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

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

SUMMARY

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

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

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

speed loss is a highly valid indicator to estimate fatigue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

In this entry, a review of the training stages will be made based on the need for strength.

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 duration of the stages depends mainly on the age of the subject at the time they start training.
• The development of training based on the need for strength through sporting life is proposed in four stages.
• The older the subject, the less time will be spent on training the first stage and part of the second.
• Therefore, the duration of each stage can be on average 1-2 years, but can be highly variable depending on the response of the subjects.

Taking into account the division of sports based on their strength needs, it is necessary to make a proposal on the evolution of training loads throughout the sporting life of each of these groups. Table 1 presents a scheme of this proposal.

Tabla 1. Proposal for the degree of load to be used throughout sports life in groups of sports with different needs for force development.

The data that appears in the table would be applicable to the full squat exercise. Subsequently, some adaptations of these loads to other exercises will be made. The development of training based on the need for strength through sporting life is presented in four stages. The number of stages that is proposed is the one that has been considered sufficient so that the training characteristics of the different groups can be expressed and differentiated in a reasonable way.

Each stage does not necessarily correspond to a season or year of training. The application time of the training proposed for a stage may be greater than one year, which will be the most frequent. The duration of the stages depends fundamentally on the age of the subject at the time he begins to train.

The older the subject, the less time will be spent training the first stage and part of the second

The older the subject, the less time will be spent on training the first stage and part of the second. But there is a condition that must be met, and that is that you must go through all the stages, whatever the age of the subject when you start training.

However, regarding the time dedicated to training in one stage or with one of certain loads, it should be remembered that the best situation that can occur for the coach and the athlete is that they can spend a long time training with the same relative intensities, while the performance improvement is maintained with the only increase in absolute load.

Therefore, the duration of each stage can be on average 1-2 years, but can be highly variable depending on the response of the subjects. The load indicators proposed for each stage are the maximum at the end of each stage. This means that before carrying out the training proposed for the first stage, several training cycles with lower loads must be carried out.

It also means that when going from one stage to another, the maximum training proposed for the new stage is not done directly, but several cycles with intermediate loads between the maximum of the previous stage and the maximum of the stage in which one enters.

For each stage and group the words “minimum” and “maximum” appear. These two terms indicate the minimum and maximum load of the final training cycle of each stage or cycle of greatest load within the stage. Both loads are expressed as an effort character (CE) and as an approximate percentage of the RM that would correspond to that CE.

For example, the minimum load of the final cycle in the second stage of group A is expressed with a CE of 8(20) (do 8 repetitions while being able to do 20), and the corresponding percentage is 55%, and the maximum load of the cycle is 6(12) and a percentage of 70%. Regarding speed losses in the series, 10-15% is suggested for the minimum load and 15-20% for the maximum.

Naturally, if speed were measured, the references for all these indicators would be the speed of 55 and 70% of the RM, as indicators of relative intensity, and the loss of speed in the series. Then, a specific and common number of repetitions would not be programmed for all the subjects, and, therefore, the expression of the CE in terms of repetitions performed and possible or achievable repetitions would disappear.

If you train with an exercise for which the speed that would correspond to each percentage is not known, this can be roughly estimated if the RM speed is known. Exceptionally, the RM could be measured on occasion with a few subjects who perform the exercise well, to find this value in an approximate way. Once known, we know that the speed corresponding to each percentage will be in relation to the speed of the RM.

exercise of which the speed that would correspond to each percentage is not known, this can be estimated in an approximate way if the speed of the RM is known.

Comparing this speed with that of the exercises whose RM speeds we already know, it is possible to have a useful estimation to know the speed with each percentage and organize the training. Although the estimated speed for each percentage had a higher error than the rest of the exercises, as well as the loss of speed in the series, and these two issues are the most important.

Therefore, the utility of speed would be very high, and preferable to any other way of controlling the training load. We can see that in the fourth stage of all the groups a range of maximum percentages appears in bold. These are the approximate maximum intensity values ​​that each of the groups should reach at the end of their sporting life.

It is probable that for many subjects these relative intensities were not necessary, especially in the squat exercise, which is the one analyzed in this table, but it is proposed as the maximum “admissible” percentage. It must be taken into account, however, that these percentages, as will be seen later, even if you train with them, do not apply to all sessions of a training cycle.

Finally, to the right of the table the maximum percentage of repetitions in the series that could be done in each of the groups is indicated. To do this, half of the possible repetitions in the series are taken as a reference, indicating whether more than half, half or less than half of the possible repetitions in the series are done at most.

This maximum percentage of repetitions per series would not be done from the beginning of the training of “sporting life, but would be advanced to the maximum proposed as the stages are covered. Again we have to indicate that if speed can be measured. These percentages will be determined by the loss of speed in the series, knowing that in the face of certain loss of speed, a specific percentage of the possible repetitions in the series is done.

It is important to comply with the fact that with groups D and E you should never perform even half of the possible repetitions in the series, with group C you could reach half and with groups A and B you can reach do 1-2 repetitions more than half of the possible.

Therefore, this simple proposal turns out to be very useful due to the influence it can have on the adjustment of the load. If we look at the table from left to right, it can be seen that the relative intensity and loss of speed in the series are increasing until the last stage in all groups.

And if you look at the table from top to bottom, the trend is for the relative intensity and the loss of speed in the series to decrease. This trend naturally indicates that the lower the need for force development, the lower the training demand or load. The greatest demand is manifested in the relative intensity and in the Effort Index (IE), which does not appear in the table.

In the first stage, the IE with the maximum load of the cycle is the same for all groups (10-11). Subsequently, the maximum value of the IE programmed with the maximum load of the cycles in groups A and B is approximately 17, although it can reach 20 with the minimum loads of the last stages, in c 15-16, in D 12 -13 and at E 11-12. As indicated, the loads included in this table are more precisely tailored to the squat exercise.

Training adaptations to consider between squats and bench presses

For push and pull exercises with the worst limbs, such as the bench press (PB), the following adaptations should be made:

• The possible repetitions with each percentage would be 2-3 more in PB than in the squat (S).
• However, for the same percentage and the same loss of speed, the repetitions performed in both exercises are practically the same.
• The loss of speed in the programmed series could be increased by 5-10% in PB with respect to the S.
• The relative intensity (actual percentage of the MR) could be 5-10% higher in PB than in S.
• For the same percentage and loss of speed, the IE of the S is on average 30% higher than in PB, since the speed of each percentage in S is higher.
• But if, as we have indicated, in the PB the loss of speed in the series increases by 5-10% with respect to the S, the average IE in PB will be, approximately, only 5%, less than that which results for S.
• The maximum loss of speed in the series that produces a positive effect in S can be between 20 and 25%, while in PB it can reach approximately 35%. These are maximum losses, so they would only apply to subjects with extensive experience and high strength needs.

This article reviews the evolution of training loads to define the previously described force programming schemes.

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.

The progressive development of the programming of the groups is presented below. First, the loads of the initial and final cycles of all the stages of each group are presented.

Tabla 1. Basic scheme of programming the initial and final cycles for all groups in the squat in the first stage.

• The initial cycle of the Stage and the final cycle of the Stage are programmed.
• In each Stage several intermediate cycles are developed between the two programmed here.
• BP: body weight; PV: loss of speed in the series; EI: effort index.

Regardless of strength development needs, it is considered that the first stage of training should be the same for all sport groups. The differences between the groups will be manifested by the time that this type of training will be maintained and the different progression in the training load from the second stage. The sports specialties with more strength needs could spend less time in the first stage and should increase the load more quickly.

The differences between the groups will be manifested by the time that this type of training will be maintained and the different progression in the training load from the second stage

Table 1 shows the minimum and maximum loads of the initial cycle and the initial cycle and the final training cycle of the first stage. As indicated in the header of the table, on the left are the minimum loads and on the right the maximum. In the first row are the load variables, in the second row the loads of the initial cycle and in the third those of the final cycle.

Minimum initial cycle charge. In the section of the minimum loads of the initial cycle, no load value is determined. EThe subject would train without any added external load, would perform 2-4 sets of full squats of 6-10 repetitions per set, doing the eccentric phase in a controlled manner, at medium speed, not maximum, and the concentric phase at the maximum or almost maximum speed possible, with the transition from the eccentric phase to the concentric phase (rebound) in a moderate way, at low or medium speed, with about 2 minutes of recovery between sets.

Between each repetition there are 2-3 seconds of pause. The trainer observes the ease/difficulty with which the subject performs the exercise. Therefore, it is not considered that there is an appreciable loss of speed nor, of course, is any IE determined.

Maximum load of the initial cycle. It is expected that after having done the exercise without added load for 2-4 weeks, about twice a week, the ease / speed of execution is high and it is justified to start adding some external load. At the end of the cycle the load can be from 5 to 20 kg, to do 2-4 series of 6-8 repetitions per series.

It is understood that this added load has been done in progression, starting with 5 kg or less, depending on the subject, and increasing it as an increase in ease/speed of execution is observed. Theoretically, the ease of execution with which the cycle ends, with the corresponding added load, should be close to or equivalent to the ease with which the subject performed the last training sessions without loads.

In this case, it is not appropriate to talk about the percentage of 1RM or IE, and the loss of speed could be null or very small, like 3%. Before reaching the proposed loads for the final cycle of the stage, the subject must carry out a few cycles of progressive training, in such a way that he trains with approximately 30-35 kg.

Before reaching the proposed loads for the final cycle of the stage, the subject must carry out a few cycles of progressive training, in such a way that he trains with approximately 30-35 kg.

After training with these loads it would be appropriate to start the loads of the final cycle of the stage. Minimum load of the final cycle. At the beginning of this cycle you could be programming the training with relative intensities and character of the effort (CE). In this case, the CE is very low, since 2-4 series of 5-8 repetitions would be done with loads that can be done many times (30-40).

This could correspond to 30-40% of the RM. The speed loss would be 5-10%, with an IE of 14-16. Naturally, if speed is measured, the relative intensity is determined by the speed value and the repetitions are not programmed, but each series is performed until the programmed speed is lost.

Maximum load of the final cycle. Over the course of the development of the cycle, the relative intensity is progressively increased, which means that the number of possible repetitions (number in parentheses of the CE) is reduced until reaching the proposal to perform at the end of the cycle about 2- 4 series of 6-8 repetitions, being able to do 18-20 repetitions in the series, which would correspond to approximately 55% of the RM, a 10-15% loss of speed in the series and a effort index (IE) of 14-16. It must be taken into account that this last cycle must be carried out 2-3 times before moving on to the first cycle of the next stage.

As soon as the maximum load of the day begins to be equal to or greater than 50% of the RM, you should do 1-2 warm-up sets with the same repetitions per set that you are going to perform with the maximum load of the day or something more. As the maximum load of the day increases, the warm-up series will be longer.

The programming of the initial and final cycles of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th stages of each group will be presented below. Table 2 presents the proposal for group A.

Table 2. Basic programming scheme of the initial and final cycles for group A in Squats in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th stages.

• The initial cycle of the Stage and the final cycle of the Stage are programmed.
• In each Stage several intermediate cycles are developed between the two programmed here.
• BW: body weight; PV: loss of speed in the series; EI: effort index.

The first row of Table 2 shows the load variables. In the second row are the initial and final cycles of the 2nd stage. Within this stage there are two rows, the first with the training sessions of the initial cycle of the stage, with its corresponding minimum and maximum load, and the second with those of the final cycle. The meaning of the numbers corresponding to each variable are the same that we have described when talking about the first stage.

It can be seen that the first stage ended with an approximate relative intensity of 95%, which had to be done at least 2 times (two cycles with the same loads), and the initial cycle of the second stage reaches 57-60%. This would be roughly the progression from the first to the second stage.

Between the initial and final cycles that are proposed, some intermediate cycles will have to be carried out. The reference to get from the initial cycle to the end should be the value of the relative intensity that is proposed in the final cycle. The intensity increase in this case is approximately 7.5-10%. If 2 cycles were done with the initial cycle charges, another 2 could be done with the intermediate charges and then reach the final cycle, which should be done at least twice before entering the next stage. In total, 5-6 cycles would be done at this stage.

What could be a season and a half. The development of the following stages would be done in a similar way to that described for the second stage. Table 3 shows the proposal for group B.

Tabla 3. Basic programming scheme of the initial and final cycles for group B in the squat in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th stages.

• The initial cycle of the Stage and the final cycle of the Stage are programmed.
• In each Stage several intermediate cycles are developed between the two programmed here.
• BW: body weight; PV: loss of speed in the series; EI: effort index.

Table 3 presents the same characteristics as Table 2. Everything that has been commented is valid for this proposal. There are only differences in the proposed loads, which are especially expressed in the relative intensities, which in this table experience a slightly smaller progression and end up with somewhat lower values.

Tables 4, 5 and 6 present the proposals for groups C, D and E. All the indications, adapted to the loads of each of the groups, are valid for these new proposals. In all the groups, during the 2nd and 3rd stages there would be between 5 and 8 cycles, approximately, so that each one would occupy between one and two seasons.

For the 4th stage, a number of cycles cannot be determined, since, if the subject were to remain training for a long time in his sporting life, he would always do so without increasing the programmed relative intensities, since they are not expected to increase.

If these situations come to pass, it would be advisable to do a cycle with a lower relative intensity than expected, just as it would be advisable to do a cycle with a lower relative intensity than that expected as maximum and a little more loss of speed in the series (little), and then , in subsequent cycles, return to the load values ​​provided in the in stage.

It would be very important that, even in these moments of sports life, it be verified whether the way of increasing the absolute load works without increasing the relative one, which would be a good sign of a good response to training.

The general guidelines that we have given when talking about the alternatives in situations in which the subjects increase or do not speed above what is expected, would be of important application in these cases.

Tabla 4. Basic programming scheme of the initial and final cycles for the squat group in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th stages.

Table 5. Basic programming scheme of the initial and final cycles for group D in Squat in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th stages.

Table 6. Basic scheme of programming the initial and final cycles for group E in the squat in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th stages.

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

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

SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

Not taking rep breaks in the set leads to increased fatigue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Studies analyzed on cluster training (clt)

Rooney el al. (1994)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Lawton et al. (2004)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hansen et al. (2011)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oliver et al. (2013)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mora-Custodio et al., 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These factors of sports training are three.

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

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

Justification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3/3 Sports training factors: Exercise in question.

Justification:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this article, a series of actions are indicated to program the training in each of the cycles that are programmed throughout the sporting life of the trained subject, always keeping in mind the previous considerations exposed in previous articles.

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.

1. Select the variables that determine the load

Select the minimum speed of the first repetition in the series of the entire training cycle (relative maximum intensity of the cycle), the velocity loss in the series for the relative maximum intensity and the Effort Index (IE).

The IE is determined by the two previous indicators, and it could be the first thing to be programmed, if one had experience in the use of this index and data recorded and analyzed from previous training cycles, but since the same IE can be obtained with intensities different relative speeds and losses in the series, which would also give rise to different effects, First of all, it is necessary to choose the maximum relative intensity of the cycle (the load that moves at the slowest speed within the cycle) as a reference for the evolution of the training load throughout sporting life.

Therefore, in practice, it will be the first thing to decide. The second decision will be about the loss of speed in the series with the maximum relative intensity and the rest of the relative intensities.

The relative intensities could be expressed through real percentages of the RM, as it is more comfortable, intuitive and easier for assessment and communication between professionals and athletes. But these percentages of the RM will always be expressed and quantified through the speed with which the load must be moved, never by the calculation on a RM.

The decision on the values ​​of the relative intensities and speed losses in the series will be made based on age, experience in strength training, the strength needs of the sport and the initial situation of the subject.

2. Select the minimum intensity of the cycle and the loss of speed in the series with this load.

The next step to program training is to select the minimum intensity of the cycle (highest speed of the first repetition within the cycle), that is, the speed with which the first training sessions of the cycle are carried out, with the lightest loads, and the speed loss in the series for this relative intensity.

The speed losses with the lighter intensities will always be lower than with the higher intensities within the cycle. It must be taken into account that the same speed loss under a light load means greater IE (greater fatigue) than under higher loads. Therefore, the use of the same speed loss in the series before all the intensity would mean performing a higher IE with light loads. The basic orientation is that the loss of speed with light loads is lower.

With small loads, by reducing the loss of speed in the series, the repetitions performed will be proportionally further away from the possible repetitions in the series and the IE will be less than or equal to that achieved with high loads.

3. Determine the duration of the cycle.

This is a necessary step, but it is not conditioned by the fact that speed is used as a reference for training organization. The duration of the cycle, as a general rule, should not be more than 8-12 weeks. In addition, you can do cycles of 4-6 weeks that can also be very effective in certain situations. The duration of the cycle will tend to be longer at the beginning of the season and in the early stages of sporting life.

When the number of competitions in the season is not very frequent, for example, only in 2-4 short periods of time per year, the length of the cycles, apart from the adaptation times, is highly conditioned by the dates of the competitions. .

If the competitions are very frequent, what determines the duration or length of the cycles will be the adaptation times.

4. Determine training frequency

This is also a necessary step, but it is not conditioned by the fact of using speed as a reference for programming training. Two strength training sessions a week are compatible in most cases with the specific training of many sports specialties. But the most important thing is to choose well the frequency with which each exercise is trained, which preferably should not be more than twice a week. Weightlifting is naturally excepted from this general suggestion.

However, it must be taken into account that increased frequency does not necessarily mean increased load. If the same job is divided into two sessions, the frequency will increase, but the load will be the same or, with high probability, less, since the fatigue values ​​per session would be lower.

5. Distribution of the maximum intensities of each session, between the minimum and the maximum of the cycle

Depending on the values ​​of the minimum and maximum intensities chosen, it is decided how many intermediate maximum intensities will be used. For example, if the minimum intensity is equivalent to an intensity of 50% of 1RM and the maximum to 70%, 1RM (loads that, naturally, would be determined by speed), training could be programmed with intermediate intensities equivalent to 55, 60 and 65 % of 1RM.

Therefore, there would be five maximum intensities in total for all sessions. Once the training frequency of the exercise and the set of maximum intensities of each session are known, training can be programmed by distributing these intensities among the frequencies.

For example, if for the indicated intensities there were 20 sessions, which could correspond to 10 weeks of training, with two sessions per week the simplest distribution would be to train four times with each maximum intensity. Naturally, the distributions could be different depending on the cases.

This is not the time to develop all the possible alternatives, but as a guideline, it must be taken into account that given the same intensities and weekly training frequency, training can be programmed with different resulting global loads. This overall load will depend on the greater or lesser frequency with which the maximum expected intensities are used.

If instead of performing each maximum intensity four times, as indicated, 50% is performed 5 times, 55% 6 times, and the remaining three intensities are performed 3 times each, the average intensity of the cycle will decrease. If, on the contrary, a redistribution is made by increasing the frequency of the two higher intensities, the average intensity will rise. These changes in the frequency distribution of the maximum relative intensities is a way of modifying the load and progressing in the training demand without modifying the range of intensities used during the cycle.

6. Decide the number of series before each training intensity, especially before the maximum intensities of each session

The most frequent number of series to perform with each of these intensities will be between 2 and 4. And within this range, the most common is to do 3 series with the maximum intensity of the day. With the warm-up intensities, it is usual to use one series for each intensity, progressing until reaching the maximum intensity established (main load of the session). As already indicated, the repetitions to be performed in each series with the maximum intensities of the session are not programmed, as they will be determined by the selected loss of speed.

schedule training

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

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

SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

Fatigue has a significant core component.

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

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

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

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

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

Usually in sports training jargon it is considered that “there are many types of strength”, and each of them is given a name. This post analyzes some of them and their associated errors.

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.

Clarifications on some common terms

When talking about force, it is only possible to refer to a value of applied force or “peak” of force, expressed in newtons, and the relationship between any value or “peak” of force that is applied and the time it takes to apply it. (RFD (rate of force development), expressed in N*s-1)

Therefore, all you will have is a peak or force value and an RFD. The “peak force” can refer to the force applied in a static action, but also, and especially, to the value of applied force that is reached before each load that moves. However, in the jargon of sports training it is considered that “there are many types of strength”, and each of them is given a name. Some of these names make some sense, although they do not add anything to the concepts already exposed, but in other cases they are inappropriate. Some of them are now discussed.

Maximum strength

This term is as common as it is misused. It is exclusively associated with the value of the RM or the Maximum Isometric Force (FIM). This statement is a serious mistake because, whether we like it or not, all the training we do is necessarily “maximum strength”. This is so because from the point of view of physical performance, which in some cases coincides with the specific performance, the only effect that can be expected from training is to improve the value before an absolute load, whatever it may be, from the The lightest to the highest, or from those gestures, specific or not, that are performed at very high speed to those that are performed before more or less heavy external loads, and these changes (improvements) can only occur if the “maximum strength” improves. ” applied between said charges.

Displaced loads could be, for example: one’s own body weight, a bicycle at high or low cadence, rowing a boat, throwing a handball, hitting a badminton shuttlecock, throwing a seven kilogram weight, lifting any weight of training at the maximum speed possible…

Error: “we are going to train the speed not the maximum strength”. This is simply impossible. Because it is not possible to improve the travel speed of any load if the “maximum force” applied to said load does not improve.

Error: “we are going to perform a power training…” When this statement is made, it is implied that if there is a “power training”, it must be different from a “strength” or “maximum strength” training or any other. Well, again, we have to say that this is impossible, because you cannot improve speed at the same absolute load if you do not improve the maximum force applied to it and, if you do not improve speed, you cannot improve power: do the same job in less time.

That is to say, it can only improve the power in a specific action, if it improves the maximum force or the corresponding load. Therefore, not only is it wrong to make this statement, but power training itself does not exist, because all training is for power”, … if maximum strength improves under any load. Therefore, the only possible training is “training for maximal strength improvement”.

Explosive force

The term “explosive force” is widely used in training jargon and for this reason we have considered clarifying the meaning of this expression and sport in general could be moderately justified by two meanings of the definition of this term in the RAE dictionary as are “sudden release of energy…” and “rapid development of something” The adactation of the meaning “sudden release of energy…” can be associated with the rapid release of energy necessary for muscle activation and reaching a high or maximum muscular tension in the unit of time, both in static and dynamic actions. This rapid release of energy would also be responsible for the “breakthrough development…of force” in a muscular action.

But our definitive reflection about this term is that it would be healthy not to use it in a wrong way, since it is associated with high-speed actions and as opposed to static actions and those carried out with medium and high loads, ignoring that if the term is used “Explosive should be applied to all muscular actions or activations in which force is tried to be applied as quickly as possible, that is. reach the maximum production of force in the unit of time (maximum RFD) before any load and activity, including static actions.

elastic-explosive strength

When this term is used, it refers to the result of an action in which the subject performs an intense or high-velocity stretch-shortening cycle (CEA). It is understood that the result of the action depends in part on the elastic force that has been generated in the eccentric phase of the CEA. The term “explosive” is used (or should be understood as such) because the concentric phase of the action is performed at the maximum speed possible for the subject. Although this term could be admissible, adding “explosive” does not make sense, because the “elastic” force would not be used if the concentric phase were not performed at high speed and immediately after the eccentric.

In any case, the only thing that we could measure in both the eccentric and concentric phases would be a force peak, or multiples, and a time to reach each of these peaks, that is, one or multiple RFD values. These “peaks” and their corresponding RFD values ​​would be the indicators * of the result of the action, and, therefore, the performance in height, horizontal distance or speed reached after the action will depend on them. That is, the “elastic” force has its own entity, and it is not necessary to add the term “explosive” for it to exist as such, although the concentric action must be “explosive” so that it can be used. For this reason, in the field of training and strength evaluation, it would be sufficient to use “elastic” to indicate a training objective and to evaluate performance in this capacity.

Reflex-elastic-explosive strength

This term is similar to the previous one, but it is meant to imply that the CEA is performed at the highest speed and that the stretch reflex contributes to making the concentric phase more effective. This situation would occur to a greater extent when the CEA occurs after “a fall” to the ground from a certain height. That is, it would refer to an action with “bounce . Although the effect of the action could depend in part on the contribution of the stretch reflex and the elastic force generated, and this would justify the use of this term, what we could measure and the performance indicators would still again be the peaks of generated force and their corresponding RFD values. Sometimes, to refer to this type of action, the term “reactive force” is used. When using this term, it should be understood that after a type of action, in this case an eccentric action, there is “a reaction”, that is, an action in the opposite direction, which in this case will be a concentric action. The opportunity to exclude the term “explosive” would have the same justification indicated in the previous case.

ballistic force

The term “ballistic” refers to “throw / throw” and the trajectory of the projectiles, so its use in training jargon would not be justified, unless it was used to study the trajectory of launches in any sports specialty in which this type of action occurs. However, in training jargon this expression is used to refer to actions that are carried out at high or maximum speed and when jumping and throwing objects or external loads.

However, in many of the occasions in which this term appears in the international literature (Desmedt and Godaux, 1977, Behm and Sale, 1993, Van Cutsem et al., 1998, Aagaard et al, 2002, Aagaard, 2003, van Cutsem and Duchateau, 2005, ), the “ballistic” action also refers to the isometric action in which it is tried to apply the force as quickly as possible, that is, static action in which it is tried to reach the maximum RFD. According to this definition, one speaks of “ballistic training or ballistic action of isometric force” that is to say, in the absence of displacement and, therefore, in the absence of speed and the release of any charge.

Therefore, its “ballistic” character is determined by the slope of the force-time curve. In other words, a “ballistic” action would be one in which the force is applied as quickly as possible, trying to reach the maximum slope or maximum RFD, but without the need for displacement. For this reason, the “ballistic force” would originally refer to the RFD (RFDmax) in static actions, although it could also apply to dynamic actions in which it is also a question of reaching the maximum RFD before the charge in question. This would mean that, if the action is dynamic, the speed would be maximum under any load, but this type of action should be defined as “ballistic force” not because the action is performed at high speed, but because of the requirement of that, to reach maximum speed under any load, the RFD must be maximum.

It is important to distinguish between “ballistic contraction” (perhaps better “ballistic activation”), characterized by the attempt to reach the maximum RFD in muscle activation, but in which the velocity may or may not be zero, and “ballistic movement”, characterized by reaching “high speed” and in some cases jumping or throwing an object, all of which depend on a high or maximum RFD, although of course if what determines the action to be “ballistic” is trying to hit the maximum RFD, movements with intermediate or high charges, moving at medium or low speeds, are also “ballistic actions”.

Therefore, all these types of actions would be precisely and unambiguously defined if it is indicated that strength is trained or performance is measured by moving the load at the maximum possible speed. If the training or the measurement has to be static / isometric, the indication would be to activate or apply the force as quickly as possible (reaching the maximum RFD). In our case we do not use and will not use the term “ballistic” to refer to any type of force or training. When proposing a workout, if necessary, due to the characteristics of the exercise, it will be indicated that the action or exercise must be carried out at the maximum possible speed, whether it is jumping or whether the load is thrown or not, without going into qualifiers about the execution type.

quick force

This term is widely used in sports training jargon. It is related to those actions in which the displacement speed is high or very high. The first problem we encounter is that it is not clear where the “fast” force ends and the “slow force” begins. That is, what range of percentages, normally 1RM, and considers that it corresponds to the “fast force” and which to the “slow force”.

The second and most important of the problems is that the concept of “fast strength” is associated with speed of movement, or speed of muscle shortening, in the best of cases. But it would seem more reasonable that “quick force” should be associated with the “speed” with which the force is applied. If the speed in the application of the force were high, the force could properly be called “fast”, although we would always have the problem of determining from what degree of speed it is considered as such.

Although the reality, and the paradox, is that when light or very light loads are moved (less than 30-40% of the RM or approximately 30% of the FIM), that is, when loads are moved at high speeds, the force is applied more slowly, because the slopes of the CFT that are achieved with these loads, that is, the RFDmaxs, are less than when the loads are medium or high, and this means that the force is applied more slowly: less force applied in the same time, that is, lower RFD. Therefore, high speed of muscle shortening (high speed of movement) should not be identified with maximum RFD, since the RFD that is reached with light loads is less than the maximum, although it is the maximum possible for the load that is being applied. displaces. Therefore, the term “fast force” is confusing, because it does not define where it starts and where it ends, but, especially, it is inappropriate, because what is considered “fast force” is really “slow force”, since the “speed ” with which the force is applied with light loads is less than with medium or high loads. That is, the “rapid force” associated with a lower production of force in the unit of time.

Therefore, in the same time less force is applied, that is, the force is slower, or it takes more time to reach the same value of applied force, which means that the force is applied “less quickly”. In short, the term “rapid force” can cause confusion, unless it is associated with the production of force in unit time (RFD), which is the only thing that would give it meaning. Therefore, it is preferable to stop using the term and always refer to the RFD under different loads or at different times of force application.

The misuse of this term sometimes leads to training goals that do not make sense. For example, it is not uncommon to hear that we are going to train the “explosive force” first and then the “rapid force”. This approach is really indicating that neither of the two concepts is properly applied. The “explosive force”, which, as indicated in previous paragraphs, must be understood as RFD, is trained with any load and at any time, provided that the subject tries in each action to apply the force as quickly as possible for him, and therefore, you can use any load to train, including those often associated with “quick strength”.

This means that there is no “explosive force” and “rapid force” phase in a training cycle, but “RFD training” is the only correct expression and the only possible training objective. The load that is used at each moment is at the discretion of the person responsible for the training programming, but the RFD will always be training, with high, medium or low loads. Therefore, the term “rapid force” should not be used and “explosive force” is much better expressed if it is replaced by RFD.

Explosive power (explosive power)

This term is not widely used in Spanish, but it is in the international literature. It is understood that it refers to the maximum power that is reached before a specific load or action in any movement. This term is not appropriate because the maximum power can only be reached if the charge under analysis or measurement moves at the maximum possible speed, and this maximum speed is the expression or consequence of “explosiveness”. That is to say, the maximum power is not given to any load if the action is not carried out at the maximum possible speed, or what is the same, applying the force as quickly as possible or reaching the maximum RFD (“explosivity”) before the load. moving load.

Therefore, there can be no “maximum non-explosive power”. Non-maximum power values ​​could be reached before a specific load if it moves at non-maximum speeds (without “explosiveness”), but this is of no interest from any point of view. Therefore, this term can only lead to confusion, without contributing anything to knowledge or training methodology.

force-speed

This term is rather unfortunate, since one noun (speed) cannot be considered to qualify another noun (force). Therefore “force-speed” is not any type or class of force. On the other hand, if this expression were not used as a type of strength, but to indicate that “strength-speed” training is being done, that is, that it is intended to do training to improve strength and strength simultaneously or simultaneously speed, would make even less sense, since it is not possible to improve speed without improving strength.

In order to reach a higher speed before the same load, it is necessary to apply more force to said load, that is, it is necessary to improve the “maximum force” for that load. It must not be forgotten that a subject has as many values ​​of maximum force as loads it has to move.

Resistance force

This term is also equally unfortunate, and for the same reason as in the previous case, since a noun (resistance) cannot be considered to qualify another noun (force). Therefore “force-resistance” is not any type or class of force. Sometimes this expression is replaced by “resistance to force” (it would be more appropriate to use the term “resistance to the loss of force”, since what is intended is “to oppose the loss of force, not the force itself) , considering it as equivalent. This complicates things even more, since resistance to loss of strength is not only not any type of strength, but is a totally different concept. “Resistance to loss of strength” indicates the ability of the subject to maintain a given value (peak) of force and RFD over time. When these two values ​​go down, speed is lost and performance decreases.

On the other hand, if this expression were used to indicate that “strength-resistance” training is being done, that is, that it is intended to! Training to improve strength simultaneously or simultaneously would make even less sense, since it is not possible to improve resistance to a given load without improving the force applied to that load. That is, the resistance can only be improved if the effort required to move a load once decreases with respect to the effort previously required, and this can only be achieved if the force that can be applied to said load increases.

Naturally, other terms close to these and widely used such as “speed resistance”, “fast force resistance”, “speed-resistance”, “speed-resistance”… and other similar ones have no justification, since, For example, “speed drag” (or stall resistance) is the same as “force stall drag” since speed will drop if the applied force decreases. And the same can be applied to the rest of the expressions. Therefore, the only appropriate terminology and the only objective that we can set ourselves in this sense is to improve the “resistance to loss of strength”. If this happens, performance will improve, because a higher average speed (or more power, depending on how performance is measured) will be achieved under the same load for the same (regulatory) time or for the same regulatory distance. In this last case, ell: me decreases for the same distance, which is what is intended, because it means a higher performance.

When designing a training schedule, the elements and factors that constitute a work plan are organized in a concrete and detailed way. In this case, the objective will be to improve strength qualities so that they contribute effectively to the achievement of specific performance in competition.

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 programming is the organization of the sequence of efforts and rest times to achieve specific goals.
• Training must be quantified in order to make programming decisions based on data and not opinions.
• The evolution of the loads during the programming depends, fundamentally, on three determining factors: the initial situation of the subject, the strength needs in the sport specialty and the strength needs of the subject himself.

Introduction to the concept of programming

Programming is a way of organizing various activities to achieve specific goals, and for this reason it has nothing in common with carrying out training routinely, or based on improvisations that are not supported by a plan that justifies and delimits them. the margin of variation that can be admitted from what was planned. This means that programming must ensure, on the one hand, the unity of the training process and, on the other, its flexibility, as a consequence of the systematic and frequent control and evaluation of the process itself.

The programming of daily training is understood as a task made up of multiple subtasks, but unique as a process, whose objective is to improve the performance of the athlete or of any person, and which is expressed through a sequence of efforts duly adjusted according to specific objectives and the subject’s training needs and possibilities. This unit of the training process is fulfilled when said programmed sequence of efforts is respected.

Training programming is expressed as a sequence of efforts adjusted to objectives

But for this sequence to be respected, flexibility must also be given. The flexibility of the programming allows us to modify the specific load programmed (weights, series and repetitions per series) for one or several days so that the effort made is the one foreseen and not another different one. In other words, the target load (proposed load) is modified so as not to modify the programmed actual effort (actual load). Although the modification of the proposed load does not necessarily guarantee an improvement of the program or of the performance, rather it allows maintaining the programmed, the unity of the programming.

Only the evaluation of the elements of the training process can justify the opportune revisions of the programming in progress and of those that are going to be carried out in the future. From the foregoing it can be deduced that the trainer’s mission as a programmer, rather than determining a detailed series of activities to be carried out during training practice, is a permanent task of structuring, analyzing and constantly reviewing what he is doing. Among the functions of the coach is to observe daily the evolution of the athlete’s form, something that, especially in strength training, is not done frequently.

Only if this systematic observation is carried out, a true source of the coach’s experience, can it be said that someone is being trained. Otherwise, only a standard or average athlete model is trained that rarely, OR never matches the actual athlete. This has the consequence that the programmed loads will quickly stop adjusting to the true training needs and possibilities of the subject, and, therefore, the real load will not be the programmed one.

The trainer’s mission as programmer is the permanent structuring, analysis and revision of what is being trained.

This same observation also aims to analyze the variables involved in the process, which will allow us to discover the possible connections and reciprocal influences between these variables and between them and the results.

If we set ourselves the task of training in this way, we will be in the best conditions to understand, apply and adapt the contributions of science to our daily practice. This, necessarily, will lead to the development of an authentic training experience, which is what makes the coach improve his work and his knowledge every day.

The effects of training on physical and sports performance arise from the application of a series of stimuli organized in such a way that they allow a sufficient development of the physical condition and of the abilities of any sport specialty or type of performance that is intended.

At this point, it will be necessary to focus on the training that is usually considered as “strength training”, although all training aimed at improving physical condition and almost all sports performance are strength training itself.

The organization of the training is carried out through a schedule. Programming means “devising and ordering the actions necessary to carry out a project”. (RAE Dictionary). In the case of sports training, for some time programming has been defined as the expression of a series or ordered succession of efforts that are dependent on each other. This definition includes the concepts that define the term “programming”.

“Devise”, because it is thought with a determined degree of effort, is an idea, which is what is programmed. But, in addition, these efforts are actions that must be ordered, second concept of the definition, and in an interdependent way, to carry out the project of developing the physical and sports condition of the subject or sports group. However, in the literature and in the jargon of sports training, the term “periodization” is used very frequently to refer to the organization of training. Periodization means “action and effect of periodizing”, and periodizing means “establishing periods for a historical, cultural, scientific process…” (DRAE).

A training process that allows the correct use of loads and recovery times to avoid excessive fatigue

The most striking thing is that the term “periodization” is used as the solution to the training problem, because “periodized” training is considered as “a training process that allows the correct use of loads and recovery times to avoid the excessive fatigue” or “the division of annual training or a cycle into appropriate phases with the aim of reaching the peak of maximum performance at the appropriate and predetermined time” or “the process through which the intensity and volume of training is manipulated”. the right way for the athlete to reach their maximum performance at the right time, minimizing the risk of injury, stagnation and overtraining”.

But, of course, “periodization” by itself does not ensure any of this. In sports, establishing periods does not guarantee a good workout. In the same way, it is evident that, in a project, dividing the process into periods does not guarantee that it is a good project. For this reason, the term “periodization” is not useful and, furthermore, it is not adequate for what it intends to define, because “periodization” is not the “organization of the activities of a process (training)”, but the “division into periods ”

The term “programming” or “program” is the one that adjusts to what you really want to do, which is, as indicated, “devise and order the actions necessary to carry out a project”. Therefore, the appropriate term would be programming. Although saying that the training has been “scheduled” does not ensure anything either, since the programming can be good or bad. However, the term is correct. Its meaning corresponds to what is intended to be done: “devise and order the actions”, which in this case means above all organizing a sequence of efforts (loads) to achieve the intended objective, even if this sequence is not correct and therefore does not the objectives are achieved.

Therefore, the term “scheduling” should be used instead of “periodization.” This proposal is even more justified if one takes into account that when one speaks of “periodization” what one wants to express is a form of “programming”, of designing a program to systematically and specifically direct the training and the variation of the exercise. volume, intensity and exercises to achieve the best results at the right time. This would really be programming. The problem is that unnecessary terms tend to be introduced without considering their suitability.

But the matter is complicated when the term “non-periodized” is also used in the language of training. It would literally mean that something, training is supposed to “not be divided into periods”. If periodizing is dividing into periods, not periodizing would mean that the entire process, of whatever type, is considered as a unit, without changes that justify differentiating some moments from others, and therefore it would be a question of “a single period”, in the one that “everything happens or is done the same”: that is, every day the same load is applied, the same stimulus, the same training.

This situation is unrealistic, because, on the one hand, it cannot be guaranteed that the same load is always applied, and, mainly, because no person who is dedicated to training other people to improve their physical and sports condition can be happen to ignore one of the few principles or rules of adaptation that can be considered as such, such as the principle of the progression of the loads, and another that, in part, is already included in the first one, which is the variability of the loads. loads.

Therefore, this distinction does not seem very useful. Although much space has been devoted in the literature to comparing the effect of “periodized” versus “non-periodized” training. Generally, the “non-periodized” has always had the worst luck. Other terms related to the organization of training refer to the phases or periods that comprise a space of training time. It is very common to refer to the “preparatory”, “competitive” and “transition” periods, which occur in the order indicated.

At the end of the “competitive period” the competitions are held (maybe also within the “competitive period” itself). None of these terms, in our opinion, is appropriate, as will be seen below, nor does their name serve to improve the training program. If “preparing” is “performing the necessary operations to obtain a result or product”, why isn’t “competitive” also “preparatory”, if the athlete has not even competed yet? Doesn’t the athlete continue to “prepare” until reach the competition?, what is the indicator that the “preparatory period” is over and you are already in the “competitive”?, what change or magnitude of change in training justifies it?, do all the specialists understand what itself? Or is it simply a question of dividing or naming the total training time into two or three parts or denominations?

On the other hand, if “transition” is “the action and effect of passing from one mode of being (a state) to another”, “transition” would be the passage from each of the “periods” to the next, not the denomination of one of them. It would be much more reasonable to call this supposed “transition period”, “recovery” or “detraining” period, or something similar.

Very close to this denomination is the one that includes four other terms and is the one that divides the space of training time into “general preparation phase”, “special preparation phase”, “competitive phase” and “transition phase”.

training time in “general preparation phase”, “special preparation phase”, “competitive phase” and “transition phase”.

General preparation phase

In this case it is unlikely that all professionals understand the “general preparation phase”. Because by its very name, the “general” can include many activities of a different nature, which, in sport, in most cases are far removed from the type of performance typical of the specialty for which one trains. In addition, it would be necessary to consider which sports or sports specialties should “make a general preparation”, because if the “general” activity is not reflected in an improvement. of specific performance, it would not make sense for it to be carried out. A “general activity” remote from the mechanical and metabolic characteristics of competitive activity is at least unlikely to have (positive) transfer to competitive exercise, but rather could cause interference (negative transfer), or, in the best of log cases, being sterile and wasting time.

Special preparation phase

The “special preparation” phase could be understood to a greater extent, since it can be interpreted as the phase in which you train with the exercises closest to those of the competition and with those of the competition itself, including the speed / intensity values. and volume typical of the competition or close to them. Really, all the preparation time should be “special preparation”, if by this is meant the application of training that truly has a high probability of having a positive effect on specific performance.

competitive phase

About the “competitive phase” and “transition” comments have already been made previously. Another group of widely used terms is “macrocycle”, “mesocycle” and “microciole”. The first source of confusion with this terminology is that the range of time to which we can refer is not a specific one, but multiple, which means that using one of these terms without adding the time that we want it to understand will always be imprecise and will generate confusion. . For example, when we refer to a “macrocycle”, the time it comprises can range from several weeks (10-12) to several years, for example four, an Olympic cycle. But of course, there will be those who say no, that a “macrocycle” does not cover more than one year.

In other words, we already have three measures for the same term, and they are quite different measures and all of them are used. The same happens with the other terms, although the average time is lower for the “mesocycle” and even lower for the “microcycle”. But what deserves more attention is the justification for which the different terms are usually used. For example, if we train for a period of 12 weeks in order to improve strength, and we consider the first “mesocycle”, of three weeks, to be a “mesocycle” of hypertrophy”, we would be saying that during the remaining 9 weeks it is no longer stimulated nor does “hypertrophy” develop, or if from week 4 to week 6 we have the “mesocycle” of “maximum strength”, we would have to understand that in the previous “mesocycle” strength has not been trained or improved.

We consider that it is out of the question that none of these conclusions is reasonable, so it must be admitted that the naming of these time slots with any of these names does not serve to better understand training, nor to improve programmed training, nor for communication between professionals and specialists in the field of physical and sports training.

Training expressed through numbers can be analyzed and quantified, giving you the opportunity to draw data-driven conclusions and make informed decisions.

In short, the training is not organized through “names”, because these do not have the property of determining what the load is. Training training is organized through “numbers”. Training expressed through numbers can be analyzed and quantified, giving you the opportunity to draw data-driven conclusions and make informed decisions. It serves to express with greater precision than in any other way what the applied load is and to check the acute and medium and long-term effect it produces, and also allows communication between training professionals.

We understand that in connection with this aspect of programming terminology, only the term “cycle” should be used, ie “programming a training cycle”. Therefore, we only use the term “cycle” when we want to refer to the extension of a certain training period of time.

We define a training cycle as a training period of time in which all the necessary loads have been applied, according to the programmer’s criteria, to achieve the expected objective. It could also be expressed as the process in which the necessary evolution of the main characteristic variables of training load is produced: volume, intensity and type of exercise, to achieve the expected objective.

The evolution of the loads depends, fundamentally, on three determining factors: the initial situation of the subject, the strength needs in the sports specialty and the strength needs of the subject himself. At the end of the cycle there can be a competition or a test or even none of the two controls, and there will always be a recovery time before starting another training cycle. Although occasionally one can speak of “phases” within the training cycle, it really is a continuum in which to identify at what point in the cycle an athlete is, it could be added that he is in the “phase” of high, medium or low volume, or in the “phase” of high, medium or low intensity or any other reference of the variables that determine the training load.

The evolution of the loads depends, fundamentally, on three determining factors: the initial situation of the subject, the strength needs in the sports specialty and the strength needs of the subject himself.

The cycles can have different lengths. For this reason, for a better definition of the cycle, we must add its duration, generally indicating the number of days or weeks it comprises.. The adaptation processes oriented towards performance improvement are developed through cycles that are repeated periodically. Cycles aimed at improving a physical quality are common in all training sessions, whatever the sport, although they will not develop in the same way in all cases.

When the development needs of the physical qualities are high, the characteristics of each cycle (volume and intensity values, mainly) are more accentuated: the intensities and volumes are higher and the differences between the maximum and minimum values ​​are greater. The opposite occurs when the needs for these qualities are low.

The general objective of any training cycle is the improvement of the manifestation of strength, resistance and force production in the unit of time in specific actions, that is, the improvement of useful force. The way to develop each of these cycles will be different, as we have indicated, depending on the characteristics of the sports or sports specialties and the specialties of the subjects.

The degree of development of the physical qualities will be different according to the specialties. The need to significantly improve some quality above the others also determines the characteristics and orientation of the cycle. The duration of a complete cycle is conditioned by the characteristics of the sport, but fundamentally by the adaptation time. The adaptation time that most influences the duration of the cycle, is the one that is necessary for the development of physical qualities. Although good physical condition is not enough to ensure sports form (specific form), it is the first condition and absolutely necessary.

full cycle length for strength training should not exceed 14-16 weeks

In any case, the full cycle length for strength training should not exceed 14-16 weeks. The most effective length could be between and 12 weeks. Other shorter cycles can be used to maintain or recover or at least approach recently achieved levels of strength.

The effectiveness of a training cycle will depend to a large extent on the combination of volume and intensity values, but always, both the result and the values ​​of the variables themselves will be conditioned by the initial situation of the subject, state of performance. initial, initial work capacity, current training time, current detraining time, age… and to all this we must add the objectives that are sought and the strength needs of the sporting specialty and the subject. Naturally, all these nuances will be developed later in the contents related to training programming.