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.

This article reviews the differentiation between central and peripheral fatigue. For a long time, fatigue has been mainly related to factors dependent on what “happened” in the muscle, without taking much into account the previous mechanisms.

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

• Central fatigue appears both in short, high-intensity efforts (strength exercises) and in prolonged efforts of clearly lower absolute intensity (resistance).
• The feeling of fatigue is greater with prolonged efforts and appears first in the Central Nervous System.
• Peripheral fatigue appears when the force decreases when an electrical stimulation is applied to an exercised muscle.

The little importance attributed to the central factors could have been due to the simplification of applying to the conscious human subject the results on force limitation obtained in isolated muscular preparations and, generally, deprived of their innervation, and to the methods to measure the amount of the central influence on the muscles, which have not been technically rigorous and, therefore, the results are easily criticized and not considered

When it has been possible to measure changes in the central nervous system (CNS) during exercise, these have been mainly oriented towards the demonstration that they can cause a strength deficit (Gandevia, 2001). Central fatigue is manifested by a progressive loss of voluntary activation or a decrease in the neural stimulation necessary for the execution of an exercise, which translates into a decrease in the maximum force applied.

Central fatigue appears both in short, high-intensity efforts (called strength exercises) as in prolonged effort of clearly lower absolute intensity (called resistance exercises) but the feeling of fatigue is greater in prolonged efforts, and the mechanisms responsible for both types of fatigue are different. Fatigue manifests itself first in the CNS and it itself tries to compensate for it with increased arousal and the activation of a greater number of motor neurons, involved in the control of muscle activation, although there is a degree of fatigue from of which the CNS reduces activation to prevent impaired homeostasis and muscle damage.

Fatigue has a significant core component.

Fatigue has a significant central component. If, in a situation of fatigue, a stimulus that does not depend on the CNS is applied and a recovery of strength occurs, the central component is evident. In the first studies, the central effect was verified by the fact of recovering the force when opening the eyes when a situation of almost total fatigue had been reached (MOsSO, 1904). Subsequently, the verification that fatigue has a central component is carried out through the interpolation of electrical stimuli during voluntary contractions.

If, when force production decreases during a maximal voluntary contraction, direct electrical stimulation is applied to the muscle fibers and force increases again, this is evidence that fatigue had a central component. If in the same situation the force does not increase, the fatigue is central and peripheral.

If muscle activation is measured through an electromyogram (EMG) and the frequency of action potentials and force decrease, fatigue has an important central component, and if the frequency of action potentials does not decrease and the force does, fatigue is mainly peripheral in origin.

The central type effect is also manifested by the specificity of fatigue. In the figure below it can be seen that the effect of training on fatigue manifests itself in a specific way depending on the type of training performed. When training with one leg, the positive effect on fatigue occurs only when the effect is measured with one leg, not with both. The opposite occurs when training with both legs.

Specificity of the effect of training on fatigue (Rube and Secher, 1990; in Moka, 2002).

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).

The organization of intensity and volume in training loads is a basic aspect in training programming. In this entry the considerations of combining volume and intensity are evaluated and the key questions regarding the programming of the loads are answered.

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

• By increasing or keeping the intensity and/or volume stable, the effect on training is positive. In all other cases the effect is not defined or is negative.
• Stimulus levels should be applied when it best suits the subject’s capacity and produces a positive effect.
• The application of excessive loads almost always has negative consequences such as the risk of injury and the difficulty of executing a correct technique.

Changes in the training load are produced by modifying some of its factors: volume, intensity and type of exercise. Regarding the exercises, the difficulty and load increase, regardless of other factors, as a greater number of joints and muscle groups are involved, which is generally accompanied by greater technical difficulty and greater mechanical work due to unit of action (repetition).

But if we keep an exercise or group of exercises stable, the changes in volume and intensity are what will determine if the changes in the load are positive, negative or null for performance. When we talk about intensity, unless otherwise stated, we always refer to relative intensity, not absolute (weight).

Changes in the training load are produced by modifying some of its factors: volume, intensity and type of exercise.

Taking into account all the possible combinations in the change of these factors within a training cycle: increase or decrease the volume y The intensity As well as the possibility that one or both of them remain stable, there can be nine situations, which we are going to analyze below, indicating their effect on performance depending on the way and when they are used.

1. The volume and intensity increase: the effect will tend to be positive.

Whenever this combination occurs within the training process, there is an initial improvement in performance, unless both variables (volume and intensity) are already at a very high degree of load in relation to the subject’s possibilities. If this last circumstance occurs, the effect will be null in the best of cases, and almost always negative. If this circumstance does not occur, and therefore the effect is positive, it must be considered that this load trend would only be valid for three or four weeks in a row, and must be modified later.

Only very slight increases in the load and with very low training frequencies allow this trend to be maintained for a longer number of weeks.

this trend of the loads would only be valid for three or four weeks in a row, and must be modified later

2. The volume increases and the intensity remains stable: the effect will tend to be positive

The effect will be positive if the trend does not continue. Only between two and six sessions would the positive effects be maintained without increasing the intensity. It is a form of progression suitable for the Beginnings of a training cycle.

3. The volume increases and the intensity decreases: the effect is not defined.

It would be useful when you want to increase muscle mass or you want to make a deep change in the training system to break a state of negative adaptation (stagnation). However, in any of these cases, it would always be necessary to increase the intensity again after a few workouts, otherwise the aforementioned objectives would not even be obtained.

4. The volume remains stable and the intensity increases: the effect will tend to be positive.

It is an always positive trend change for strength performance. Its best application may be at the point in the cycle when a considerable volume of work has already been achieved. One or two weeks with this tendency can have a very good effect.

5. Volume and Intensity remain stable: the effect is not defined.

This situation should not continue for more than two or three sessions in a row. If this is done, the effect could be positive, otherwise it would be negative.

6. The volume remains stable and the intensity decreases: the effect will tend to be negative

We cannot expect anything positive from this trend that is worthwhile in strength performance: there is no increase in the stimulus in any of the variations, and neither could we expect an improvement in form due to the recovery effect, since the volume does not decreases. Seeking recovery by only reducing intensity is not appropriate for strength.

Seeking recovery by only reducing intensity is not appropriate for strength.

7. The volume decreases and the intensity increases: the effect will tend to be positive.

This trend may be valid for: a) maintain the performance achieved b) recover the body without loss of strength and c) occasionally, to improve performance after a high volume phase.

Its most effective application occurs in the 2nd phase of the training cycle.

8. The volume decreases and the intensity remains stable: the effect will tend to be positive

It is positive only as a recovery, well in a week of unloading before a competition.

9. Volume and intensity decrease: the effect is not defined.

It would never offer positive effect for strength improvement. It would make sense as a form of deep recovery in phases of active rest. Within the training cycle it can be used in a session as a way of unloading.

To all these possible combinations, we should add the combination that we could consider the most favorable and desired, which is the one in which the relative intensity remains practically stable while the absolute intensity increases, with volumes also practically stable or minimal oscillations, or In any case, a downward trend. This trend will continue as long as it remains positive, during all training cycles.

As a synthesis of the previous assumptions about adaptation to strength training, we can say that each level or degree of stimulus should be applied at the time it is most necessary, best suited to the athlete’s capacity, and produce a sufficient positive effect. Once a charge has been used successfully, it has little or no effect if we want to use it again.

Each level or degree of stimulus should be applied at the time it is most necessary, best suited to the athlete’s ability, and produce a sufficient positive effect.

Therefore, if we are capable of providing successive adjusted stimuli, each time more demanding, within the strength needs, and with real variability, it is more likely that the progression in the results will be maintained for longer and greater. By using a small stimulus, but one that is enough to provide great progress, we are not only applying adequate training, but we are preparing the athlete to be able to face other higher loads when necessary.

If heavy loads are used, even if they are not necessary, there is also great initial progress, but this almost always has negative consequences: risk of injury, rendering useless the application of lighter loads that would have been effective at the time, not creating the adequate conditions for the correct learning of the technique in some exercises that require it, reduce and range of stimuli applicable throughout sporting life, and therefore, the possibilities of variability.

As a conclusion, the following can be stated:

1. In strength training it is easy to progress in the first cycles of work, but this should not lead to violently increasing the training demands with the intention of progressing more quickly. The efforts required by each stage of sporting life must be respected. A lower degree of effort does not mean that progress is necessarily less. An effort adjusted to the real needs of the athlete can mean a greater and better development of strength both in the short and long term.
2. The degree of effort must be strictly adjusted to the circumstances of age and experience.
3. Almost any training can be effective for a few weeks or months, but progression over many years, improvement in technique, and joint and muscle health are more likely to be achieved with rational training, according to the adaptation assumptions indicated.
4. The magnitude of the load depends fundamentally on the volume, the intensity and the exercise that is used.
5. The introduction of a higher load magnitude is allowed and justified when the preceding ones have been assimilated. That is, when these loads are below the current stimulation threshold of the neuromuscular system, and therefore the organism no longer presents a positive reaction to said loads. In this situation we can say that the charges used up to now have already produced their effect.
6. The charges lose their effect firstly in absolute terms, due to the continued use of the same weight, and then in relative terms, due to the continued use of the same percentage. This means that as performance increases, smaller percentages may become less effective.
7. Certain modifications of the volume and intensity of the training produce a positive effect, while others have no or negative effect.
8. The positive effect of a cargo modification and its validity period also depend on the circumstances in which said modifications occur.

The application of large loads almost always has negative consequences: risk of injury, making useless the application of more effective light loads, difficulty in learning the correct technique, etc.

But before programming a training session, a series of questions must be answered, the answers of which will establish the reality on which action must be taken. Once this reality is known, it will be necessary to also take into account a series of basic methodological considerations derived from the theory of training and from experience in sports practice. These considerations can be addressed through a series of key questions about training scheduling.

When should you start strength training?

The moment of the start of strength training in an athlete who is going to the competition could be determined in the first place by the needs or strength demands of the sport or sports specialty. However, it is considered that starting to improve strength through training especially aimed at this objective from the very beginning would always be positive whatever strength needs may be in the future.

The important thing, and the “risk”, is not the moment to start the strength training, but the way to carry out said training. The correct training of strength from the earliest ages does not present any indication in the physical and technical development of the athlete and it is recommended as a way to avoid injuries and improve performance (Payne et al., 1997).

How much force do you have to develop?

In this case, when we ask ourselves this question, we are referring to the maximum degree of force development, assessed through the RM estimation, but not by its direct measurement. The degree of development of these strength values ​​must be directly related to the needs of the sport or specialty. To know our objectives, the strength values ​​achieved by the most outstanding athletes in the specialty can be taken as a reference point, but mainly the effect of strength improvement on performance improvement in competition or in specific tests can be considered.

But in addition to the maximum force expressed as , the useful force (another maximum force value) must also be considered, in other words, the maximum force value that the athlete is capable of applying when performing the specific gesture, as well as the ability to produce force in the unit that the improvement of the maximum force (in this case the estimation of the RM) presents a positive relationship with the improvement of the performance and with the useful force, the development of the force must continue to be maintained .

If there is an increase in strength but it is not accompanied by an improvement in performance, we should consider reducing resistance training and looking only to maintain it until the specific performance improves. There may come a time when inadequate strength training (even if RM improvement occurs) is related to the loss of one’s own specific performance. In this case, strength training would have to be reduced or changed—or both.

What exercises should be used?

Although in the first steps of training an athlete it is necessary to stimulate all muscle groups in a balanced way and ensure a solid strengthening of tendons and joint ligaments, specific performance is achieved by training those movements, muscle groups and responsible energy systems. of performance in competition.

For this reason, since the athlete begins the path of high performance (since he decides to practice a sport with the aspirations of becoming a high-level athlete in the future), the work program must especially include only non-specific exercises. most useful and specific strength-building exercises applicable to your specialty.

the work program should especially include only the most useful non-specific exercises and the most specific exercises for strength development applicable to your specialty

How often do you have to train?

As infrequently as it produces sufficient force development. In some moments the frequency should be only what is necessary to maintain the force. The training frequency must necessarily increase as sporting life progresses, although the margin of increase is very small if the same volume is not distributed in different sessions. The greater need for strength in a specialty also demands a greater frequency of training.

In some cases, the limiting factor of the training frequency is not the lesser need for strength in the specialty, but the frequency of competitions and the possible interference between training and the development of more or less antagonistic qualities. A higher frequency does not necessarily mean a higher load. The same proposed load (understood as a synthesis of volume and intensity) carried out in two sessions, on the same day or on separate days, implies less real load than if it is done in a single session. That is, we would talk about more frequency but less fatigue.

What relative intensity (%1RM or speed of the first repetition) should be used?

The most suitable maximum relative intensity of training is directly related to the strength needs in the specialty. That is, the greater the need for strength, the greater the maximum intensity that must be reached through sports life, as well as the frequency with which it is used. But it is convenient to add some other orientations that complete this aspect that is so decisive and dangerous in the training schedule. Among these aspects, we highlight the following factors to define the relative intensity:

The subject’s initial training level. The degree of training of the subject takes precedence over the strength needs of the sport. It is not possible to train with the typical intensities used in a specialty if the athlete, given his level of training, neither can nor needs to use high intensities to sufficiently improve his strength.

Speed ​​and phase-angle-position of the competition gesture in which the force will be applied. The speed at which the force will be applied in competition is decisive in the choice of training intensity. It will be necessary to consider to what extent the improvement in maximum strength (1 RM) has an effect on the force applied at competition speed (useful force). The force applied at the competition speed will be the reference point to assess the effects of strength training. Many of the exercises and training intensities will need to be close to competition speed and the angle at which force is applied.

Time that can and should be devoted to strength training. The strength training load is subordinated to the frequency of competitions. When competitions are very frequent throughout the season it is necessary to allow recovery before and after each test, which means that the time dedicated to strength training cannot be high. The time that can be dedicated depends on this circumstance. Although, on the other hand, it would be necessary to consider the time that must be dedicated to strength training for the desired effects to be produced. It is necessary to take into account both conditions and adjust the training so that it is effective and not useless.

What is the specific musculature involved and the type of muscle activation? Both determining factors determine the range of exercises to be applied in strength training and the form of performance. The greatest training potential is found in the most specific exercises. The problem of training is not solved by performing many and very varied exercises, but by using those that have a more direct influence on performance.

Other questions such as what are the limiting factors from the point of view of strength performance, as can occur in endurance sports, or what is the need to maintain a certain degree of strength during the competitive phase, the number of competitions that have to be held and the distribution of them, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the athlete or what role the athlete plays in the case of team sports, must also be taken into account before making decisions about the work to be done.

This article analyzes why free weight exercises are preferred over machine exercises for efficient strength development.

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

• Work with free weights consists of performing exercises with external loads that move freely, depending on the magnitude and direction of the forces exerted by the subject.
• The advantages of free weight exercises over machine exercises are that they can be performed in all planes and in multiple directions, allowing multiple muscle groups and connective tissue to work to control the range of motion.
• The improvement of the strength in isolation of the muscles (training with machines) that intervene in a specific specific action can have a negative effect on the result of the training.
• Localized training of the extensor muscles of the lower back (training with machines) can have a positive effect on specific performance.

With the exception of a few exercises, such as, for example, exercises for training the adductors and hamstrings and some more, the complementary exercises that an athlete uses to improve specific performance should preferably be performed on machines, that is, with free weights.

The exercises that an athlete uses to improve specific performance should preferably be performed without machines

El trabajo con pesos libres consiste en realizar ejercicios con cargas externas que se mueven libremente, según la magnitud y la dirección e las fuerzas ejercidas por el sujeto. Within these exercises, a clear distinction must be made between the so-called “Olympic” ones: which are the snatch and two times and the partials of these, such as the power snatch, power clean… and the rest.

The advantages of free weight exercises over machine exercises are that they can be performed in all planes and in multiple directions, which can encourage numerous muscle groups (agonists, antagonists, stabilizers, and synergists) and connective tissue to act to control the movement path. This can create considerable kinesthetic information, which has a positive effect on balance, coordination, control of accelerations and decelerations in the various phases of the movement path, and the strengthening of muscles and connective tissues (1988 (Walsh, 1989; Armstrong, 1992 and 1993; Field, 1988).

In summary, in the opinion of Field (1988), work with free weights is the most effective means of training with loads for the development of speed, power and acceleration (although it would be more appropriate to say: “…it is the means of training with loads more effective for the development of force”)

As Kraemer & Nindl (1998) propose, when a machine sets the pattern of movement in an exercise, it also sets the tissue that will be recruited. This way of fixing the movement leads to an isolated muscle training, in such a way that the risk of producing a muscular imbalance is more likely than if exercises with free weight are used. A lack of variation in the recruitment pattern of muscle fibers, a lack of demand to maintain balance in different planes of movement and a lower use of synergistic muscles during the execution of exercises with machines can reduce the specificity of the exercise to apply its benefits. competition effects.

Free weight work is the most effective means of training for strength development.

In relation to the global training load, it must be taken into account that the demand of free weights seems to be greater than if the same training (intensity and volume) is done with machines. This may be due to an increase in the physiological requirements to control the exercises when they are done with free weights (Fry et al., 2000). This conclusion is reached after observing that training with free weights and high-intensity loads produces more setbacks or stagnation than higher-intensity training done with machines.

If you want to “tune” a lot in the training dosage, this may be important for programming the magnitude of the load, since the data suggest that the ability of an athlete to support loads with high intensity with free weights is lower than if the same loads are done with machines.

It has also been proposed that free weight exercises are much more effective in preventing injury and helping to improve performance than calisthenics or machine exercises (Parker, 1992). A problem associated with exercises performed on machines is the high probability that isolated or mono-articular muscles are trained, without significant intervention from other muscle groups and joints in a coordinated manner.

This circumstance means that the application or transfer of the improvement of muscular strength to competition gestures is scarce or null in most cases. For example, Baratta et al. (1988) found that specific training of the knee flexors results in increased activation of these muscles when trying to extend the knees.

Therefore, the training of isolated muscles can interfere with performance, which always requires the coordinated participation of antagonist, agonist, and synergist muscles. Something similar was observed by Bobbert and Van Soest (1994), who, when training the strength of the muscles involved in the vertical jump in isolation, the height of the jump was reduced by 9 cm, although the knee extensors improved their strength by 20%. .

the data suggest that the ability of an athlete to support loads with high intensity with exercises with free weight is lower than if the same loads are done with machines.

Therefore, it seems that the improvement of the strength in isolation of the muscles involved in a specific specific action can have a negative effect on the result. The explanation for these behaviors may lie in the fact that muscle groups work simultaneously when performance is sought in competition or in a multi-joint exercise, not by separate muscle groups.

Therefore, the imitations of these exercises are given by the fact that they do not train movements, but muscles. A seated knee extension is a muscle training (quadriceps), while a full squat would be the training of a movement, in which a series of muscle groups is used —and trained at the same time—, but whose fundamental objective is the improvement of the movement itself —because of the importance that this may have for sports performance—, not of the muscles involved in it.

Therefore, localized or isolated muscle group exercises have, fundamentally, a complementary auxiliary role or support for those exercises/movements that are the most determinant for improving specific performance. They may also have the function of preventing and recovering from injuries, as well as compensating for muscular imbalances.

It has been proposed that mono-articular exercises may not provide additional benefits to multi-articular exercises, neither in the short nor in the long term, when training the upper limbs, neither in trained nor in untrained subjects. In addition, carrying out this type of exercise produces greater fatigue without it being reflected in a greater adaptation in strength, and its indiscriminate use can decrease performance (Gentil et al., 2017).

the improvement of the strength in isolation of the muscles involved in a specific specific action can have a negative effect on the result.

However, it is accepted that, for example, localized training of the extensor muscles of the lower back can have a positive effect on specific performance (Gentil et al., 2017). The benefit of this exercise on the lower back is likely, and it is an exercise that has been used for many decades, but the inclusion of the well-performed clean exercise, we believe, could be sufficiently accomplished and with a greater positive effect on performance. in own competition actions.

Free-weight exercises that engage almost all major muscle groups in a coordinated manner, such as Olympic exercises and partials, full squats, jumping jacks, and throws, generate closed-chain movements, which have application or transfer. to most competition-specific gestures.

These free weight exercises improve strength in extensor (and plantarflexion) movements of multiple joints with a wide range of loads. All of these free weight exercises, except squats, are performed at high absolute speed, which may favor the effect on competition gestures, especially those that must be performed at high speed.

The squat, when trained, should also be performed at the maximum possible speed, but the absolute speed will always be lower than with the others, although its transfer to exercises such as jumping or running can also be very high.

Olympic exercises and their partials are characterized by the fact that, due to their technical demands, they must necessarily be performed at high speed (MRI speed around 1 m/s-1) (Gonzalez-Badillo, 2000), with a high degree of of coordination and an important production of force in the unit of time, that is to say, they are very explosive movements by nature when they are carried out with a moderately correct technique.

Jumps and throws have similar effects to the previous ones, but performed with lighter loads. These three groups of exercises have the property of prolonging the propulsive phase in the application of force, so that the braking phase is shorter or does not exist. The squat, when trained, should also be performed at the maximum possible speed, but the absolute speed will always be less than with the others, although its transfer to exercises such as jumping or running can also be very high.

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.

This entry discusses in a general way when to train strength according to the needs of each subject.

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.

What is known as strength training, that is to say, the trainings that use the exercises that have been previously described as bench press and squat and other similar ones, must be carried out at the moment in which the subject is not fatigued.

In addition, after doing strength training so that the post-workout protein synthesis process could be carried out, except in the first phase, sufficiently.

strength training should be performed at a time when the subject is not fatigued

The best combination of strength training and any other (generally a specific training of some sports specialty) occurs when both trainings are distanced, performing each of them on different days, or at least separated by 5-6 hours of interval if they do on the same day.

This is especially important when the other is a type of training that can produce a significant degree of fatigue. In the event that the two workouts are done on the same day, it is possible that the strength training is done in the morning and the other in the afternoon or vice versa, but on this day the other training should be done with the lowest fatigue values ​​of the week.

For example, strength training is done in the morning, the other would be done in the afternoon with high intensities, but with shorter efforts and longer recovery times between them. In this case, strength training in the morning could serve as a positive stimulus and activation (potentiation?) for the afternoon.

If the strength training was done in the afternoon, this possible positive stimulus could not be used, but the effect of the strength training could benefit from the fact that after the strength training no other type of effort is made until the next day . If it is not possible to do the strength training and the others on different days or separated from each other by about 5-6 hours, the strength training should always be done before the other.

the characteristics of the strength training must be such that they do not impede or interfere with other training, generally a specific training carried out afterwards

In this case, if possible (you should try to make it possible), you should allow 10-15 minutes of recovery before starting the second workout. This combination will reduce the effect of strength training on the improvement of one’s own strength, but it will be much more positive than if the strength training is done after another training, when the subject is fatigued.

In addition, it must be taken into account that strength training carried out before the other will hardly have a negative effect on it, since the characteristics of the strength training must be such that they do not impede or interfere with other training, generally a specific training carried out after . These characteristics are met if the degree of fatigue generated by strength training is moderate, which will offer the best benefits for both strength improvement and specific performance.