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.

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.

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

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

SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this entry, we will comment on sports based on your strength needs and will give some ideas to program training based on objectives.

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

• Strength needs are not the same for all sports or sports specialties.
• To estimate the strength needs in a sport, they can be divided into two cases: 1/ there is only a need for strength relative to the movement of body weight, and 2/ there are external loads applied during sports practice.
• The less time the action lasts, the greater the need for force, because the action will be carried out at a higher speed, and for this the maximum force applied and the RFD for each unit of action must be greater.

It is reasonable to admit, and practice shows it, that not all sports or sports specialties dedicate the time to strength training doing what is usually called “strength training”.

Naturally, the dedication depends on the degree of application of force in absolute and relative terms that the specific actions of the different sports specialties require.

Considering the differences that exist between sports in terms of strength development needs, it would not seem logical for everyone to train with the same loads. Although the idea remains that, whatever the strength needs, the load should always be the minimum that produces sufficient performance, and that this minimum load should be maintained as long as it is effective, it is likely that subjects who need to develop in to a greater extent the strength should require a greater training load: greater IE for the same relative intensity and a tendency to increase the relative intensity to a greater extent than the others.

In accordance with these approaches, a distribution of sports or sports specialties has been made into five groups based on the needs of force development.

distribution of sports according to their strength needs in five groups

Tabla 19.1. Proposal for the division of sports based on the needs of strength development.

In some cases, doubts may arise as to whether a sport should be in a certain group, depending on whether we consider that the strength needs are higher or lower than the proposals. It may also be that in some cases the sports were found between two of the groups or strength levels of those proposed. Although each specialist could consider that their sport should be in a different group, the analysis of the evolution of performance in relation to the applied load could confirm where it should be better located.

In addition, each specialist will be able to locate those sports that do not appear in the examples in the group they consider most appropriate.

In some cases, consideration of strength needs refers to the muscle groups or body members that are most determinant of performance, not all muscle groups. For example, it would not make sense to train the upper limbs with the same loads (degrees of effort) than the lower limbs in a runner and a jumper.

In other cases, such as fighting, the strength needs are of a similar level in the upper and lower limbs. To estimate what might be the strength needs in a sport, we could consider two situations:

1. that the only resistance or opposition to movement in sports action is body weight, or
2. that some external resistance is added in the form of a specific instrument to move in the form of dragging, pushing or throwing, as well as the existence of direct opposition from an adversary.

Within the first case, the strength needs will depend on several factors:

• Of the action fime or the distance to be covered, which are linked to different speed values. The less time the action lasts, the greater the need for force, because the action will be carried out at a higher speed, and for this the maximum force applied and the RFD for each unit of action must be greater.
• For the same action time:
  • If the action is intermittent and mixed, with the combination of acyclic and cyclical techniques, the strength needs will be greater than if the action is only cyclical and continuous.
  • If the technique is mixed, the existence of contact with the opponent(s) will make the need for strength greater than if there is none.
  • If there are sudden changes in direction, the force requirements will be greater.

The less time the action lasts, the greater the need for force, because the action will be carried out at a higher speed, and for this the maximum force applied and the RFD for each unit of action must be greater.

None of these options would reach the “very high” strength needs (group A) but yes, in some cases, to “high” needs (group B), although also to “low” needs (group E).

In the second case, the force needs will depend on the same factors as in the first, but qualified by the magnitude of the external load present in the specific actions. These factors could be the following:

• In general, the strength needs will depend on the action time or the distance to be traveled, which are linked to different speed values. The less time the action lasts, the greater the need for force will tend to be.
• In actions of very short duration (2-5”), the magnitude of the load and the speed (normally, the maximum possible) at which it must be moved determine the force requirements. In this situation, the force requirements will always be “higher”. These actions are generally acyclic.
• In cyclical actions, the force requirements depend on the magnitude of the load to be moved and the duration of the effort. The higher the load and the shorter the action time, the higher the force needs. When it comes to a direct opposition to the adversary, the strength needs will depend on whether you have to drag or push the adversary or just hit. The strength needs will be greater in the first case.

In these second options, the strength needs range from “medium” to “very high”.

Between 10-15% of women worldwide suffer from endometriosis. Endometriosis is a disease caused by the unbalanced growth of endometrial tissue. It can invade some organs, but fortunately it does not usually enter the ovaries.

If you don’t already know Fitenium is a free, mobile and video-based social network for users who train strength and/or body weight exercises. At Fitenium users can find free personalized routines, follow their performance, compete and get discounts at nutrition stores and sports equipment. Download it here.

In any case, endometriosis can cause serious discomfort and serious fertility problems. Why is it developed? What is the solution? Is it synonymous with impossibility of pregnancy? Today we talk about this health problem, which is more common than it seems.

What is endometriosis?

Endometriosis is a problem related to the excessive growth of tissue. The endometrium, which lines the inside of the uterus, becomes uncontrollable and colonizes other parts. The endometrium is ready to receive fertilized eggs. Once a month, it grows back and sheds to allow new eggs to be transplanted.

Due to rapid growth of the enodometrious tissue, the situation can become a problem when it grows too large. Especially when endometrial cells migrate through the abdomen and colonize other organs. Usually, a benign endometrioma or endometrial cyst forms without major problems.

Published on Unplash by Jozsef Hocza

However, this tissue can grow with other organs. The most common is that it affects the ovaries due to its proximity. This interferes with the proper functioning of the organ and can cause pain and, in some cases, fertility problems. Endometrioma can be malignant.

Endometriosis can become a fertility problem within 10 to 15% of women who suffer from it.

Have you had endometriosis?

There is no set of decisive reasons for suffering from this disease. If you have the ability to react with the endometrial cells and the ovary, a cyst is likely to develop.

It can also be a hereditary disease caused by a genetic predisposition; and evidence has been reported that the endocrine or immune system is involved in its appearance.

Another possibility is that the cells of the peritoneal cells become endometrial cells.

However, we know that endometriosis has some risk factors since there is evidence of the involvement of the endocrine system (in the hypersecretion of estrogens) or the immune system in the development of endometriosis.

Published on Unplash by Sinitta Leunen

There is no cure for endometriosis, as removal of the tissue often requires surgery. Lean meat intake is associated with the possibility of endometriosis

What are the consequences of endometriosis?

The symptoms of endometriosis are diverse and complex and may be associated with other diseases and problems. Also, endometriosis can be asymptomatic. This means that many times the symptoms go unnoticed. The most normal thing is that at some point, especially in the abdomen, a more intense pain appears than usual. Hypermenorrhea and menorrhagia, that is, excessive bleeding and outside the menstrual cycle, can also occur.

These symptoms are a good reason to make us suspicious and want to visit a doctor who performs a more detailed gynecological examination. Gynecologic ultrasound or MRI is used because endometriosis is not detected by direct examination or tactile sensation. You can also rely on the laparoscopic examination. Latitis consists of surgery under general anesthesia, in which a camera is inserted into the abdomen to directly verify the state of the organs.

Published on Unplash by Zen Bear Yoga

The worst consequence of endometriosis is that tissues form around the ovaries, which can cause infertility.

what can you do?

There is no cure for endometriosis itself. What you can do is reduce some or all of its symptoms and control the disease. Using analgesics for pain, or hormone therapy for endocrine control and if necessary to remove tissue. Surgery is usually the main option.

My cousin stopped eating meat a long time ago and tends to eat a lot of fish. After spending a few days together, he taught me this recipe for tuna with onion and paprika and it is very simple and healthy.

If you don’t already know Fitenium is a free, mobile and video-based social network for users who train strength and/or body weight exercises. At Fitenium users can find free personalized routines, follow their performance, compete and get discounts at nutrition stores and sports equipment. Download it here.

This is my version of a very typical traditional recipe in many areas. You can make a very delicious dish with just a few ingredients. I want to put it with a lot of sauce to soak the bread. It can also be cooked with bonito. If you don’t have fresh fish, it’s a good way to grow frozen tuna.

ingredients for 2 people

Tuna fillets or fillets

1 onion

1 she

1 bay leaf

1 teaspoon sweet paprika

1 teaspoon of hot paprika

50 ml of white wine

200 ml Fish or vegetable soup or water

Black pepper

Sal

Extra virgin olive oil

Fresh parsley

Difficulty Easy – Total time 40 minutes

Elaboration

If the fish is frozen, thaw it properly, preferably the day before on a wire rack in the coldest place in the fridge. Dry very well with kitchen paper and heat while the sauce is started.

Cut the onion into small pieces and cut it in half first. Put the fillet in the garlic. Put a little olive oil in a high-sided pot or skillet over medium heat and cook the garlic for 30 seconds. Add the onion, stir well and add a little salt.

Cook for about 15-20 minutes until it starts to caramelize and reduces by more than half. Add the bay leaf and paprika and stir well. Pour the wine and let it evaporate. Cover with soup or water, reduce heat to low, and simmer until low heat.

Meanwhile, cut the fish into small cubes and grill each side separately over high heat for 1-2 minutes. When the sauce is flavorful, add the fish, salt and pepper, reduce the heat to low and simmer for a few more minutes. Serve with fresh parsley.

Tuna with onion and paprika can be heated directly or sprinkled for a few minutes. A bunch of salsa can be chilled and kept in the fridge if you want to make it ahead of time, or you can put it in a tapper and take it home with you. It can be served with boiled or roasted potatoes, seasonal vegetables, rice or a simple salad. I recommend buying rustic sourdough bread to serve on a slice each year.

It’s still winter, so I can cover up a nice dish that I used to have at home. I have my house and I take a vegetable recipe in summer, but they boil me with pumpkins and potatoes, or I’m cold.

If you don’t already know Fitenium is a free, mobile and video-based social network for users who train strength and/or body weight exercises. At Fitenium users can find free personalized routines, follow their performance, compete and get discounts at nutrition stores and sports equipment. Download it here.

It is worth buying vegetables that are in season. We have beans, bean specials, and current eye white beans, and you can decide to cook and use what you have on hand. This is a delicious, very healthy, slow cooker, rush cooker.

Ingredients for 2 people – Easy difficulty – Cooking time 2:30 hours

160g Dry white beans 160g

1 sweet onion

2 garlic

1 celery

2 tomatoes

1 teaspoon of sweet paprika

Half a teaspoon of cumin

1 carrot

400 g peeled pumpkin

2 Median pope

1 liter Vegetable soup or water

Extra virgin olive oil

Sal

Black pepper

How to make White Beans with Butternut Squash and Potato

Dried beans must be soaked for 8 hours. Wash it, it’s cold water and put them in a container.

Wash the potatoes, celery, carrots and tomatoes. Peel the onions and garlic and chop finely with the celery. Peel the pumpkins, carrots and potatoes. Cut the squash into cubes, leaving a large portion so it doesn’t fall apart completely during cooking. Chop the carrots.

Heat a little olive oil in a large pot or casserole, fry the onions with the garlic and celery, and add a little salt. Keep the heat low so it doesn’t burn. When golden, add grated or canned tomatoes, spin a few times, add paprika and cumin, and stir well.

Add the carrots and beans made with pumpkin. Cover the broth with water and add the pumpkin (cut with a knife and chop completely by hand) and black pepper.

Bring to a boil, add a little more broth or cold water to “frighten” and bring to a boil. Reduce heat, cover, and heat for at least 2 hours. Stir gently from time to time and check the liquid level.

Throughout these articles, a series of contributions that can provide the effect of execution speed and its control have been reviewed. But for this it has been necessary for the loads to be moved at the maximum speed possible both in the execution of the exercise with which it was intended to know the relationship between percentages and speed and when estimating fatigue or the percentage of repetitions performed in the series or the calculation of 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

• The results of these two studies showed a clear tendency to improve more when, after controlling for all possible known variables, the bar was moved at the maximum speed possible than when it was done at half that speed.
• The way to equalize or make very similar the degree of effort for different people before the same relative load is to equalize the loss of speed in the series.
• by measuring the speed of the first repetition it is possible to guarantee that the subject has trained with the programmed relative intensities
• The group that trained to achieve a loss of speed of only 20% of the initial speed showed a tendency to offer better results
• The group that trained until achieving a reduction of only 20% of the initial speed showed a tendency to offer better results

It could be argued that an important part of the contributions that have been discussed would not be applicable because to train with external loads it is not necessary to move them as fast as possible or it is even better to move them slowly voluntarily. When the variables that could influence the results are adequately controlled, the greatest training effect is achieved if the loads are moved at the highest possible speed (González-Badillo et al., 2014; Pareja-Blanco et al., 2014).

To address the problem of what effect speed of execution has on physical performance, the two studies cited in the previous paragraph and in previous chapters were carried out, one with the bench press exercise and the other with the squat. In both cases, they trained with loads between 60 and 80% of the actual RM. The percentages can be considered real because in each training session it was verified, through the speed of execution, what absolute load (mass) represented for each subject the percentage of the programmed RM.

Two groups were randomly formed: one (n=9 in the bench press and n=10 in the squat) that performed each repetition at the maximum speed possible (GV100), and another (n=11 in both exercises) that performed each repetition at 50% of the maximum speed possible (GV50).

In each exercise the two groups trained with the same actual relative intensities and the same sets and repetitions per set. That is, all the training variables were identical except for the speed of execution.

As can be deduced from the information provided about the programmed training and, especially, the training performed, the independent variable in this study was the voluntary speed of execution, and all the other variables with a possible influence on the dependent variable were controlled. It is true that the GV100 lost speed in the series and the GV50 did not lose speed, since all the repetitions of each series were done at the same average speed.

In addition, not only was the real percentage at which each group trained and the speed at which they performed the first repetition in each series in both cases controlled and known, but also the specific average speed at which each group trained. Since the execution speed for the same repetitions was different, there has been a difference between the groups derived and unavoidable from this circumstance, which is the time under tension. But, thanks to the measurement of the speed in each of the repetitions performed, we can have a precise assessment of the magnitude of these differences and assess the results despite this factor.

Since the speed was measured before all the loads in the initial test and in the final test, it was possible to incorporate in the analysis of the results the comparison of the mean of the VMP of the common pre-post training loads. This type of analysis is an important contribution based on the speed of execution and an important advance in the assessment of the training effect for two reasons:

i) because the improvement in physical performance, and in many cases in specific performance, in any sport is measured by changes in speed under the same load (mass). Only weightlifting is excepted, which consists of moving more and more load at the same speed, and

ii) because when using the same absolute load to evaluate the effects, the precision in the pre-post training reference loads for the comparison of the effects is the maximum possible. Furthermore, this comparison allows such a comprehensive assessment of training effects that one could (should) dispense with the comparison of MR changes.

In addition to the previously mentioned changes, it was possible to measure the effects of the training before light loads, that is, the loads that in the initial test moved at speeds ≥1 and ≥0.8 m s^-1, for the squat and bench press, respectively, as well as for heavy loads, which in the initial test moved at ˂1 and ˂0.8 m s^-1, for the squat and bench press, respectively. As can be easily deduced, these analyzes make it possible to check not only if the RM improves to a greater or lesser extent, and even if the average velocity improves with the set of loads measured, but also if the changes have been proportionally different in some areas or others of the force-velocity curve depending on the load used or, in this case, the type of execution performed.

The results of these two studies showed a clear tendency to improve more when, after controlling for all possible known variables, the bar was moved at the maximum speed possible than when it was done at half that speed. This result occurred despite the fact that the time under tension was higher in GV50, from which it can be deduced that, probably, a longer time under tension is not determinant for the improvement of strength. This variable cannot be considered as a strange variable, since it is a consequence of the different execution speed, and naturally has a directly proportional relationship with it.

A clear tendency to improve more when moving the bar at maximum speed shows the effect of execution speed.

It is hard to find a more precise procedure for measuring time under tension in strength training by accurately measuring the execution time in the concentric phase of the movement for each of the repetitions performed during the entire training cycle: this is another great application of speed control.

In fact, the incorporation of these two studies, carried out with a high control of possible extraneous variables, is not done at this time to show the effect of training on performance, but because it was necessary to justify the multiple applications of execution speed on the dosage, control and evaluation of training. Therefore, from what is stated in the description of the design we can deduce that an adequate use of speed allows:

• Dose / program the load (relative intensity) of the training through the speed and control that each training session is carried out at the programmed intensity through the measurement of the speed of the first repetition of the series.
• 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.
• Evaluate the effects of training in different zones of the force-velocity curve.
• Estimate and compare the changes on the RMs.
• Compare the changes in the mean of the VMP of the common loads pre-post training. This comparison could (should) allow to eliminate the comparison of the RMs.

Examples through studies on the effect of the loss of execution speed in the series

In the two previous articles, three studies have already been exposed in which the relationship between the loss of speed in the series y fatigue, metabolic stress, the percentage of repetitions performed and the creation of a Effort Index. In the first of them, the immediate effect of a greater loss of speed in the series with different relative loads on fatigue and metabolic stress has been analyzed, in order to estimate the degree of effort or load that a certain loss of speed entails.

In the second, it has been shown how the way to equalize or make very similar the degree of effort for different people before the same relative load consists in equalizing the loss of speed in the series, and not the number of repetitions that are performed in the series before the same relative intensity. And in the third, the necessary data have been provided to validate a new index, which we have called the Effort Index (IE), as a product of the speed of the first repetition in the series and the loss of speed within the series itself. .

The way to equalize the degree of effort for different people before the same relative load is to equalize the loss of speed in the series.

Once the information derived from these studies is known, what is proposed to contribute now is information on the applications of the speed of execution when it comes to trying to verify the effect that certain losses of speed have before different relative intensities, and, in some cases, also include information on the IE associated with these training sessions.

These are experimental studies in which the effects of different speed losses in the series are compared to different relative intensities. The implementation of these studies derives from the attempt to answer a series of questions. In the studies previously analyzed, it has been seen that, for the same absolute or relative load, the degree of fatigue is greater the greater the number of repetitions performed in the series, or rather, the greater the loss of speed in the series. The questions now would be the following:

• What is the degree of fatigue necessary to obtain the best results? Based on what has been exposed when talking about the drawbacks of load dosage through an XRM, it seems that reaching muscle failure or trying to reach maximum volume in the series is not the best.
• But what load / degree of fatigue / volume below the maximum achievable are the most suitable?
• If the load of each training session is defined by the fatigue it causes, how do we quantify fatigue and check its effect? In this sense, it is probable, as we have seen, that one of the most precise and easy to apply procedures is the loss of speed in the series, which, moreover, is in accordance with what is stated in the classic texts where fatigue is defined as the loss of strength or loss of speed or loss of power before a determined load.
• But what degree of speed loss is most effective? Naturally, it is not possible to verify in a single study all the possible combinations of speed stalls and relative intensities and subjects on which they are applied. But it is necessary to continue advancing in this sense if the aim is to improve the training methodology. To carry out this task it is essential to make adequate use of speed control, both to define the relative intensity and to quantify fatigue.

The study being analyzed (Pareja-Blanco et al., 2017) aimed to verify the effect of two percentages of speed loss (different degrees of fatigue) training with the same relative intensity. The only training exercise was the squat. He trained for eight weeks, two sessions per week. The relative intensities oscillated between 70 and 85% of the real MR, and were applied progressively. Three series were performed with the maximum intensity of the day.

The independent variable was the loss of speed in the set, which means that a certain number of repetitions per set was not programmed. Each subject performed repetitions in the set at the maximum speed possible until the programmed speed was lost. This means that not all the subjects of the same group performed the same repetitions neither in the series nor, naturally, in the training session. Common training variables within the group were velocity loss in the set and relative intensity.

For one group (n = 12) a loss of speed in each series of 20% was programmed with respect to the speed of the first repetition with the maximum intensity of the session (G20). For the other group (n = 10) an approximate mean loss of 40% (G40) was programmed.

The contributions of having been able to measure the speed in each of the repetitions performed by each subject throughout the training are multiple and relevant. Some of them are highlighted below.

• Only by measuring the speed of the first repetition is it possible to guarantee that the subject has trained with the programmed relative intensities, also allowing another important objective, such as adjusting the load (relative intensity) to the actual physical situation of the subject in each training session. This in turn guarantees control of a determining variable of load and performance, such as relative intensity. If not controlled, this variable would become a powerful foreign variable, which would undoubtedly influence performance, for which reason it was necessary to control it, which in this case was done by equalizing the speed of the first repetition of the first series with the maximum load of the day in all subjects. We do not know of (probably does not exist) any more precise procedure to control / equalize the relative intensity used by different subjects than the speed of execution with the first repetition of the series.

Only by measuring the speed of the first repetition is it possible to guarantee that the subject has trained with the programmed relative intensities, also allowing another important objective, such as adjusting the load (relative intensity) to the actual physical situation of the subject in each training session.

In the study that concerns us, the independent variable has been the loss of speed in the series. But this loss would not have made sense if the relative intensity of each session had not been controlled, because they would have been speed losses at different relative intensities. This control can only be done by measuring the speed of the first repetition, which should have been the same for the two groups. Indeed, the mean speed of the first repetition of all the sessions was practically the same for G20 (0.76±0.01 m s^-1; CV = 1.3%) than for G40 (0.75±0 02 m·s^-1: CV = 2.6%), and with a similar and very small variability.

These data, in turn, allow us to know the real average relative intensity of the maximum intensities applied, simply expressing the speed as a percentage of the RM. In this case, a speed of 0.75-76 m s^-1 corresponds to 75% of the RM in the squat exercise (Sánchez-Medina et al., 2017)

• As in the previous studies, measuring speed makes it possible to check the effects of training at different speeds (light, medium and high loads), as well as at the average speed of all common loads displaced pre-post training, not only at MRI, as usual.
• It is possible to know with high precision the average speed lost in the series by the different groups and by each participant. In the study analyzed, the mean loss of exact speed was 20.4 ± 1.5% of the speed of the first repetition of each series for G20 and 41.9 ± 1.9% for G40. The low value of the standard deviation (CV of 7.3 and 4.5% for G20 and G40, respectively) indicates that these losses were very similar for all subjects in the same group.

Talking about the average speed lost during the entire training cycle 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 validates the CE itself, 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.

• In this study, since the speed has been measured in all the repetitions, it is possible to know the Mean Propulsive Velocity (VMP) of the total repetitions performed during training with the maximum loads in each session, which in this case was higher in G20 (0.69±0.02 m s^-1) significantly than in the G40 (0.58±0.03 m·s^-1).

Since in this study the G20 has shown a tendency to offer better results, this greater speed before the same relative load confirms the results of the studies in which the effect of execution speed was compared with the same relative intensity, in which the groups that carried out the training at a higher speed tended to obtain better results. It also allows us to reflect on the fact that with the same relative load, a difference of only 11 hundredths of more^-1 in the average speed (0.69-0.58 m s^-1) can generate effects with a clear trend in favor of the group with the highest average speed (G20) and in some cases obtaining significant differences in favor.

The group that trained until achieving a reduction of only 20% of the initial speed showed a tendency to offer better results

To know the total number of repetitions performed during training, it is not necessary to measure the speed, it would only be necessary to count repetitions. However, if the loss of speed in the series has been very similar for each of the subjects in the same group (20.4±1.5% for G20 and 41.9±1.9% for G40), a high variability in the number of repetitions performed for the same loss of speed would allow us to confirm that it would not be correct to program the same number of repetitions with the same relative intensity.

Indeed, in the present study, the number of repetitions performed with the maximum intensities of each session was 185.9±22.2 repetitions for G20, which means a CV of 12%, and for G40 310.5±42, with a CV of 13.5%. This means that, in G20, taking 1 standard deviation above and below the mean number of repetitions performed, in the extreme values ​​of 68% of the subjects there was a difference of 44 repetitions (±1 dSt), and of 88 repetitions if we go to the extreme values ​​of 95% of the subjects (±1.96 dSt). In the G40 these repetition values ​​were 84 and 168 for one and two standard deviations, respectively.

This means that the degree of fatigue in the subjects of the same group was very similar, as indicated by the average value of speed loss in the series and the low standard deviation, but the range of repetitions performed is wide, confirming the error that can be made when the same number of repetitions is proposed to all subjects at the same relative intensity. In the cases of the G40, the calculations indicate that an approximate difference of 10.5 repetitions of half a session was produced (168 repetitions/16 sessions). This information can only be obtained if the speed of execution is measured.

• Whatever the procedure for determining the training load, the two most determining factors, and unique to the same exercise, are intensity and volume. In the type of training that we usually call “strength training” the volume must be represented by the repetitions performed. But it is clear that two workouts with the same volume can represent two very different loads depending on the intensity with which they have been achieved. Therefore, a volume value without an intensity indicator does not make sense because it does not provide sufficient information about the degree of charge. If we add the average intensity value to the volume value, the information is higher. But an average value (an arithmetic mean) does not detect the variability of the data or the extreme values, so two equal volumes with the same average intensity can represent two very different loads depending on how said volumes have been distributed among the intensity values. For example, a 20 rep 70% 1RM workout has the same volume and average intensity as 4 reps at 50%, 4 at 60, 4 at 70, 4 at 80 and 4 at 90%, however these are clearly two very different workouts. Therefore, to adequately define the load before the same exercise, it is necessary to know the volume and the volume distribution between the intensities.
• In order to distribute the volume among the intensities used, intensity zones are usually created, from the smallest values ​​to the highest, with usual intensity limits per zone of 5%. For this, different percentages of the RM are taken, for example, from 40-45%, >45-50; >50-55… and so on. But as we have indicated, using the RM as a reference to dose the training is very likely to introduce a lot of error, in the sense that the real percentages represented by the absolute loads used could be very different from those programmed. Indeed, 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.

Less fatigued subjects (those who can do more repetitions per series) will present a greater number of repetitions at a higher speed, and, therefore, a higher average speed.

Therefore, the distribution of repetitions by speed zones allows:

• Differentiate the degree of effort made by each subject.
• Analyze the load-effect relationship or the execution-effect relationship of the training.
• It allows all repetitions to be located in their true zone, which is not possible if the percentage of the RM is taken as a reference. For example, if a subject performs 6 repetitions with 75% of the RM, all the repetitions would go to the zone in which the 75% is found, when in reality, not all the repetitions have been carried out at the same speed, that is, not all the repetitions have meant the same effort, so the information on the degree of effort made, which is the key to quantifying the load and the effect of the training, will be very imprecise. If, on the contrary, the speed with which those same repetitions were made had been measured, each of them would have been located in the corresponding speed zone, which would not be the same for all of them, thus indicating the effort that the series has meant in a much more precise way.

The distribution of repetitions by speed zones can be a powerful tool to explain the training load and its effect.

Figure 1 shows an example of the consequences of quantifying the training load taking as a reference the repetitions to be performed in the series versus programming the loss of speed in the series in two subjects with different characteristics.

If the training is programmed through the number of repetitions (text with a yellow background), everything that appears in the rest of the figure also results with a yellow background:

• The programmed number of repetitions is the same for both subjects: 7.
• The relative intensity is the same, since both start the training at 1 m s^-1 in the first repetition.
• The two perform 7 repetitions, but subject 1 has reached a speed of 0.7 m s^-1 in his last repetition, while subject 2 has reached 0.82 m s^-1, which means that :
• Subject 1 has lost 30% of the speed of the first repetition, his average execution speed has been 0.85 m·s^-1 and he has performed 5 repetitions at ≥0.8 m·s^-1.
• While subject 2 only lost 18%, he reached an average speed of 0.91 m·s^-1 and performed 7 repetitions at ≥0.8 m·s^-1.

All this means that both subjects, although they have trained with the same relative intensity and with the same number of repetitions, have made a quite different effort, that is, they have carried out two different training sessions, determined by a greater degree of fatigue and by a lower average speed of subject 1 compared to 2.

However, if the same loss of speed is programmed in the series with the same relative intensity, everything that appears with a green background in the figure occurs:

• The two subjects lose the same speed in the series and perform the same average speed in the total number of repetitions, even though subject 2 has performed 5 more repetitions.

Differences between programming the same number of repetitions against the same loss of speed.

Figure 1. Differences in the training load between programming, at the same relative intensity, the repetitions to be performed in the series or programming the loss of speed (see text for further clarification).

In this case, the two subjects have reached the same degree of fatigue and have trained at the same average speed. This is what defines the training load, taking the number of repetitions to the background and being something almost anecdotal, as long as these requirements are met:

• Same speed on the first repetition.
• Maximum possible speed of execution in all repetitions.
• Same loss of speed in the series.

If this is the case, the training loads, the efforts, the fatigue, the average speed of execution and the IE will be the same for the two subjects, although in the count of the repetitions the number performed is different in each case.

Definitely, 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.

Continuing with the study data, a real example of the information that the distribution of repetitions by speed zones can provide is given. Table 1 shows this distribution of repetitions between the different speed zones.

Tabla 17.1. Distribution of the repetitions performed, including the warm-up, between different speed zones (relative intensity).

The G40 performs more repetitions than the G20 because it loses more speed in the series. Este mayor número de repeticiones se produce en todas las zonas de velocidad excepto en la zona >1,1 m·-s^-1, en la que están prácticamente igualados. But the differences are manifested mainly in the areas ≤0.7 m·-s^-1, which clearly lowers the average speed of execution during the cycle from 0.69 in G20 to 0.58 m·-s^-1 in the G40 with the maximum loads of each session.

It is reasonable to accept that this lower average speed, although apparently small, of only 0.11 m·-s^-1, is responsible for the lower performance obtained by the G40, especially under light loads (2), because it cannot be deduced that this lower performance is due to the fact that they did fewer repetitions with high speeds, because with the speeds from >0.7 to 1 m·-s^-1, the G40 also performs more repetitions than the G20. Therefore, the number of extra repetitions that the G40 has performed for having continued doing repetitions after losing 20% ​​of the speed, does not seem to have contributed anything positive.

It is also worth noting the fact that small differences in average speed, such as 0.11 m·-s^-1, can give rise to quite different effects, in this case in favor of the higher average speed. Although, if this is so, we could give another interpretation to this “small” difference in speed, considering that these differences “are not so small”, but large enough to cause clear changes in performance.

In this sense we add another great advantage of speed control, which is explained as follows. If the distribution of the repetitions by zones of percentages of the RM had been made (we must take into account that this was a great advance in the control of the training load at the time, and that it comes from the technicians and researchers of the former Soviet Union, especially from Russia), and we wanted to know the average intensity of the entire training cycle, we would be forced to multiply the average value of each intensity zone by the number of repetitions performed in each zone, later calculating the weighted average derived from all these products.

For example, if the zone were ˃65-70, we would multiply 67.5 (the mean of 65 and 70) by the number of repetitions performed in that zone, and so on for all other zones. In this way we would have an approximate average training intensity. However, having measured the execution speed of each repetition, we have the exact average execution speed of all the repetitions of the cycle, without the need to make subsequent approximate calculations in a similar way as we have described for the percentage zones. This calculation could also be done with the speed zones, but, in addition to being unnecessary, the results would be much less precise.

In relation to the above, it should also be taken into account that the average speed of the entire cycle could be expressed as a percentage of the RM, simply by checking what percentage of the RM corresponds to the average speed performed. In the example of the study that we have been commenting on, the average speed with the maximum loads of each session was 0.69 m·-s^-1 for the G20, which is equivalent to having trained with a relative and average intensity of 80% of the RM (80% corresponds to a speed of 0.68 m·-s^-1), and the G40, whose average velocity with these charges was 0.58 m·-s^-1, with 85% (85% velocity is 0.59 m·-s^-1).

That is, the difference in the average percentage of the RM was slightly more than 5%. Here another important advantage of speed control is manifested, since having made the calculations and the distribution of the repetitions through the percentages, apart from the imprecision derived from the calculations, already mentioned, the big problem is that a significant part of the repetitions have not been done with the programmed percentages, and, therefore, the repetitions are not in the real zones that should correspond to them, given the inevitable changes in the RMs values. All of this is overcome by using speed to control the training load.

If we add a complementary study to the study that we have been discussing (Rodríguez-Rosell, Doctoral Thesis) in which, training with the same relative intensities, the speed losses were 10% (G10) and 30% (G30) of the MRI speed, we can obtain even more information and confirm what we have already obtained.

Table 2 shows the distribution of repetitions by speed zones of this new study together with that of the previous study. The results of the groups that lost 20 and 40% of the RM have already been compared. Now it is interesting to compare the group of 40 with the one of 10% loss of speed.

The G10 performed better than the G40, especially in actions performed at high absolute speed, that is, with light loads, and even in an exercise performed at high speed, not trained, such as the CMJ (counter movement jump). El G10 no solo realizó muchas menos repeticiones en el ciclo de entrenamiento que el G40 (46,7% de las que realizó el G40), sino que, a pesar de haber mejorado claramente mas con cargas ligeras, realizó menos repeticiones con las cargas de alta velocidad (>0,8 m·-s^-1).

These results confirm the importance that the loss of speed in the series can have in the results and in the quantification of the training load. Because, as previously noted, it seems clear that, again, the G40 doesn’t improve less under high-speed loads because it didn’t train with it, but rather because it continued to lose speed beyond what the data indicates it should lose.

Repetitions performed by speed zones according to loss of speed in the series in the squat exercise

Tabla 2. Distribution of the repetitions performed, including the warm-up, between different speed zones of four training groups with the same relative maximum intensities and different speed losses in the series.

With the information contained in Table 2, numerous analyzes can be carried out, which will have the great advantage that they will be based on very precise data on the real load that each group or each subject has carried out, because the two variables that determine the load are being accurately reported: intensity and volume.

The relative intensity of each session is programmed through the speed of the first repetition, but Table 2 shows the frequency with which you train with each relative intensity, that is, the true training and the true intensity with which you train. has trained. In turn, this frequency and the total number of repetitions performed (volume) are conditioned by the loss of speed, which is also programmed.

The volumes by groups are comparable, because it is assumed that in each group there must be the same or a similar number of subjects who can do both a high and a low number of repetitions, as well as the average number of repetitions that can be done before each loss of speed. But this cannot be applied to compare individual subjects, because one of them could do many more repetitions than the other with the same loss of speed.

Therefore, volume as an indicator of performance between individual subjects should not be an important reference data for analyzing training load and its effects. Given the same loss of speed in the series and the same speed of the first repetition, the loads will be equivalent, even if the volumes are different. Which does not mean that if the charges are equivalent, the effects are also equivalent.

volume as an indicator of performance between individual subjects should not be an important reference data for analyzing training load and its effects

But precisely from here arises a new way of analysis provided by speed control, in such a way that this control can modify what is considered almost a principle “the same training load can produce a very different effect in different subjects”. But, really, when you say this, are you talking about the same load? We would bet that this has never happened, because always the proposed load, especially the repetitions in the series “have had to be the same for everyone”, because “the repetitions that offer the best results are xxx”.

It is evident that few subjects in the same group train with the same load if they all do the same repetitions in the series. Therefore, it would remain to be verified to what extent the same real load has different effects for different subjects and to what extent these differences would occur. At this time, we have data to begin to answer these questions, but this is not the time to deal with them now.

As can be deduced from everything that we have been exposing, speed control and proper handling of the information it provides can be an important and powerful tool for learning what it means to train.

Figure 2 shows the results of the two studies that have been discussed. In it you can see the clear tendency to improve more under light loads (7 and 66% vs. 0.8%) and in the CMJ (9.1% vs. 3.7%) when 10 and 20% of speed is lost vs. 40%, and they improve practically the same, or even somewhat more, in percentage terms, with high loads or when moving at low speeds (lower area of ​​the force-velocity curve), an area for which, according to the literature, it is necessary to train until muscular failure. In the lower left part, the IE reached by each group appear before the maximum training loads. The table on the right shows the sums of the improvement percentages of each group in the set of dependent variables.

Figure 2. Effect of four requests for speed in the series with respect to the first repetition before the same maximum relative intensities: 70 to 85%. Vel_–med(%): average speed with all absolute loads common to the initial test; Vel_–≥ 1 m·s^-1: speed with loads equal to or greater than 1 m·s^-1 of the initial test; Vel_–˂ 1 m·s^-1: speed with loads less than 1 m·s^-1 of the initial test.

Figure 3 shows the results of these same training sessions in the 20 m race. It is confirmed that not only in the tests with loads or the vertical jump the effects of a low loss of speed are more favourable, but that this same tendency is also manifested in actions with a higher absolute speed of execution, such as the 20 m race. To the right of the figure the sum of improvements of the different groups is indicated. With 10 and 20% of speed loss there is an improvement in times, while it tends to increase when 30 and 40% are lost.

This exercise was not trained during the time the study lasted. We are, therefore, before a true transfer test (positive and negative, depending on the case) of the training of the complete squat on the 20 m race. It seems reasonable to accept that the determining factor for one type or another of transference to occur is not the relative intensity, but rather the degree of fatigue generated in the series.

The determining factor for one type or another of transference to occur is not the relative intensity, but the degree of fatigue generated in the series.

Figure 3. Effect of four speed losses in the series with respect to the first repetition before the same maximum relative intensities: 70 to 85% on the times in the 20 m race.

What was commented at the end of the previous paragraph puts us before one of the important and permanent objectives of the training task, which is to know the effect that the improvement of a training exercise can have on a different exercise, whether this is also trained or not. It is, therefore, before the much brought and carried transference, but well understood. The answer to this question, as we have already pointed out, can be given by the fact of measuring speed in each training session, thus giving us a new important application.

If the training effect is assessed every day without doing any special test, but simply by measuring the speed of execution with absolute loads, we will have the evolution of the training effect permanently updated and, therefore, the changes that it produces in the measured variable throughout the cycle. But if, in addition, we measure some other type of performance in some exercise every week, trained or not, we will be able to verify to what extent the changes in performance in both exercises are or are not related and in what sense.

Well, in a study in which the effect of training with three degrees of effort was compared: speed loss in the series of 10, 30 and 45% of the first repetition of the series, at intensities between 55 and 70% of the RM, in the squat exercise, the correlation between the weekly changes in the RM in the squat and the weekly changes in the vertical jump (CMJ) was analyzed, which was not trained, but only was measured once a week. This same analysis was carried out with the data from the previously described study in which 10 and 30% of the speed was lost at relative intensities between 70 and 85%.

This made it possible to analyze the relationship between the changes of both variables on five occasions, three in the first study mentioned in the previous paragraph and two in the second study. The results indicated the same trend in all cases. Figures 4 and 5 show the correlations obtained.

Figure 4. Relationship between changes in MRI (axis X) and changes in vertical jump (CMJ) (axis Y) with respect to the initial test during the eight weeks of training and the final test, with speed losses in the series of 10, 30 and 45% and intensities between 55 and 70% of the RM (Calculations made with data from the Doctoral Thesis of Rodríguez-Rosell, 2017).

Figure 5. Relationship between changes in MRI (axis X) and changes in vertical jump (CMJ) (axis Y) with respect to the initial test during the eight weeks of training and the final test, with speed losses in the series of 10 and 30% and intensities between 70 and 85% of the RM (Calculations made with data from the Doctoral Thesis of Rodríguez-Rosell, 2017) .

It can be seen that the corrections are all significant and with a high explained CMJ variance, from 62.4 to 92%. These relationships are independent of the fact that the training effect is greater or better on the two variables analyzed.

In figure 4, the group that improved the jump the most was the one that lost 10% of the speed in the set, and in this group there is the highest correlation between the changes, but the second highest correlation is with the loss of 45%, which was the group that tended to have worse results in the squat. And in figure 5 the correlation is higher with the loss of 30%, who had worse results in the jump and squat than the group that lost 10% of the speed.

In all cases, moreover, it can be considered that we are dealing with five cases of true positive transfers, since the jumping exercise was not trained during the training cycle. That is, the correlation is not high because good results have been achieved in the tests, but because the changes in the squat, whether they are good or bad, tend to produce a change in the same direction in the CMJ.

Therefore, these results show an important contribution of the measurement of speed, because it allows us to confirm that, with different degrees of fatigue and effort, that is, with different IE, both the improvement and worsening of the squat have an effect in the same direction on jumping capacity. And that this is also true whether the fatigue in the series is light, such as losing 10% of the speed in the series, or if it is very severe, practically to failure, such as losing 45% of the speed in the squat exercise.

But if Figure 6 is observed, where the evolution of the RM and CMJ variables is graphically represented in the example of the study of the three losses, it is still possible to obtain more relevant information to know the effect of the training.

Figure 6. Evolution of the RM (central part of the figure), the CMJ, which was not trained, (upper part of the figure) and the IE (lower part of the figure) during the eight weeks of training plus the initial and final test in both exercises when all groups trained with intensities of 55 to 70% and with speed losses in the series of 10, 30 and 45% of the RM (Image taken from Rodríguez-Rosell’s doctoral thesis).

The evolution of the MR (central part of the figure) with speed losses of 10 and 30% is very similar, especially after week 4, to reach the final test with practically the same improvement values: 22.5% with 10% loss of speed and 22.7% with 30%. However, if we look at the top of Figure 6, we see that CMJ improves almost uninterruptedly from the start of training to the end in the 10% loss group, while this is not the case with the 30% group, with a final improvement of 11.8% in CMJ in the 10% group and only 3% in the 30% group.

It is understood that what these data provide should be taken very seriously. How many times have you heard that the squat is not adequate, or that it is harmful, or that it is not specific because the angle in which the deep squat is performed is not suitable for jumping and other exercises, such as running, or that “maximal strength training” is not suitable for jumping improvement, but “explosive / ballistic training”…?

But, of course, all this with little evidence, or with erroneous evidence, that can confirm it. However, as can be deduced from the data that has just been discussed, and from the rest of the studies that we have previously seen, the squat can be decisive for improving the jump, and the race, but it depends on how it is trained. The problem is not in the exercise, but in the load that is applied when training it.

If we focus on the statement about “maximum strength training”, the reflections can be very relevant. You would be hard pressed to find many people who would consider it “maximal strength training” to train with very low repetitions at 70% (3-4 repetitions), 80% (2-3 repetitions), or 85% (2 repetitions) of the RM, which is what the group that lost 10% of speed in the set did at these relative intensities.

We do not know what this training would be called, because it is most likely that it is not even considered as a possibility of training, and, therefore, it would not have a name. We also do not believe that it would be clear what name would be given to a training in which 5-6 repetitions were done with 55%, 3-4 with 65% or 70% of RM, which is what the group that lost 10% of speed did at these relative intensities. However, almost all those consulted would surely agree that reaching almost muscular failure, and in some sessions to failure, with intensities of 70 to 85%, if it is “maximum strength training” (some might say that it is “hypertrophy training”, not “maximum strength”, to introduce a little more error), which is what was done when the groups lost more than 40% of the speed in the series.

However, if we now go to the results obtained with each type of training, it turns out that the training that “are not strength” have improved RM (which for most is almost the only indicator of what “maximum strength” is) more than “those who are of maximum force”. For the intensities of 70-85 and 55-70% of the RM, with the speed losses of 10% the RM improved by 17.9 and 22.5%, respectively, and for the losses of 40-45% the improvements were 13.5 and 15.1%, respectively. This was also accompanied, especially, by a greater improvement in the jump: 9.1 and 11.8% for losses of 10% of speed in the series, compared to 3.7 and 5.4% when 40-45% of speed was lost.

It turns out that “non-maximal strength” workouts have improved RM more than “maximal strength” workouts.

So, as can be deduced, this is all quite painful and unfortunate: “non-maximal strength” training improves “maximal strength” the most, and the “bad” full squat improves jump height very clearly, moreover, without training the jump.

On the other hand, when it is said that “maximum strength training” is not suitable for improving jumping, but rather “explosive training” or “ballistic training”, a big mistake is being made, because, as we can see, the training that improves “maximum strength” is not only the one that is done until failure or with very high intensities, and until failure, but also other training with much lower intensities and with the generation of little fatigue, and it seems that with better results.

In addition, it turns out that the jump clearly improves without jumping, that is, without doing “explosive” or “ballistic” training. This means that you also improve maximal strength (properly understood) in jumping with “non-maximal strength” training. Naturally, all this is the consequence, as we have indicated in other sections, of a misinterpretation of the concepts related to strength training, especially the very concept of “maximum strength”, the main source of a long chain of errors, as well as the great mistake of believing that “maximum strength” can only be trained and improved by training to failure and high intensities, which, naturally, are also done to failure. In short, a rather discouraging panorama, but one that should help us to react and try to make sense of all these issues.

In short, as can be gathered from the results of these five training groups, it seems that maximum strength (well understood, not just RM) can be improved significantly with a wide range of intensities, but the training that generates the most fatigue with these intensities is never the one that tends to offer the best results.

It seems, therefore, that the degree of fatigue created by any relative intensity and, therefore, the average training speed of the entire cycle, are determining factors of the effect that is produced. In addition, the most precise way to adjust and estimate fatigue, as well as to measure, and know, with high precision, the speed at which the training is executed is through the control of the loss of speed in the series for each speed of the first repetition, that is, for each relative intensity.

Several conclusions and practical applications can be deduced from the above:

• In addition to determining the relative intensity with which you train, the speed of the first repetition allows you to achieve other important objectives:
  • Adjust the load (intensity) to the actual physical situation of the subject in each training session.
  • Guarantee control of a determining variable of load and performance, such as relative intensity.
  • Know the real average relative intensity of the maximum intensities applied.
• The speed measurement allows us to 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.
• It is possible to know exactly the average speed lost in the series by the different groups and by each participant:
  • If we take 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.
• The measurement of speed allows us to reflect on the fact that with the same relative load, a difference of only 11 hundredths of more^-1 in average speed (for example, 0.69-0.58 m s^-1 in the case that we have presented), it can generate effects with a clear trend in favor of the group with the highest average speed and in some cases obtaining significant differences in favor.
• Faced with a loss of speed in the series that is equal or very similar for each of the subjects, there is a high variability in the number of repetitions performed. This confirms that it would not be correct to program the same number of repetitions with the same relative intensity. This information can only be obtained if we measure the speed of execution.
• In order to distribute the volume (repetitions) between the intensities used, intensity zones expressed in percentages of the RM have traditionally been created. But this procedure encompasses all the drawbacks associated with the use of MRI as a reference to measure 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:
  • It is understood 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 this 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.
• In addition, the correct selection of the load by controlling the speed of the first repetition and the percentage of speed loss in the series, not only allows obtaining more improvements in performance, but by doing it in conditions of less tissue stress, it is very likely that it will contribute to the reduction or abolition of the number of injuries caused by strength training or any other physical training.

The correct selection of the load by controlling the speed of the first repetition and the percentage of speed loss in the series contributes to the reduction of the number of injuries caused by strength training or any other physical training.

“Regular physical activity has a positive impact on our physical and mental health,” announced the Director of the World Health Organization (WHO) Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus a few days ago.

In his appearance to celebrate the international day of sport, the head of the organization encouraged countries, cities, communities and individuals, NOT to ignore physical activity and sport because every movement counts to live longer and healthier.

His intervention concluded with«COVID-19 is an opportunity […] to ensure that people of all ages and origins have the opportunity to access sport, physical activity and fitness. »

It's International #SportDay. As we fight #COVID19, I urge countries, cities, communities & individuals not to ignore physical activity & sports, & measures to stay safe. #OnlyTogether, working as a team, can we return to things we enjoy: playing & following our favourite sports. pic.twitter.com/pWyKubF0mn

— Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (@DrTedros) April 6, 2021

The WHO recommends that all adults engage in physical activity for a minimum of 30 minutes and for children for at least 60 minutes a day. The WHO especially advises muscle strengthening to stay active and healthy from home during the pandemic.

exercise has a great effect on the immune system

On the other hand, Dr. Claire Stevens from King’s College London explains that exercise has a great effect on the immune system, and points out that it is a fact that has been known for decades.

Multiple studies have linked moderate exercise to decreased cases of the flu, pneumonia, and other infections, as well as chronic illnesses such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease..

Staying active supports the immune system in a number of ways, including reducing inflammation, increasing the presence of immune cells, and a positive effect on the gut microbiota. All of these support the body’s defenses. ‍

Regular exercise has also been shown to improve the ability to regulate the immune system.. This may be essential to avoid severe symptoms of COVID-19 causados ​​por una reacción exagerada del sistema inmunológico. ‍

According to another study, physical activity contributes to the reduction of cardiovascular risks, lowering both systolic and diastolic blood pressure and remodeling left ventricular hypertrophy.

This study adds that physical activity has a well-known positive effect on metabolic syndrome and insulin sensitivity. Therefore, It can only be concluded that active individuals compared to sedentary ones should have better control of the high risks that increase the susceptibility of suffering from COVID-19.

Still, older people and people with health problems are more likely to become seriously ill or die from COVID-19, so keep in mind that being physically active is not a foolproof protection against disease.

The best way to protect yourself from coronavirus infections is to follow guidelines agreed upon by institutions, such as washing your hands regularly and avoiding physical contact with other people.

You don’t have to run a marathon every day to be active‍

Dr. Claire emphasizes that physical activity can have a positive effect on the immune system in a relatively short period of time. The best time to start training is now.

In line with the latest research, a single workout has a beneficial effect on the immune system, rapidly increasing regular sessions and strengthening the immune system.

However, it doesn’t have to be long, intense, or uncomfortable for exercise to be effective. Studies have shown that moderate activities such as walking, jogging, and bicycling can have a variety of immunological effects if they last for less than an hour.

Dr. Zhen Yan of the University of Virginia College of Medicine has found that exercise triggers the production of an antioxidant known as EcSOD that protects us from lung diseases.

In particular, this antioxidant can protect us from acute respiratory failure, which is fatal in 45% of cases. This pathology affects up to 85% of patients admitted to ICUs due to COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.

The best time to start training is now

In his study, Professor Yan analyzed more than 120 investigations to understand how, at the molecular level, EcSOD protects tissues from oxidative stress, which contributes to disease development.

Yan explained in the conclusions of his study that exercise can prevent or at least reduce the severity of acute respiratory failure as it span The production of the antioxidant begins from the first training session.

The professor recommends at least 30 minutes of exercise a day to accumulate the benefits of this antioxidant.

A sound mind in a sound body

It is also important to note that physical activity is excellent for physical and mental health. In fact, some research has found that a total reduction in physical activity has a profound negative effect on psychological and mental health and well-being in the population.

This research concludes that after quarantine, it is necessary to support physical activity to return to the routine in a healthy way.

How to stay active during the state of alarm? ‍

Many gyms and sports clubs are closed. The pool is closed.

Fortunately, there are many more ways to stay active during the pandemic. In particular, we recommend that you train muscle strengthening for the different benefits it has for health.

Whether you train at home, you do it on the street or in a park, or if you can go to a specialized training center, we recommend that you try training with Fitenium for these reasons:

• Fitenium is a free download app with which you can start training at any time.
• Find personalized training programs according to your physical condition, training frequency, place and material available.
• Track your workout with graphs and progress indicators for your weight, amount of volume lifted, calories burned, minutes trained, and much more.
• Participate in a vibrant community and create a lasting habit by training with other users.
• Join challenges and win great prizes for winning and participating.

We are waiting for you at Fitenium, your best defense against COVID-19. in body and mind.

If you don’t already know Fitenium is a free, mobile, video-based social network for athletes who train strength or bodyweight exercises. At Fitenium users can follow their performance, compete and get discounts in nutrition and sports equipment stores. Download it here.

Where does this ranking of Fitness influencers come from and why we do it

The ranking presented below has been obtained from the sports habits survey carried out on more than 350 users interested in strength training in 2018. If you want to know more details about how we conducted the interview and why we conducted it, we describe it here.

Methodology

In particular, for the influencers question we use an open format asking: Which fitness influencers do you follow or do you think are most important? Users had an open text field where they could type whatever they wanted. Once the surveys were completed, we dedicated ourselves to assigning votes to each of the mentioned influencers. For each mention, one vote. The graph with the votes collected by each of the mentioned influencers were the following:

Do you have something to say? Do it.

Some users have told us that the ranking does not correspond to reality. That is why we would like to emphasize that these data are NOT our opinions or those of anyone in particular. The graph represents the opinions of the 350 users who filled out the sports habits survey. If you want to add your opinion about the ranking of influencers or recommend other influencers that do not appear on this list: we are waiting for you in the comments!