 2007). In fact, the strength-enhancing benefits appear to be directly related to recovery time between sets, at least up to 3-4 minutes of recovery.. Training 4 days per week, for 5 weeks and doing 5 sets of 10 repetitions, the greater the recovery time, the greater the squat improvement was obtained: 0.5 minutes (+2.4%), 1.5 minutes (+ 5.8%), 3 minutes (+7.6%). The same trend was observed in the countermovement jump: 0.5 minutes (0.0%), 1.5 minutes (+1.7%), 3 minutes (+9%) (Robinson et al., 1995).

In previous articles it has been seen that there are a series of determining factors of the force that a muscle or group of muscles can generate. Afterwards, the influence of muscle activation as the cause of a series of effects that translates into certain structural and neural transformations has also been analyzed, which give rise to the fact that this muscle activation constitutes what is understood as training.

In this series of articles we deal with some of the most important concepts of strength training, collecting notes from the recently published book Strength, Speed and Physical and Sports Performance written by renowned researchers Juan José González Badillo and Juan Ribas Serna.

Well, whatever the way in which muscle activation is carried out, whether it is correctly or not, training depends on a series of factors, whether or not the training programmer is aware of them, or Whether you take them into account or not, they are the determinants of the effect produced by the training.

These factors of sports training are three.

1/3 Factors of sports training: the speed of the first repetition.

First indicator of the character of the effort (CE) and the effort index (IE). Determinant of relative training intensity

Justification.

• Because it determines the percentage of the current RM with which the subject trains: real effort that represents the first repetition
• Because given the same speed, this percentage is practically the same for all people
• Because it starts from the assumption that even if the RM value changes, the speed with each percentage is very stable. Which is sufficiently proven.

That is, even if a training programmer does not know or does not want to know that when he performs the first repetition of a set, the speed at which he executes it determines what relative intensity he is training, that speed will determine the effect of the training, because it represents a highly relevant variable of training and its effect.

If the programmer ignores this reality and programs a percentage based on a 1RM value obtained at some point, it is already known that there is a high probability that the athlete or trained person is not training with the intensity (percentage in this case) that the programmer thinks.

But without a doubt, even in this case, what will determine the effect of the training will continue to be the speed at which the load has been moved in the first repetition, which, in this case, would represent a percentage unknown to the programmer (cases are discarded). in which the programmers indicate that the loads do not move at the maximum possible speed).

The same situation would occur if the programmer proposes that you train with a load with which you can do a certain maximum number of repetitions in the series (XRM or nRM).

Everything said in the previous paragraph is valid, but with the added peculiarity that in this case the subjects, with a high probability, would train with different relative intensities. In this case, the speed control would “come to the rescue” and could determine with what actual relative intensity they trained, even though the programmer thinks it was the same for everyone.

2/3 Factors of sports training: The loss of speed in the series with respect to the first repetition

Second indicator of the character of the effort (CE) and the effort index (IE).

Justification: Because it indicates the degree of fatigue for the same speed of the first repetition and equalizes the effort for all trained subjects. That is, because although the number of repetitions performed in the series is individual (and different) for each speed of the first repetition of a series, the percentage of repetitions performed before the same loss of speed in the series is approximately the same, and for this reason, as has been verified, there will be a very similar degree of fatigue.

With the two sports training factors described, the effort made by the subject has been defined, since its product gives rise to the IE. Index that presents a high validity as an indicator of the fatigue generated by the training.

Unfortunately, if the programmer does not know the importance of the loss of speed in the series, the effect of the training will be produced with different efforts for each subject, unknown to the programmer. If the maximum number of repetitions in the series is programmed for all the subjects, the subjects will train with different intensities in most cases, but the influence of the loss of speed in the series will be present as a “factor” of the training effect. and it will be responsible, to a large extent, together with the speed of the first repetition, of the training effect.

Naturally, the programmer will not have information about what load could have produced the effects of his training, but whatever they are and whatever the reference for programming the repetitions in the series, the effect will depend on the loss of speed in the series, and , more properly, of IE.

3/3 Sports training factors: Exercise in question.

Justification:

Each exercise has a different speed for each percentage loss of speed in the series (González-Badillo, 2000). This is because the speed with each percentage depends on the speed with which the RM is reached, which is different for each exercise (González-Badillo, 2000).

This own speed determines the characteristics of the exercise in relation to the loads and frequencies that can be used. It is reasonable to think that doing a full squat exercise does not produce the same degree of fatigue as an arm push exercise. In addition, the speed of the RM means that some exercises can be trained with higher relative intensities than others.

A clear example is the comparison of the squat and the power clean. Certain athletes would not need, and should not, do a full squat with loads greater than 80% of the RM even at the end of their sporting life, even with extensive experience in strength training.

However, these same athletes can train with intensities of 75-80% of the RM in a clean force almost from the first day of training, once they have learned a fairly acceptable technique, and later they could reach intensities of 85 and even 90% of the RM in the exercise, if the technique was good.

Also, a clean workout can be done any time close to competition, and is highly unlikely to interfere with specific performance: it could be done up to a few minutes before some competitions.

These different possibilities of the exercises are related to the speed of the respective RM. A high speed of the RM acts as a “safety” of positive effect with minimal interference with any specific exercise.

In this case, the problem would come from not knowing that the speed of the RM is determinant of the characteristics of the exercises. This lack of knowledge can lead to the training being programmed with the same intensities, and even with the same repetitions per series, with exercises with very different speeds typical of RM, which can lead to proposing excessive intensities in some exercises or useless intensities. in others.

Fatigue in different types of efforts can be characterized and measured in different ways depending on the duration and intensity of the efforts. In this entry we analyze the various factors that cause fatigue according to the duration of the effort.

In this series of articles we deal with some of the most important concepts of strength training, collecting notes from the recently published book Strength, Speed ​​and Physical and Sports Performance written by renowned researchers Juan José González Badillo and Juan Ribas Serna.

SUMMARY

• In short efforts the performance is highly dependent on the oxygen consumption capacity of the subject (VO 2max)
• In efforts of up to 30 minutes, the lactate threshold point (anaerobic) is decisive.
• In efforts that last more than an hour, fatigue is highly associated with the depletion of muscle glycogen stores.
• A good metabolic indicator of stress caused by exertion is the blood lactate concentration.
• The loss of execution speed is a faithful reflection of the fatigue state of the subject.

short duration efforts

From efforts as short as 100 meters of sprint (10-12 s) there are already losses of speed (decrease in performance) involuntarily, which is an indicator that during the test there is a phase in which it manifests itself. fatigue as a loss of capacity to produce force in the unit of time.

The causes of fatigue in this type of effort are multiple, but of all of them the decrease in availability is probably the most important. Considerable increases in the plasmatic concentration of hypoxanthine, ammonia and uric acid have been observed in this type of effort. These results indicate that there have been difficulties in synthesizing ATP via ADP + CP and that energy production has been resorted to through the ADP + ADP = ATP + AMP reaction. This indicates that you there has been significant metabolic stress in the muscle cell, which can be associated with injury to said cell, and the loss of purines that can negatively influence the phosphagen reserves of the muscle, which has repercussions in the reduction of the muscle’s capacity to produce energy quickly in the following days.

Metabolic stress on the muscle cell influences the muscle’s ability to produce energy on successive days.

It does not appear that acidosis is a determining factor in these cases. In addition to what has been indicated, this fatigue is associated with a decrease in the activation of motor units in the excitation-activation process and an increase in Pi and ADP. In other short efforts such as throws, jumps, Olympic lifts and the like, fatigue is related to the same mechanisms, but with less influence from metabolic factors. If the efforts are somewhat longer (15-40 s), the participation of the phosphagen pathway to provide energy is coupled in a very important and decisive way with the ability to rapidly provide energy through the anaerobic glycolytic pathway. For this reason, in this type of effort, all the factors responsible for fatigue in the previous type of effort are present and increased, plus those derived from a drop in pH.

Therefore, it is likely that the concentration of metabolites, the alteration of calcium transport (excessive accumulation of myoplasmic calcium), the accumulation of Pi and the excess of extracellular potassium are also present as responsible for fatigue in this type of effort. The same causes of fatigue occur in efforts that last about a minute, but the fundamental difference is in a greater influence of the pH reduction, which practically reaches its maximum in efforts of this duration. High acidity, in addition to the previously described effects on the cross-bridge cycle, acts on cionide channels (which mainly govern membrane excitability), depolarizing the membrane and leading to the inactivation of sodium channels, essential for the generation of action potentials, at the end of the effort.

In this situation, the hydrogen ions themselves act by priming the working speed of the mitochondria, shifting the burden of maintaining the energy supply to the mitochondrial aerobic pathway. Given the low rate of ATP generation from the mitochondria compared to the anaerobic glycolytic pathway, the rate is clearly reduced at the end of the effort. These same causes could be applied to efforts that last up to three minutes, with a greater dependence on the ability to provide energy aerobically.

long-lasting efforts

When the efforts last between 5 and 10 minutes, performance is highly dependent on the subject’s oxygen consumption capacity (VO 2max), but there is also significant phosphagen depletion and high acidity. Therefore, in this type of effort, fatigue may depend in part on the processes related to phosphagen depletion, and to a large extent on the ability to produce energy aerobically (power and maximum aerobic capacity), but also on the power and anaerobic capacity and problems related to the reduction of pH.

In efforts of up to 30 minutes, the lactate threshold point (anaerobic) is decisive.

In efforts that last up to approximately 30 minutes, the aerobic power of the subject is still very important, but the speed at the lactate threshold point (called anaerobic) seems to be more decisive. Therefore, fatigue may be closely related to the ability to capture, transport, and use oxygen for the oxidation of glucose by the aerobic route, but especially to speed or power in conditions of suprathreshold lactatemia. In the final sprint of some tests, the depletion of muscle CP reserves or excessive muscle acidity may influence. Another factor that may be related to fatigue is high body temperature, although this would be more relevant after one hour of effort.

In efforts that last more than an hour, fatigue is highly associated with the depletion of muscle glycogen stores., and, therefore, although all the factors indicated for the previous efforts are present to some extent, the availability of glycogen stores could be a factor causing the fatigue of this exercise. In addition, glycogen depletion is associated with fatigue as it may cause decreased calcium release from the sarcoplasmic reticulum and consequent effect on muscle activation, although the link to low glycogen is uncertain. with failure of calcium release (Allen et al., 2008).

In efforts that last more than an hour, fatigue is related to the depletion of glycogen stores.

Other factors such as an excess of ammonium, an increase in muscle Mg concentration, an excessive increase in body temperature or an insufficient capacity to use lipids to produce energy could also be the cause of fatigue in this type of effort.

Efforts to overcome external loads

As we have indicated when discussing the concept of fatigue, in addition to a decrease in force production, another aspect of muscle performance such as speed of shortening is also an indicator of fatigue (Allen et al., 2008; Edman, 1992). If we take into account that the loss of speed before the same load is a direct consequence of the reduction of the force applied to said load, we must admit that the loss of speed is a faithful reflection of the state of fatigue of the subject.

It is evident that when a subject is visually perceived to be “tired” (fatigued), we detect it by the loss of execution speed, whatever the activity the subject performs: displacing an external load or displacing his own body. Speed ​​also has an advantage over force as an indicator and quantifier of fatigue, and that is that it can be measured more easily and accurately than force, and also in competition and training gestures or actions.

The loss of speed in efforts to overcome external loads is a faithful reflection of the state of fatigue.

Therefore, when a gesture has to be performed at the maximum speed possible, knowledge of the loss of speed may be the best procedure to determine the degree of fatigue in which the subject is found during and after the effort. These reasonings lead us to propose that when training is carried out through the displacement of external loads, the loss of speed in the series is an accurate indicator of the fatigue (and the load) that carrying out the exercise supposes for the subject.

Given this premise, the validation of the loss of speed in the series as an indicator of fatigue is achieved if there is a high relationship between this loss of speed during and at the end of the effort, and the reduction in contractile capacity, which could be quantified. also through the loss of speed with respect to the speed reached when displacing the same load prior to the fatiguing effort. Specifically, as mechanical indicators we can use two exercises:

1) the loss of speed before the same load, which in our case is the maximum load that can be moved approximately 1 m*s-1, and

2) the loss of jump height (which is really also a loss of speed) after the effort.

To this main validation, the relationship with indicators of the degree of stress caused by the effort could be added, which could contribute to a better knowledge of the type of effort made and the possibility of replacing the measure of certain metabolites by the loss of speed (concurrent validity ). As metabolic indicators we consider the changes in the concentration of lactate and ammonium. Indeed, a good metabolic indicator of stress caused by exertion is the concentration of lactate in the blood.

Lactate production is related to the difference between the motor command of the central nervous system and the actual mechanical execution of the muscle. The greater the difference between what is commanded by the central nervous system and what is executed by the muscle, the greater the lactate production will be. In addition, lactate production, far from being detrimental to the functioning of muscle fibers, is actually an essential component to improve muscle fiber excitability by blocking chloride channels (Ribas, 2010; González-Badillo and Ribas, 2002). As shown later, the relationship between the lactate concentration and the loss of speed of movements executed at maximum speed is excellent, such that the greater the loss of speed, the greater the production of lactate by the muscle fibers (Sánchez -Medina and González-Badillo, 2011; Rodríguez-Rosell et al., 2018).

Before making decisions about how to structure the training it is necessary to know the factors for training personalization.

In this series of articles we deal with some of the most important concepts of strength training, collecting notes from the recently published book Strength, Speed ​​and Physical and Sports Performance written by renowned researchers Juan José González Badillo and Juan Ribas Serna.

SUMMARY

• The factors for the personalization of the training are the strength needs of the sport for which it is trained and the physical condition of the subject.
• The minimum necessary components to program a training would be the number of cycles of the season, the exercises to train, determine the intensities of the training and estimate the volumes.

These factors are mainly two:

1. The fitness demands of the sport in relation to strength. This implies that previously a study must be made of the characteristics of the sport in general and especially of the importance that strength can have in improving the results and its relationship with the other capacities that contribute to the improvement of specific performance. .
2. Evaluate the physical condition of the subject. To program training it is not enough to know the strength needs in a specific sport. There is no single solution to the same requirement. Given the same objective, the training can be different depending on the characteristics and training status of the subject to whom the training is to be applied. Therefore, only after knowing the demands and needs of the subject, will you be in a position to design a program in a rational way.

The demands of the specific sport and the physical condition of the subject are the main factors for training personalization.

It could be said that there are no “trainings” but “trainable subjects”. The training in itself does not make sense if it is not for its application to specific, individual and different subjects who pursue the same objective: to improve their performance in a sport or their physical condition. The need to individualize training is implicit here. Once these two premises are known, the training will be organized respecting both the demands of the sport and the needs of each subject.

Although this information is the base of any decision, to define and quantify the specific training variables it is necessary to have the answer to a series of questions that determine the characteristics of the stimuli to be programmed. These questions are the following:

• How many complete cycles of strength training will be performed in the season and to what extent each?
• What are the exercises to use?
• What are the training intensities to use?
• What is the volume to reach?

Minimum steps to follow before starting a programming:

1. Determine the total number of training cycles in the season. To determine the total number of cycles, the number and temporal location of important competitions should be taken as a reference, but fundamentally adaptation times must be respected, which are what determine the length of the training cycles for strength improvement. .
2. Select the exercises to use. The selection of exercises depends on the characteristics of the sports, but the composition of the basic list of exercises is common to all, and should include some specific strength exercises, three or four non-specific but useful exercises, among which are generally You will find complex exercises and exercises to improve leg strength, and a few complementary exercises, of a more localized nature.
   

   

3. Determine the maximum training intensities, understood as an expression of the programmed effort. This can be done in three ways:
   • Through the percentages of 1RM, which must be understood as the expression of the real programmed effort. That they conform to the actual programmed effort could only be achieved by controlling the speed of the first repetition in the series.
   • Through the number of repetitions per series and its character of effort (CE).
   • And especially and preferably because of the speed with which the absolute load can be moved. In this sense, the CE will be defined in the most precise way by the speed of the first repetition and by the loss of speed in the series.
     

     The expression of the real effort programmed by 1RM could only be achieved by controlling the speed of the first repetition in the series.

4. Estimate the volume. Disregarding and assuming that the number of repetitions, as an indicator of volume, should not be programmed, and that, therefore, what we should take into account and program is the loss of speed in the series, To have an approximate estimate of the evolution of the volume, the frequency of training per week and the number of exercises per training can be taken as a reference..

Factors for personalization of training Factors for personalization of training Factors for personalization of training

Especially when talking about time under tension (TBT), the speed of execution in voluntary strength training can have a differentiating effect within the ways of performing the training. The usual proposal to perform the movement slowly “to increase TBT and further improve strength” does not seem to fit the reality.

In this series of articles we deal with some of the most important concepts of strength training, collecting notes from the recently published book Strength, Speed ​​and Physical and Sports Performance written by renowned researchers Juan José González Badillo and Juan Ribas Serna.

SUMMARY

• Training at very low speeds does not seem to be the most positive for improving strength and hypertrophy.
• The higher the speed, the lower the peak force can be reached, but the higher stimulus frequency is necessary to achieve it.
• The execution of the movements at the maximum speed possible allows a greater recruitment of fast fibers, the improvement of the stimulus frequency and the possibility of reaching a greater slope in the force-time curve.

The way to address the problem of the effectiveness of moving loads at the maximum possible speed or more slowly has not always been the most appropriate, which has given rise to contradictory results.

On some occasions, relative loads of different magnitude are compared, which, if they were always moved at the maximum speed possible, the absolute speeds would necessarily be different, so that what is really compared is not the speed of execution, but, in the best case, the relative intensity.

what is really compared is not the speed of execution, but, in the best of cases, the relative intensity

In most cases, training is performed until exhaustion (muscular failure), which necessarily leads to a large proportion of the repetitions being “performed at very low speed, so the average speed of the group that performs the repetitions at the maximum possible speed is very close to that corresponding to the group that performs the repetitions at the slowest speed, and even both groups will perform many of the repetitions at the same speed, since the last repetition is necessarily done at the speed typical of the RM of the corresponding exercise (Sánchez-Medina and and González-Badillo, 2011; González-Badillo et al., 2017) and the last 2-3 repetitions prior to failure would also be done at a very low speed and similar for both groups .

The final result is that there would hardly be any differences between the two groups, so there is not a sufficient maximization of the variance and the results would tend to be practically the same.

Another important problem is that when attempting to compare execution speeds, in many cases neither of the two groups performs the movement at the maximum speed possible, which means that the conditions to verify the true effect of speed do not exist, because at speeds Intermediate conditions do not exist for the “maximum speed” possible execution (force production in unit time, recruitment of fast fibers, lowering of the activation threshold…) What is usually done is to mark some times of execution, not the minimum possible, for the eccentric and concentric phases.

In line with the above, new problems are added to the aforementioned problems. Only if the loads are light or medium and few repetitions are made in the series, it is possible to maintain a certain movement speed constant, as long as this is not the maximum possible.

When trying to compare the execution speeds, in many cases neither of the two groups performs the movement at the maximum possible speed

But if you get to the muscle failure, as usual, it is not possible to maintain the same intermediate speed during all the repetitions, because as just indicated, you will always finish at the lowest possible speed in the exercise in question, regardless of what the speed was. initial velocity. As a consequence, neither the maximum speed is compared with other lower speed values ​​nor are certain intermediate speed values ​​maintained, always very close to the mean speeds of the different groups.

To give an example, one can analyze the study by Munn et al. (2005), published in MSSE and widely cited in issues related to the effect of execution speed. Four groups were formed, two “fast” and two “slow”, which performed elbow flexion with a load of 6-8RM. The two “fast” groups did 1 or 3 series at a pace of 1 s in the eccentric phase and another in the concentric phase, and the two “slow” groups also did 1 or 3 series at 3 s each phase. Recovery between sets was 2 minutes.

It is said in the study that the goal was to complete sets of 6-8RM with a load equivalent to 80% of 1RM. The first problem that we face is to know how to determine in each session the load that allows us to do the same repetitions with the same percentage with such different speeds of execution. Secondly, it is impossible to maintain the planned speeds if muscular failure is reached, because for this, all the groups would have to do their repetitions at the speed of the RM of the elbow flexion exercise, something that, obviously, is not possible. has done (nor would it make sense to do so, because it would mean overriding the layout).

In addition to the above, in no case has the movement been made at the maximum speed possible, which practically makes any design that tries to assess the effect of execution speed lose all validity, since this level —maximum speed— of the The independent variable “speed” must always be present if you want to investigate the effect of execution speed.

This is so because the effect of any velocity value would always have to be compared with the effect of the “maximum possible velocity” value. This would make it possible to check if any non-maximum speed value is greater than the maximum speed or not, and if, hypothetically, there was or was not a curvilinear, or linear, relationship between execution speed and performance.

But comparing non-maximal speed values ​​to each other without including “maximum speed” is meaningless, except that for some, “you should never train at the maximum speed possible”, which seems quite far from the truth. If the results of this study are analyzed, it is indicated that a series at high speed (1 s in each phase) is superior to doing a series at low speed (3 s in each phase) but that doing three series at 1 s compared to 3 s does not present significant differences between them.

In addition, it is indicated that doing 3 series has a greater effect than 1 series at both speeds. It is recommended that “if a series is done, it should be done at high speed (it would only be valid for a time of 1 s in elbow flexion) and that if 3 series are done it is indifferent to doing it at one speed or another”. The conclusions and practical applications are, to say the least, strange: why does a series performed at high speed produce a greater strength gain than a series at low speed and when doing three series there are no differences?

The design problems that have been commented could be at the base of some contradictory and unexplained results. Only two probable explanations are pointed out, which are not given in the text of the study:

1) the probability that the necessary progressive similarity in the speed of execution of all the groups when performing the exercises until failure has caused the greater equality in the stimulus at the end of three series than having done only one series,

2) the probability that only 2 minutes of recovery between series is a very short recovery time and could have caused greater fatigue in the “fast” group than in the slow group, since at a higher speed of execution for the same number of repetitions , the greater the fatigue (González-Badillo et al, 2014; Pareja-Blanco et al., 2014), which could have canceled out the probable greater effect produced by execution at higher speed. A 4-5 minute recovery after efforts to failure (if they were real) would most likely have modified the effects.

The probability that carrying out movements at the maximum possible speed is more harmful for physical and sporting performance than doing them at non-maximum speeds can be explained by the numerous advantages that are observed when actions are carried out at the maximum possible speed.

It has been observed that performing exercises at very high speed, high concentrations of testosterone are reached (Crewther et al., 2006). It has been proposed that this type of training could demand a high consumption of testosterone, so it is likely that a high absolute speed of execution has an effect on this hormone.

performing exercises at very high speed of execution in training, high concentrations of testosterone are reached

Indeed, the high effect on testosterone when performing exercises with light loads (30-50% of 1RM) (Crewther et al., 2006) can be explained by the fact that this hormone not only contributes to the development of fast fibers, Rather, it influences the functioning of these fibers when performing high-speed actions, such as jumping or sprinting (Viru 8 Viru, 2005).

The speed of execution could influence both the type of fibers recruited and the degree of metabolic stress. The greater speed of execution would allow the recruitment of fast fibers, and the slower speed could allow greater hypertrophy due to greater metabolic stress. However, for the same number of repetitions, not to failure, performing the movement at the maximum speed possible tends to generate greater fatigue and greater metabolic stress than doing it at 50% of maximum speed (Pareja-Blanco, Rodríguez-Rosell , Sánchez-Medina, Gorostiaga, González-Badillo, 2014), apart from offering better results in strength.

Training at very low speeds does not seem to be the most positive for improving strength and hypertrophy (Neils, Udermann, Brice, Winchester, McGuigan, 2005; Toigo 8 Boutellier, 2006).

Carrying out actions at the maximum speed possible generates rapid calcium release and withdrawal processes, which corresponds to a calcineurin (Cn) inhibition signal, which is considered a critical regulator in the calcium-derived signal cascade. to the genetic system for the expression of fast or slow fibers.

Specifically, Cn has been considered as an activator of slow fibers and an inhibitor of fast fibers (Chin et al., 1998). When the efforts are of short duration and intermittent, which require rapid and high release of calcium and rapid withdrawal of the same, the activity of Cn is inhibited and fast fibers are expressed, which are determinant for performing actions at high speed, which characterizes to most sports disciplines.

When displacing a load at the maximum possible speed, the stimulus frequency reaches its maximum values, which plays an important role in the slope of the force-velocity curve or RFD. In fact, when faced with different loads (absolute or relative), the higher the speed, the lower the force peak can be reached, but the greater frequency of stimulation is necessary to achieve it (de Hann, 1998).

In addition, the greater the slope of the force-time curve, the more the force threshold for recruiting MUs is reduced (until reaching the zero value of force) and the greater the number of MUs recruited (Desmedt and Godaux 1977). According to Desmedt and Godaux (1979), this could be applied to high speed concentric actions such as throws and jumps and when moving a load at the highest possible speed.

In addition to promoting faster motor unit recruitment, high-velocity training allows for more frequent double unloading (doublets) and an increase in the motor unit unloading rate, improving force production in unit time (Van Cutsem et al., 1998), which may be the basis of a greater improvement in performance when training at the maximum possible speed.

Executing the movements at the maximum speed possible allows a greater recruitment of fast fibers, improvement of the stimulus frequency and the possibility of reaching a greater slope in the force-time curve.

Therefore, the execution of the movements at the maximum possible speed allows a greater recruitment of fast twitches, the improvement of the stimulus frequency and the possibility of reaching a greater slope in the force-time curve, all of which is decisive in performance. sports in general, and especially when it is necessary to carry out actions at high speed values ​​or at the maximum possible speed.

In the article on training to muscular failure The design and results of two studies on TBT, one with the bench press exercise (González-Badillo et al., 2014) and the other with the squat (Pareja-Blanco et al. 2014), have been described in which actually compares the effect of performing all the repetitions at the maximum possible speed or doing it at half that speed.

In this article, the importance of the execution speed of the first repetition for the dosage, control and evaluation of strength training is exposed in an orderly manner in order to give the opportunity to become aware of the repercussion of the appropriate application of this variable in the development of everything related to strength training.

In this series of articles we deal with some of the most important concepts of strength training, collecting notes from the recently published book Strength, Speed ​​and Physical and Sports Performance written by renowned researchers Juan José González Badillo and Juan Ribas Serna.

SUMMARY

• Speed ​​control comes to overcome the series of inconveniences presented by the use of RM and XRM or nRM in the dosage of training and in the evaluation of its effect.
• It has been confirmed that each percentage of 1RM has its own speed for each exercise. This speed is very stable for the same person when their performance changes, and very similar between people, even when the level of performance between people is very different.
• If the average or average maximum propulsive velocity with which a mass displaces can be measured, by applying these equations we can obtain the percentage of the RM that said mass represents.
• The speed of the first repetition of the series serves to determine with what relative load the subject is training, as well as to determine what has been, and continues to be, the effect of training each day, what has been the evolution of the maximum intensity used every day, and what has been the pre-post training effect…
• The speed with each percentage is very similar between people with a very different level of performance.

Indeed, faced with all these inconveniences, it is necessary to find an appropriate solution. If the training schedule is nothing more than the expression of a series or ordered succession of efforts that are dependent on each other, and the effort is the actual degree of demand in relation to the current possibilities of the subject, which represents the nature of the effort, the appropriate solution will be to be able to measure with high precision the character of the effort. This is achieved if it is known:

• The Degree of Effort that represents the first repetition of a series.
• The Degree of Effort that represents the loss of speed within the series.

This article will deal with these two factors as key elements of the quantification, dosage, control and evaluation of the training load and its effects.

The speed with each percentage of the RM and its stability. Degree of Effort that represents the first repetition of a series

A few years ago Professor González-Badillo wrote: “if we could measure the maximum speed of movements every day and with immediate information, this would possibly be the best point of reference to know if the weight is adequate or not”… ” You could also record the maximum speed reached by each lifter with each percentage, and based on this, assess the effort” (González Badillo, 1991, p. 172). Currently, it can be affirmed that these hypotheses-proposals have been confirmed.

In the year 2000 these authors presented the first data in relation to speed with each percentage (González-Badillo, 2000). Subsequently it has been confirmed that each percentage of 1RM has its own speed. This speed is very stable for the same person when their performance changes, and very similar between people, even when the level of performance between people is very different (González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010).

Therefore, throughout the approach to the application that has the knowledge of the speed of the first repetition under an absolute load, it is assumed that, although the value of 1RM can change between different days, the speed at which that each percentage of the MRI is performed is very stable.

For example, in the bench press exercise, whenever a well-executed progressive test is carried out until reaching RM and we verify the relationship between the percentages represented by the different displaced masses and the speeds at which they have been displaced, we found a very high fit to a second degree polynomial trend curve.

This kind of high fit has occurred in all the well-performed tests that have been carried out by the authors in the last 25 years. It must be taken into account that the concentric phase in the bench press test must be performed after a brief pause (1-1.5 s) after the eccentric phase, with the support of the bar on the chest or on a support .

The concentric phase must be performed without countermovement and the speed of execution must be the maximum possible before each mass. One should start from low relative intensities, equivalent to 15-20% of the RM. A high value of the R2 allows estimating (applying the corresponding regression equations) the speed with any percentage of the RM with a very small error.

The relationship between the different percentages and their corresponding mean propulsive velocities in the bench press exercise is expressed in Figure 1. The series of points that resemble a line—that appear at 100% MR height, rounded by a red circle, are the MR velocity values ​​for each of the subjects. Naturally, there are subjects whose average MR speed is above average and others below average. it is not possible for all subjects to perform their one-repetition maximum at the same speed.

Figure 1. Relationship between the RM percentages and their corresponding mean propulsive velocities. The 1596 data from 176 subjects are practically within the De 95% interval, with an R2 of 0.98 and an estimation error of 0.06 (González-Badillo and Sánchez-Medina)

These differences in the speed of the RMs are responsible for the points going slightly above the mean line or below. That is, the speed of each percentage tends to depend on the speed with which the RM was reached. If with the data of figure 1 the average propulsive velocity (VMP) is considered as an independent variable, we obtain an R2= 0.981; an estimation error of 3.56% and the following regression equation %1RM = 8.4326 * VMP2 – 73.501 * VMP + 112.33, where VMP is the mean propulsive velocity.

If we took the VM speed as a reference, not the VMP, the data would be the following: R2 = 0.979; an estimation error of 3.77% and the equation: %1RM = 7.5786 VM2— 75.885 VM + 113.02, where VM is the average speed of the entire route.

These equations make it possible to estimate with considerable precision the percentage represented by any absolute load once the VMP or MV at which it has moved is known, provided that the speed of movement has been the maximum possible for the subject.

It is preferable to take the average propulsive speed as a reference, since it better represents the true performance of each subject, by eliminating from the measurement the braking phase that occurs when the loads are medium or light. But if the speed meter used does not register this speed value, the average speed can be used, but taking into account that the speeds with each percentage will be slightly lower under light and medium loads if MV is measured than if MP is measured.

If the average or average maximum propulsive velocity with which a mass displaces can be measured, by applying these equations we can obtain the percentage of the RM that said mass represents.

Once you know the percentage that a given mass represents, you can estimate the RM at any time without the need to measure it, although knowledge of the RM is not necessary to dose the training or to assess its effect. Unfortunately, there are many “studies” that have been devoted to estimating the RM in some exercises, when really the value of the RM, when talking about the training load, practically and totally loses its “bad” application if we handle it properly the information that the knowledge of the speed of execution offers us.

According to the regression equation shown in figure 1, the average propulsive velocity that would correspond to each percentage of the RM is presented in figure 2.

Figure 2. Mean propulsive velocity corresponding to each percentage of the RM in the bench press exercise (González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010)

It is very important to verify that the relationship between speed and load is stable, that is, if these values ​​remain very similar when the subjects change their performance, since this is the basis for applying the speed of the first repetition of the exercise. series for reference.

The speed of the first repetition of the series is used to determine with what relative load the subject is training., as well as to determine what has been, and continues to be, the effect of training each day, what has been the evolution of the maximum intensity used each day, and what has been the pre-post training effect…

The training effect is assessed by speed changes at the same absolute loads at any time, which can be before and after a training period or in each of the training sessions. All this constitutes part of the maximum and best information that a coach can have to know what he is doing and improve his training methodology.

The speed of the first repetition of the series is used to determine with what relative load the subject is training.

In this sense, a series of data are provided that serve as a reference to confirm that, indeed, the speed values ​​with each percentage are very stable, even if the performance of the subjects changes and even if the subjects are of a very different level of performance. . A first example of this stability is presented in figure 3, in which the results of two measurements of the speeds are compared with each percentage of the RM in the bench press exercise.

first study: analysis of velocity in the bench press exercise

The values ​​for the year 2010 are the same as those in Figure 2. These values, which were recorded in the years 2006-2007, were obtained with subjects other than the participants in the 2014 study, whose data were recorded in 2013-14, 6-7 years apart. It can be seen that the speed values ​​with each percentage are practically the same. These data help to confirm that the speed with each percentage remains stable, even though the data is obtained with completely different samples.

Figure 3. Velocity with each percentage of the RM in the bench press exercise in two different groups of subjects and several years apart in the recording of the data. It can be seen that the differences (upper part of the figure) in the speeds do not exceed 0.02 m-s-1. (Figure by Sánchez-Medina).

Continuing with the examples, in the study by González-Badillo and Sánchez-Medina (2010), carried out with the bench press, it was verified that after a training period of an average of six weeks, 56 subjects, who improved as averaged 9.3% of their RM on the bench press, they kept pretty much the same velocity with each percentage. These data allow us to confirm that not only each percentage of the RM has its own speed, but that this speed is very stable when the performance is modified.

Not only does each percentage of the RM have its own speed, but this speed is very stable when changing performance.

Table 1 shows the average speed values ​​with each percentage before and after the training of the 56 subjects. The maximum difference is 0.01 m*s-1. It should be noted that these subjects trained according to their criteria, without any instruction, which means that the training sessions must have had very different characteristics.

Tabla 1. Mean propulsive velocity and standard deviation with each percentage of the RM in the bench press in 56 subjects before (T1) and after (T2) a training period of 9 weeks on average (González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010).

From the individual data of these 56 subjects we can extract additional information that allows us to continue reinforcing the stability of the percentage-speed of execution relationship. Several representative cases are discussed below.

Figure 4 shows the data of one of the subjects, who was very expert in training the bench press exercise, and who clearly improved his 1RM: 14.8%. If we look at the figure of test 2, T2 (red line), apparently, the speeds with each percentage are lower than those of test 1, T1 (blue line). This would go against the hypothesis that holds, but these data are not comparable, so they really do not go against the hypothesis.

The explanation is in the speed with which each RM has been achieved. In T1 the velocity was 0.17 m*s-1, while in T2 it was 0.06 m*s-1 (both values ​​in the red circles at the bottom of the figure). These two RMs cannot be compared, because they have been achieved at clearly different speeds, and, therefore, their speeds with each percentage cannot be compared either: the lower the speed with which the RM is achieved, the lower the speed with each percentage.

If the difference between the speeds of the RMs is equal to 0.03 m*s-1, we can already begin to observe a tendency to be lower than the speeds corresponding to the RM reached at a lower speed, and if the differences are greater than 0.03 m*s-1, the two RMs should no longer be compared.

Figure 4. Evolution of speed with each percentage in a subject who exceeds his result by 14.8% but performs his RMs at very different speeds (see text for further explanation).

It must be taken into account that the fact that the two RMs should not be compared is not due to the fact that one of them is considered a “true” RM and the other is not, since both are within the velocities of the RM of this exercise, whose average value may be around 0.17-0.18 m*s-1 (González-Badillo, 2000; González-Badillo and Sánchez-Mediná 2010), but to the fact that there is a high difference between them .

However, despite the fact that in T1 the speed of T2 almost triples, the differences in speeds with each percentage do not exceed, in the worst case (low percentages), 5% of the RM since the difference in speed each 5% is 0.08-0.09 m*s-1, a difference that is not exceeded in any of the percentages calculated, from 30 (0.09 m*s-1 difference) up to 95%.

Conclusions of the first study

As a result of the analysis of this case, at least the following practical applications can be deduced:

1) MRIs whose measurement speeds are greater than 0.03 m*s-1 cannot be compared, although in extreme cases such as the one we are presenting, in which the speed of the MRI is tripled, the effects do not go beyond one difference of 5% of the MR for the same speed of the same subject,

RMs whose measurement speeds are greater than 0.03 m*s-1 cannot be compared,

2) given the high probability that two RM are measured at different speeds, it is not advisable to ever measure the RM (it can be estimated, if necessary for something, as we will see in another section) and

3) only by measuring the speed with which the MR is reached, it is possible to have the necessary information to avoid the errors made with high frequency when measuring this variable.

Here we have to remember that the true RM will never be known, but some RMs can be considered as “true” or representative of the true RM when measured at velocities of their corresponding RM values. The more the measured speed (always higher speeds) deviates from the MR values ​​of an exercise, the more “false” is the RM measurement. This, once again, can only be known if the speed with which the exercise is performed is measured.

The errors to which we refer in the practical application 3) refer to the fact that most of the changes, such as the improvement or worsening of the results observed when measuring 1RM, are false, because if a subject, for example (it is a case real), lifts 82 kg in T1 and 92 kg in T2, it can be concluded after doing the calculations, that the subject has improved his mark by 12%.

But if one takes into account that this subject did the MRI of T1 at 0.33 m*s-1 (real data) and that of T2 at 0.2 m*s-1, the conclusion is false, because if the subject could have done the MRI at T2 at 0.2 m*s-1, it could also have been done at a very similar speed (0.2 + 0.02 m*s-1) at T1.

This would mean that he could have lifted a weight greater than 82 kg, then the improvement has not been, by any means, 12%. As an example, and making a few small calculations, if we suppose that the T1 would have done it at the same speed as the T2, at 0.2 m*s-1, and taking into account that every 5% the speed change is 0.08 m*s-1, the subject in T1 would have lifted approximately 88 kg, 8% more, given that the difference between T1 and T2 is 0.13 m*s-1.

Therefore, the improvement would have been approximately 4-5%, far from the apparent 12%. This example shows one more of the important applications that measure the speed of my execution has, although this application is better not to use it, because the RM should never be measured.

second study

A new example is shown in Figure 5. This subject improved his result by 11.8% and the velocities with the MRI presented a small difference of 0.02 m*s-1. As can be seen, the velocities with each percentage remained practically stable, with a maximum difference of 0.02 m*s-1, that is, the equivalent of a maximum difference of 1.25% of the RM with respect to T1.

Also, in this case, the speed in all percentages tended to increase slightly, so it could be said that the subject slightly improved (because the change can only be very small) his strength deficit. This slight improvement in speed can be explained because the subject, after his experience in doing the tests, decided to train by performing each repetition at the maximum speed possible, when previously he did it slowly voluntarily.

Therefore, it is confirmed that despite a considerable improvement of almost 12% (in this case we can say that it is real), the speeds with each percentage remain stable.

Figure 5. Evolution of speed with each percentage in a subject who exceeds his result by 11.8% and performs his RMs at very similar speeds

Figure 6. Evolution of speed with each percentage in a subject who does not exceed his result and performs his RMs at very similar speeds

Figure 6 shows an example of a subject who did not improve his result and that the speeds with each percentage were practically the same in both tests, although T2 was performed at a speed of 0.03 m*s-1 higher than the from T1.

But, precisely, this small speed difference could explain, on the one hand, why the speeds in T2 are minimally higher (0.01-0.2 m*s-1), and on the other, that it really cannot be said that the subject It did not improve its performance at all, since it improved speed by 0.03 m*s-1 with the same load (110 kg). This assessment can only be done if the speed of execution is measured

Figure 7 shows the case of a subject who improved his RM by 7.9%, who performed his two RMs at the same speed, but the speed with each percentage up to 75% of the RM tended to decrease. This was the only case, out of 56, that departed from what we have been maintaining. But when consulting the subject about his way of training, he stated that he trained slowly voluntarily.

Training slowly voluntarily may tend to proportionally decrease performance with loads moving at high speed and thus increase the strength deficit under these loads.

This way of training may tend to proportionally decrease performance with loads that are moved at high speed and thus increase the strength deficit in the face of these loads. Despite this circumstance, it can be observed that the decrease in speed with light loads did not exceed 0.06 m*s-1, which means that, in the worst case, the maximum difference in speed with each percentage in T2 with respect to T1 it was equivalent to 3.7% of the OR.

Figure 7, Evolution of speed with each percentage in a subject who exceeds his result by 7.9% and performs his RMs at the same speed.

In Table 2, made up of two groups of data, with a total of 20 subjects (the first 20, by random order, in the list of 56 subjects who repeated the tests) we can see the speed at which they reached their RMs. in tests 1 and 2, the average speed of the percentages from 40 to 90% of the RM, the maximum and the minimum difference obtained in the set of these percentages and the change in performance.

It is observed that the average speed from 40 to 90% follows the same trend as the difference between the speeds of the RMs. Only in the cases of JG and PC subjects, the maximum difference in some percentage is equivalent to a 5% difference with respect to the RM.

It can be seen that there are 12 cases of improvements ranging from 8.3 to 21.23% with an average of 13.9%, in which the maximum difference in speed with the percentages from 40 to 90% is 0.05 m*s-1 in the two subjects mentioned above (JG and PC), one case with 0.04 m*s-1 (V) and the rest with 0.03 m*s-1 or less. This data set again reinforces the stability of the speed of each percentage, even if there are important changes in the performance of the RM.

Table 2 Velocity values ​​with the RM (vel_RM), average velocity of the velocities with the percentages between 40 and 90%, maximum (max_diff), and minimum (min_diff) velocity difference with each percentage between tests 1 and 2 and change in performance (Change_RM) of the first 20 subjects in the list of 56 who repeated the tests.

Table 3 shows the speeds with the RMs, mean speeds from 40 to 90% of the RMs, differences in the speed with the RM and the differences between the mean speeds with the set of percentages in two tests for the same subjects included in Table 2. Taking the set of data included in the yellow columns, it is possible to calculate the relationship between the differences in the speed of the MRI and the differences in the average speed of

Tabla 3. Speeds with the RMs (Ve_1RM), mean speeds of the percentages from 40 to 90% of the RMs (Vel_mean_%), differences in speed with the RM (Dif_V_1RM) and the differences between the mean speeds with the set of percentages in the two tests (Dif_V_mean) of the same subjects included in Table 2.

Figure 8 shows the relationship between the differences in the speed with which the RMs were achieved (axis X) and the differences in the mean speed in the percentages of the RM from 40 to 90% (axis Y).

It can be seen that 12 of the 20 cases are found in the positive quadrants of the coordinate axes, which are the ones that correspond to the trend that indicates that the speed of the MRI determines the speed with each percentage, that is, the higher is the speed of the RM the greater the speed tends to be with each percentage.

There are three cases in which the velocities with the MRI were the same (points that coincide with the Y axis) and the velocities with the percentages changed minimally, between 0.03 and 0.02 m*s-1.

A case in which, having produced a decrease in the speed of the MRI in T2 by about 0.07 m*s-1, the average speed of the percentages was identical (point located on the X axis). This case can be considered as an example of a subject improving his strength deficit: although a lower MR speed should correspond to a slightly lower speed with each percentage, the subject maintained a speed.

There are two cases in the lower negative quadrant in which, having slightly increased the speed with the MR around 0.02 m*s-1, the speed with the percentages decreased by 0.02 m*s-1, which suggests that it was produced a minimal increase in strength deficit.

Finally, there is a case in the upper negative quadrant in which a subject who performed his MRI speed at a slower speed (0.02 m*s-1) at T2 slightly increased speed with percentages (0, 01 m*s-1).

As can be deduced, the stability of the speed with each percentage is ratified. The changes are minimal and the trend between the speed with the RM and the speed with each percentage is fulfilled in a remarkable way.

Figure 8. Relationship between the differences in the speed with which the RMs were achieved (axis X) and the differences in the mean speed in the percentages of the RM from 40 to 90% (axis Y).

It must be taken into account that the subjects cannot behave like perfect “machines”, but that they respond in a way that is not exactly the same before a series of progressive loads when trying to perform a 1RM test. This means that under absolute load the performance is not exactly the same as under the immediately higher absolute load.

That is to say, if a subject achieves a certain speed at an absolute load, not always at the load immediately above, which will represent a certain percentage increase, he will respond by reaching exactly the speed that would correspond to that percentage increase in load. This can cause the subject’s force or load-velocity curve to adjust more or less to his true performance capacity, giving rise to small deviations from the model that represents the population to which the subject belongs.

Does performance level affect speed?

To continue adding elements to confirm the stability of the speed with each percentage, it could be assessed whether the speed with each percentage is similar or not between people with different levels of performance.

From the results of the study it can be deduced that, indeed, the speed with each percentage is very similar between people with a very different level of performance. By dividing the group of 176 cases into four groups based on their relative MR (RM * body weight-1), the mean speeds from 30 to 95% of the RM were 0.76, 0.77, 0.77 and 0.73 m*s- 1 (table 4), in this order, from the group with the lowest performance to the most expert group, respectively.

Therefore, the average speed is almost the same despite the performance increase considerably. Consider that the subjects with the lowest performance did not get to lift a weight equivalent to their own body weight in the bench press, while some of the most expert subjects came to lift twice their body weight or approached this mark.

Less performing subjects failed to bench press their own body weight, while some of the most experienced subjects lifted twice their body weight

Only the highly expert group, the one with the highest performance, experienced a minimal statistically significant average reduction in speed with each percentage compared to the others. However, a tendency to decrease speed is not even observed as performance increases, since the second group with the lowest average speed is that of the less expert subjects (0.76 m*s-1).

In addition, the statistical differences in this case are not relevant in practice, since the absolute difference between the most expert group and the least experienced group is not even 0.03 m*s-1 (specifically, 0.027 m*s- 1), which would be equivalent to a -1.69% difference in the RM percentages between the two for the same speed.

Tabla 4. Relative strength (relative strength), mean speed with percentages from 30 to 95% of the RM (mean test velocity) and speed with the RM (V1RM) of four groups of cases (subgroup) formed according to their performance.

However, if these results are analyzed in greater depth, it is concluded that these differences are not real. Responding to the question formulated in the lower part of Table 4, the apparent lower speed with each percentage of the most expert group is due to the fact that the average speed with which the components of this group reach their RM is slightly less than that of the others (0.045 m*s-1 with respect to the group with the lowest performance, and 0.019 and 0.014 m*s-1 for the other two groups).

This fact causes that, necessarily, the speed with each percentage tends to be lower, which comes to ratify, once again, what has already been revealed previously. Thus, the slight decrease in speed with each percentage of the top performing group in the bench press exercise is due to the tendency to decrease speed with RM in extremely expert subjects.

It is reasonable to accept that these subjects are able to make the most of their own strength potential, because they have more confidence in their possibilities and better technique when executing the exercise. It should be noted that, given the characteristics of the subjects in this study, the generalization of these data leads us to be able to apply them to the entire population, since in the group there are subjects who lift from less than 90% of their body weight up to subjects lifting twice their body weight.

This means that any young person practicing any sport or simply using strength training can be included here. Therefore, this is one of the few exercises that would really allow us to assess our strength-speed “profile”.

If we execute the exercise well, we will be able to know to what extent our performance in this exercise is in the average of the population in terms of speed with each percentage, if it is slightly above or if it is slightly below, or even if it is below. above or below in some areas and not in others of the force-velocity curve or not.

However, to make these assessments, one must also take into account the speed at which MR is reached. But the stability in the relationship between the percentages of the RM and their corresponding speeds also occurs in any exercise in which the measurements have been made well.

Table 5 shows the data corresponding to the complete squat exercise. The group consisted of 80 subjects. The differences in performance are important, from 93 to 126 kg on average, with coefficients of variation from 12 to 18%, and some subjects lifting more than twice their body weight (1.57 to 2.17 range in the highest performing group).

Therefore, we can admit that it is a sample that includes a range of performance in which a wide population of athletes can be found.

the average speed of all the percentages is practically the same

However, the mean speed of the set of percentages (mean test velocity) is practically the same (0.873, 0.867 and 0.865 m*s-1) The speeds with the percentage examples included in the table are practically the same in the three groups , existing between 0.01 and 0.02 m*s-1 as a maximum difference. The MRI speed of each group is practically the same as that of the others, and the same as that indicated in the year 2000 (González-Badillo, 2000). No significant difference is observed in any of these speed values.

Tabla 5. Comparison of the mean speeds of the tests with percentages from 30 to 95% of RM (mean test velocity), mean propulsive velocity with different percentages (MPV), mean propulsive velocity with RM (MPV with 1RM) in three groups formed based on their vative performance with respect to body weight (RSR) in the full squat test. The effect size is represented by the “eta” statistic (effect size n2) (Sánchez-Medina et al., 2017).

Therefore, In an exercise as different from the bench press as the squat, the stability of the speed is confirmed with each percentage, although the performance of the subjects is very different. It has been indicated that the speed with each percentage is dependent on the speed with which RM is reached. This tendency has been verified when analyzing the different examples of performance with the bench press exercise.

Although this tendency not only occurs in the same exercise when the speed of the RM changes due to its faulty measurement, but naturally also occurs between the different exercises, because each exercise has its own speed, and different from that of the others. , from his RM (González-Badillo, 2000).

In this article, published with data recorded in the 1990s, it was already commented that the speed with 40% of the RM of the bench press was 1.15 m*s-1, which differs in only two hundredths of a m*s-1 of the current data (1.13 m*s-1), and the squat had a speed of 0.93 m*s-1′ with 64.3% of the RM, practically the same speed that is currently proposed (0.92 m*s-1 with 95%. see table 6).

each exercise has its own speed, and different from the others

Likewise, it was confirmed that the speed with each percentage depended on the speed of the RM, because the snatch, with an average RM speed of 1.04, the speed of 1.15 m*s-1 was obtained with 91% of the RM, while, as we have indicated, this same speed of 1.15 m*s-1 with the bench press belonged to 40% of the RM, with a speed of his RM of 0.2 m* s-1. The same was the case with the power clean: 1.09 m*s-1 for 87% of the RM and a velocity of his RM of 0.9 m*s-1.

The fact that the speed with each percentage depends on the speed of the RM is so evident that we can say that it is “truth”, although this does not prevent someone from occasionally questioning it.

It is evident that if the speed of the RM of an exercise is, for example, 0.2 m*s-1, the speed of 95% of the RM of that exercise should be approximately 0.26-0.28 m *s-1, and 90% should be 0.32-0.34 m*s-1 and so on, but if the RM speed of the exercise is 1 m*s-1, 95% of the MRI will have to be a few hundredths of a meter per second faster, for example, 1.08-09 m*s-1, more or less, but always very far from 0.26-0.28 m*s- 1 of the exercise whose MRI velocity was 0.2 m*s-1.

Naturally, this is confirmed when the speeds of different well-measured exercises are compared with different speeds of their own RMs.

Table 6 shows the speed data with each percentage corresponding to four very common exercises in strength training (bench press: González-Badillo and Sánchez-Medina, 2010; pull-ups: Sánchez-Moreno et al., 2017; squat : Sánchez-Medina et al., 2017; rowing table: Sánchez-Medina et al., 2014).

Tabla 15.6. Speed ​​with each percentage in the bench press, pull-ups, squats and plank rows.

Table 6 shows that the speed values ​​of each percentage increase as the speeds of the RMs increase. The relationship between the speeds of the RMs and the average speed of all the percentages from 65% to 100% is almost perfect (r= 0.97; p < 0.05).

It is very relevant that with only 4 pairs of data the correlation is statistically significant. Therefore, it is confirmed that, indeed, the speed with each percentage is dependent on the speed of the RM of the exercise, as well as the differences in the speed of measurement of the RM when it is measured more than once within each exercise. .

As a synthesis of all the above, it is confirmed that training can be controlled through the speed of the first repetition in the series, provided that it is done at the maximum speed possible, and this is based on the fact that we can start from the assumption that if Although the value of 1RM can change between different days, the speed at which each percentage of the RM is performed is very stable.

It is confirmed that the training can be controlled through the speed of the first repetition in the series as long as it is done at the maximum possible speed.

Therefore, speed control can inform us with high precision about what real percentage or what effort is being made at each moment. Therefore the own speed of each percentage of 1RM determines the real effort. This means that the speed of the first repetition of a set determines the degree of effort that the load represents.

Thus, the training load (mass) can be determined by the speed of the first repetition. If this is so, what should be programmed is not the percentage of 1RM or an XRM, but the speed of execution of the first repetition of the series. Note: for convenience or to be more intuitive, it could be programmed by means of the RM percentages, but the absolute loads (masses) that correspond to those of the percentages would always be determined through the speed of the first repetition of the RM. series, not by the result of the arithmetic calculation of the percentage.

conclusions

From all of the above, it can be deduced that using the speed of execution as a reference to dose and control the training far exceeds what the percentage of 1Rm and XRM contributes. Therefore, the existence of a high stable relationship between speed and the different percentages of 1RM allows a series of applications such as those indicated below.

All the data that have been provided have been obtained and are applicable to men. For women, the corresponding speed values ​​have not yet been published, but laboratory data, in the publication phase, indicate that the speeds with each percentage are practically the same with women from a relative intensity of 45-50%, reducing approximately at 0.03, 0.04 and 0.06 m*s-1 with the intensities of 40, 35 and 30% of the MR, respectively.

the speeds with each percentage are practically the same with women

Knowing the speed of the first repetition (speed with each percentage) allows:

• Evaluate the strength of a subject without the need to perform a 1RM test or an XRM or nRM test at any time.
• Determine with high precision what real percentage the subject is using as soon as he performs, at the maximum speed possible, the first repetition with a determined absolute load.
• Estimate / measure the improvement or not in performance EVERY DAY without the need to perform any test, simply by measuring the speed with which an absolute load moves. If, for example, the difference in speed between 70 and 75% of the RM of a specific exercise is 0.08 m*s-1, when the subject increases the speed by 0.08m*s-1, with the same load absolute, there is a very high probability, almost 100% that the load with which you train represents 5% less intensity. Naturally, if what is produced is a loss of speed before the same absolute load (kg), we can be quite sure that the subject is below his previous performance, and in a proportion proportional to the loss of speed before the same load. absolute load.
• The measurement of the speed of the first repetition on a daily basis, just week before and after the training allows:
  • Know the degree and time of adaptation individually.
  • Discover the degree of disparity of the adaptive responses.
  • Check the effect of improving strength on other types of performance trained or not.

Regarding the speed of the MRI, it can be concluded that:

• The only way to be able to consider an MR as “true” or false is to measure the speed with which it is achieved.
• Two MR values ​​of the same subject cannot be compared if the values ​​of the speeds with which they have been measured are not the same or very similar.
• If the speeds at which the pre-post training RMs have been measured are different, with differences greater than or equal to 0.03 m*s-1, these RMs are not equivalent, so comparing the values ​​of the RMs (weights raised) pre-post training would lead to erroneous decisions, considering that there have been some changes in strength (in the MRI) that are not real.
• In addition, the speeds with each percentage would appear to be different, without meaning that they really are.

Regarding the assessment of the effect of training, it is concluded that:

• MRI is not necessary and should never be measured.
• The best procedure for assessing the training effect is to re-measure the speed reached at the same absolute loads that were measured in the initial test.
• This procedure is the most coherent and precise, since the effect of strength training is measured by the change in speed at the same absolute load or, as already indicated, the assessment of the training effect through changes in MR. , even in the not very probable assumption that the speeds with which the RMs are measured are the same or very similar, it would only inform us about the effect of the training before the maximum load (RM), but not before other lower loads

Other apps:

• Use strength training with all subjects, from children to the most advanced athletes or adults and older people who want to improve their health, without the need to do maximum effort tests (1RM, or XRM, for example) in any case.

The authors’ proposal, therefore, is that the mean propulsive velocity of the first repetition should always be used to program, dose and evaluate the training load and the performance of the subject.

To date, it has never been known, even approximately, what the relative intensity has been through the speed of execution and, therefore, what has been the intensity that has produced a certain effect.

In this series of articles we deal with some of the most important concepts of strength training, collecting notes from the recently published book Strength, Speed ​​and Physical and Sports Performance written by renowned researchers Juan José González Badillo and Juan Ribas Serna.

SUMMARY

• Knowing the execution speed of each subject allows us to know the real relative intensity (degree of effort) with which he trains as soon as he performs the first repetition of the series at the maximum possible speed.
• Knowing the execution speed of each subject also makes it possible to know the degree and time of adaptation, and to follow the evolution of performance individually.

If, for example, in a training cycle intensities between 60 and 80% of the RM have been programmed and the training has given good results, the immediate and most common conclusion is that these intensities (with a determined number of repetitions , about which we do not discuss at this time) are very suitable for the improvement of physical performance or for the improvement of strength (the conclusion would have been the same whatever the intensities would have been if the effect was good).

The problem is that, if performance has improved, the actual intensities used are very different from those programmed. This leads to permanent disorientation and prevents improving the training methodology.

Inputs from a single measure of speed at the beginning and end of the training cycle

It is true that measuring the speed in all the series and repetitions of a training program every day can be difficult, especially if it is a large group of participants. But the objective of knowing in a very approximate way the minimum and maximum intensity used in a training cycle can be achieved by measuring the speed with the appropriate loads before and after the training period.

Suppose that a training session of 3 sessions has been programmed with each of the following loads: 60, 65, 70, 75 and 80% of the initial estimated RM. Before beginning the training, the movement speed of a series of progressive loads is measured until reaching an intensity of approximately 80% of the RM of each subject. This 80% intensity is determined taking as a reference the speed with which the loads move, since each percentage has its own speed (González-Badillo and Sánchez-Medina 2010).

From here, the absolute loads (weights) with which they have to train throughout the cycle are calculated for each subject. These loads are calculated based on the indicated training percentages that you train throughout the entire cycle. These loads are calculated based on the training percentages listed above and the estimated individual RM. Each subject trains with the corresponding weights, and once all the training sessions are finished, the speed with which the same average absolute loads are moved in the initial test is measured again.

Let’s imagine that one of the participants has improved his estimated RM by 20% in the exercise with which he has been training, which is deduced from the improvement in speed that he has experienced with the loads in general, and especially with the maximum load that was measured in the initial test.

Faced with this situation, the question would be: what training intensities have produced an improvement of 20% in the exercise trained? The usual response would have been that the intensities were as programmed, from 60 to 80% of the MR.

But as it is easy to understand, this answer is not correct, because if the subject improved his RM by 20%, it means that at least the last training session was performed with approximately 20% less relative intensity than the programmed one, because it is reasonable to accept that the performance improvement demonstrated in the final test had already been achieved in the last session, 48 or 72 hours before said final test.

Therefore, the last real training intensity must have been approximately 20% lower than the programmed one, that is, 60% of the RM that he demonstrated to have 48-72 hours later in the final test. Therefore, it is very probable that the first intensities with 60% have been the only ones that the subject performed at the programmed intensity, since the rest of the training sessions have necessarily been performed at a lower intensity, since the improvement in performance is produces in a way progressive throughout the cycle and especially in the first two thirds of its duration.

knowledge of the true intensity that has produced a certain effect is of great importance for the assessment of the training effect and the degree of effort made

Therefore, as indicated, the training intensities were always very approximately the same, 60% of the RM. All of this allows us to suggest that the correct answer to the question formulated above is that the intensity that produced the 20% improvement in MR was the same relative intensity that was practically stable throughout the entire training period, 60% of the actual RM of the subject. in each session.

That is to say, the only progression of charges has occurred in absolute terms, not in relative terms. We understand that knowledge of the true intensities that have produced a certain effect is of great importance for the assessment of the training effect and the degree of effort made, and therefore, for the improvement of the training methodology.

Of course, none of this would have been possible without measuring the speeds at which the various absolute loads moved before and after the training. This example that has just been described occurs in practice, and is even published several times. For example, in a study carried out with soccer players with a mean age of 15 years, a six-week training session was applied to the squat exercise, with programmed intensities between 45% and 57-60% of RM. estimated before starting the training cycle (Franco-Márquez et al., 2015).

At the beginning and at the end of the training cycle, mean propulsive velocity (VMP) was measured at the same absolute loads, reaching in the initial test a maximum load that the subjects could move at an approximate VMP of 1m*s-1.

These loads are enough to dose the training load and later assess its effect. Once the load of 1 m*s-1 of each subject was known, the absolute loads with which they had to train in each session of the entire training period were programmed.

Athletes improved performance by an average of 29% of the estimated 1RM in the squat

Athletes improved performance by an average of 29% of the estimated 1RM in the squat. Given this improvement, when making the corresponding calculations, it turned out that the average intensity with which the subjects trained in the last session was 45% 1RM. This statement, as we have indicated in the previous example, is easy to explain: if the result is improved by 29% in a final test, it is reasonable to think that 3-4 days before performing this test the same result could have been achieved or a very similar one, maybe even something superior in some case.

Therefore, the relative intensity represented by the absolute load used in the last session would represent a lower percentage of the RM than had been programmed and inversely proportional to the improvement in performance that the subject had already achieved at the time of the last session. .

This means that if the players started training with a relative intensity of 45% of the estimated RM (something quite probable in all the players, since the first session took place 3-4 days after the initial test) and finished training in the last session at the same relative intensity, it is reasonable to accept that the intensity that produced that average improvement of 29% was a practically stable intensity of 45% 1RM.

Therefore, the simple fact of having measured the speed of execution under the same absolute loads only before and after training has allowed, among other applications, the following:

• Avoid performing a 1RM test before and after training.
• Assess the strength of the players with minimal effort.
• Check what real relative intensities had caused the training effect: something completely unknown until now in the history of training.
• Verify that, in many cases, it may be enough to maintain an adequate progression of the absolute load, even though the relative intensity is stable, and even tends to decrease.
• Show that it does not make sense to talk about “periodized training or not” (assuming that the term should be used at some point, which we do not believe is necessary), since the “ideal” is that the training “does not have to be periodized”, since maintaining the same relative intensity (“non-periodized training”) while the absolute training load increases This is clear proof that the effect of training is very positive. In addition, a wide range of Upper relative intensities is kept available and useful which may need to be applied at later stages.

Check what real relative intensities had caused the training effect: something completely unknown until now in the history of training.

But the applications that can be derived from two simple measurements of speed with light loads do not end here, but rather everything that we have described in the previous paragraphs has been able to be assessed individually in each of the players. Figure 1 presents the data on the maximum relative intensity with which each player trained in the last session.

The points that appear in figure 1 represent the maximum relative intensity with which each of the 20 players who participated in the study trained. The numbers indicated on the “X” axis only serve to name each player, so the order is random, and has no evaluative meaning. The red horizontal line at value 45 of the “Y” axis means the programmed minimum relative intensity, and the line at value 57 is the programmed maximum relative intensity.

Figure 1. Maximum intensity with which each player trained in the last session of the training period, estimated based on the change in performance obtained by each player (Franco-Márquez, et al., 2015).

It can be seen that 10 of the players ended up training with a relative intensity lower than the minimum programmed. This means that these 10 players trained in regression in terms of relative intensity. That is, despite the fact that the absolute load tended to rise throughout the training cycle, these subjects tended to train with less and less relative intensity (less effort).

Of all of them, the one who trained the least, that is, the one who made the least effort, was number 10, whose relative load in the last session was slightly above 35% of the RM. But from this it cannot be deduced that “the less you train, the more you improve”, because this subject has not improved more because he has trained less, but he has trained less because he has improved more. In other words, the cause-effect relationship is: if I improve more, I train less, and not if I train less, I improve more.

the cause-effect relationship is: if I improve more, I train less, and not if I train less, I improve more.

The sequence “if I improve more, I train less” should be considered as “a law” within the sports training methodology. The “I improve more…”, as a comparative expression that it is, can be applied in two ways. The first refers to improving more than what is represented in relative terms by the progression of the programmed absolute load to be moved: in this case, the speed at which the absolute load is moved is higher than that which would correspond to the programmed percentage that represents said absolute charge.

In these cases, the apparently most logical decision would be to increase the predicted absolute load so that it represents the percentage with which it was programmed to train, but, probably, the most effective and rational thing would be to maintain the predicted increase in absolute load, although programmed relative intensity will drop, that is, even if the subject trains less.

The second refers to the fact that a subject improves much more than the rest of those that make up the training group. In these cases -and this is not even apparent logic- the mistake of “training the one who improves the most” is frequently made, because if “he has more possibilities”, “if he is better”, “you have to train him more to obtain the maximum result..”

Considering that the decision in this case should be the opposite, the subject that improves more rapidly should train less, with less relative intensity, than the others: the greater the subject’s response to the same stimulus (it can be absolute or relative), the less stimulus should be applied to the subject. Although you should always try to maintain the progression of the absolute load.

the subject that improves more rapidly should train less, with less relative intensity, than the others: the greater the subject’s response to the same stimulus (it can be absolute or relative), the less stimulus should be applied to the subject.

Another 9 players that made up the group trained with more or less progression, but without reaching the maximum programmed relative progression, and only one trained with the maximum programmed relative intensity, player number 18, who naturally did not improve his performance at all. : if, in the face of a progressive increase in a series of absolute loads, you really train with the relative loads that these absolute loads represent, that is, if, under these conditions, you train with the programmed relative loads, it means that performance is not improved at all .

Conclusions derived from the use of speed to estimate the relative intensity

Therefore, in addition to what was previously indicated when talking about the derived applications when analyzing the results as a group, the measurement of speed only before and after training allows adding a series of new applications when the results are analyzed individually, such as following:

• Knowing what the minimum and maximum intensity at which each player actually trained was and, therefore, not only knowing what the average effect on the group was, but also the individual effect of the training and the load that caused it in each subject.
• Know specific data on the possible magnitude of the differences that can occur between subjects, with the same characteristics, who, theoretically, had to do the same training, reaching differences in relative intensity of up to 20%.
• Knowing the characteristics of the subjects as responders to training: differences in adaptation or response to training stimuli.
• Be aware of the need to consider the importance of training individualization: by nature, it is not possible to train a group of subjects with “the same training”.
• Understand that you can’t say that a given workout is the “best” either. So we could say that “there is no training, but subjects who train or trainable subjects”, because each subject can respond to the training load differently.
• Discover new approaches to reflect on the relationship between the burden and its effect in general terms and on each person individually.

Naturally, none of this had been possible up to now in the field of sports training. Only by properly controlling the speed of execution is it possible to incorporate all this information, which is decisive for improving the training methodology.

Contributions of the speed measurement at the beginning and at the end | of the training cycle and during all sessions

If the speed of the first repetition of each series can be measured in all the training sessions, we will have all the contributions that we have already commented on in the previous section, but with much more abundant, precise and efficient information. individualized of the effect of the training and the relative load with which each person has trained, which allows new contributions.

Although the previous procedure has given a lot of information, as it has been possible to verify, it has the deficiency that it is not known in detail what has happened during the training phase, between the first and the last measurement, and this can be important. Indeed, if the training is programmed in the same way as in the case described above, the measurement of the speed of the first repetition in each series allows us to know the real relative intensity with which each subject trains each day and therefore the change that is taking place in its performance, which is evaluated and valued by the speed changes under the same absolute loads.

This information can be translated into a estimate of the effect that training is having on the RM of the exercise with which you train, although, naturally, without the need to measure it directly. Therefore, far exceeding what we have already been able to know with the previous procedure, now it is possible to know what has been the evolution of intensity and performance during each session throughout the cycle.

Undoubtedly, this is the dream, or should be, of every person who is dedicated, not only to training usually called “strength training”, but to any other, especially when the objective is to improve physical performance. This information allows for a wide range of analyses.

For example, if two subjects have finished the training cycle with the same improvement in performance, it is logical to think that the training effect for both has been the same or very similar, and, moreover, on the same date. However, having been measuring their execution speed at each absolute load throughout the cycle, we have been able to know the evolution of the intensity and performance of each one of the subjects, which allows us to verify if, indeed, the training load and the The effect of training has evolved in parallel or not throughout the cycle.

This is important because it could be the case that one of the subjects had peaked one, two or three weeks before reaching the end of the cycle, his performance having subsequently declined, which is very different from having had, for example , a constant positive evolution throughout the cycle.

the times and degree of adaptation of the two subjects are different

This would be indicating two very relevant facts: the times and degree of adaptation of the two subjects are different. For this reason, the observation of the same performance for both at the end of the cycle is pure coincidence, since the effect of the training has been different in the degree of adaptation and in the moment in which it has been produced. This is a key issue when training an athlete, since one of the most important individual differences is precisely the adaptation time, understood in this case as the number of sessions for a certain load (synthesis of intensity-volume) necessary for a certain degree of positive adaptation to occur in a training cycle.

conclusions

From the above, the following can be concluded:

• The measurement of the speeds at which the absolute loads move before and after the completion of the training and during each session allows:
  • Assess the effect of individual training in each session: evolution of performance individually.
  • To know the real relative intensity (degree of effort) with which each subject trains as soon as he performs the first repetition of the series at the maximum possible speed.
  • Know the degree and time of adaptation individually.
  • Discover the degree of disparity in the adaptation responses between subjects that we normally consider to have the same characteristics when they perform the “same” training.
  • Justify the need to consider the importance of training individualization: by nature, it is not possible to train all the components of a group of subjects / athletes with “the same training”.
  • Quantify the degree of differentiation between subjects in relation to the intensity with which they train and the effect that said intensity produces on them.
  • Discover new approaches to reflect on the relationship between the burden and its effect in general terms and on each person individually.
  • Improve the training methodology, based on the contributions indicated in the previous points.

No one doubts the importance of speed measurement for precise control of training dosage and evaluation of its effect. But surely many have wondered, what do I do if I can’t measure the speed? (note: it is better not to measure it than to measure it wrong),

In this series of articles we deal with some of the most important concepts of strength training, collecting notes from the recently published book Strength, Speed ​​and Physical and Sports Performance written by renowned researchers Juan José González Badillo and Juan Ribas Serna.

SUMMARY

• If speed cannot be measured, the best procedure is to subjectively estimate it by observing the ease/difficulty of performing the movement.
• When you notice an increase in playability (increase in speed), you should increase the absolute load a bit and wait for the speed to increase again with this new load.
• You can also apply the procedure to check if the subject is in the average, above or below the population in terms of the number of repetitions can be done with each percentage of the RM.

The most direct answer to the question would be: “if you cannot measure the speed, estimate it subjectively by observing the ease / difficulty of the execution of the movement”. In the 1970s and 1980s this was already considered necessary and the best way to adjust the training load, and these ideas were subsequently published: “If you can’t measure speed accurately, you have to judge it subjectively: you have to Observe the fluidity of the movement, the coordination, the ease to fix the bar, to recover in the clean and in the snatch, the greater or lesser elevation of the bar, the speed / ease of take-off…” (González-Badillo, 1991).

if you can’t measure the speed, estimate it subjectively by observing the ease/difficulty of executing the movement

This is really the best way to supply the execution speed measurement as a reference. Naturally, in order to roughly estimate the relative load, that is to say, the displacement speed represented by a weight, it is necessary to have some experience.

The best thing to do is to start estimating speed from the first sessions, to remember how to do it you can consult this note which explains how you can start training the squat from the beginning of the training practice.

In this article it is indicated that the observation of the changes in the ease / speed of execution of the exercise has to be the reference to gradually increase the absolute load, without the need to measure the speed. Since we would start with a very light load, which can be moved very easily or with high absolute speed, maintaining this ease of execution or slightly less, while increasing the absolute load, can allow us to train for a long time with a guaranteed improvement in performance. performance.

The key points of training if speed cannot be measured are:

• That the execution difficulty increases slightly, although it should increase, and
• May the absolute load continue to grow.

The “image” of the difficulty / ease of execution (speed) must be recorded in the technician’s mind, to assess to what extent it evolves. The evolution must be one of continuous small changes: increases and decreases in speed, in accordance with the periodic incorporation of higher absolute loads.

The longer the same speed can be maintained or recovered in successive load increases, the more positive the training will be, although, necessarily, the speed will tend to be less each time, because the absolute load that is applied each time must represent an intensity somewhat higher, but the slower this increase can be in relative terms, the better.

In the same way, the greater the increase in absolute load could be for the same increase in relative load, the greater the performance improvement will have been. When it is observed that this procedure is not enough to improve the speed with the weights with which you train, you can think about adding some weight and training at a slightly lower speed, higher relative intensity, as the maximum load of the session.

If the moment arrives in which the subject has already improved his strength enough and it is considered that he should or would need, given the strength needs in his sport, that the training loads be medium or high, a new procedure could be introduced, such as It would be to estimate how many repetitions the subject can do with a certain load (weight). This estimation is not made by reaching the maximum number of repetitions possible in the series, but leaving, according to the observer’s estimation, between 2 and 6 repetitions to be done.

The greater the number of possible iterations that you want to estimate, the more iterations you can leave undone.

The procedure would be as follows. If, for example, you want to know what is the load with which the subject can do 12 repetitions, which would be equivalent, on average, to 65% of the RM in the squat, the subject starts doing 8 repetitions with a small load. If, once the signal is finished, the trainer observes that the subject could do many more than the 8 repetitions performed, which is what should happen, because the load must be initially small, after a rest (about 3 minutes), it goes up. load a little and repeat the series of 8 repetitions.

If it is observed that you could still do more than 12 repetitions, for example, 16-18 repetitions, after a rest the load is increased again. If with this new load it is estimated that after doing the 8 repetitions he could do 4-5 more, it can be considered that this is the load with which the subject could do about 12 repetitions.

Once this is done, it would be best to train with half or slightly less than half the possible repetitions in the set (4-6 repetitions) with the selected load, depending on strength needs and training experience. Taking this load as a reference and observing how the difficulty / ease of execution evolves, enough sessions can be done with an acceptable control of the degree of effort made by the subject and the effect of the training.

When you notice an increase in playability (increase in speed), you should increase the absolute load a bit and wait for the speed to increase again with this new load.

As explained in the previous paragraph, when appreciating an increase in ease of execution (increase in speed), you should increase the absolute load somewhat and wait for the speed to increase again with this new load. After 4-6 weeks, if necessary, a trial could be done to select a new load that could be done fewer times or the same 12 repetitions.

Choosing to be able to do more or fewer repetitions in the series means that you want to train with less or more relative intensity: the fewer possible repetitions, the greater the relative intensity. Each relative intensity (percentage of the MRI) can be done on average a maximum number of times in the series, which serves as a reference to estimate the relative intensity, but this has an error or always low, since, as is known Given the same relative intensity, the number of repetitions that each subject can do can be sufficiently different so that the percentage can range up to 10% in some cases.

In parallel, the procedure can be applied to check if the subject is in the average, above or below the population in terms of the number of repetitions he can do with each percentage of the RM.