In this article he focuses on the speed of execution as a reference for training programming, dosage and control. In the previous article on Character of Effort (EC) some ideas related to speed of execution have been introduced that may be useful.

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 speed at which each percentage of the RM is performed is very stable depending on each exercise.
• Loss of speed is shown to be an important predictor of metabolic and hormonal stress.
• For the same loss of speed, each person may have performed a different number of repetitions before the same load.
• Using the speed of execution as a reference to dose and control the training far exceeds what the 1RM percentage provides

A few years ago it was said: “If the maximum speed of the movements could be measured every day and with immediate information, this would possibly be the best point of reference to know if the weight is adequate or not”… “a certain decrease speed is a valid indicator for suspending training or lowering the weight of the bar”… “we could also have recorded the maximum speed reached by each lifter with each percentage, and based on this, assess the effort” ( González Badillo, 1991, p.172).

It is based on the assumption that although the value of 1RM can change between different days, the speed at which each percentage of the RM is performed is very stable. Therefore, speed control could inform us with more precision about what real percentage or what effort is being made at each moment. This hypothesis, proposed in 1991 (González Badillo, 1991, p. 172), when we said “we could also have recorded the maximum execution speed reached by each lifter with each percentage, and based on this, assess the effort… ”, has been confirmed, because each percentage of 1RM has its own speed (González-Badillo, 2000; González-Badillo and Sánchez-Medina, 2010).

Therefore, the own speed of each percentage of 1RM determines the real effort. This means that the speed of the first repetition of a set determines the degree of effort that the load represents. Thus, the training load (weight) is determined by the speed of the first repetition, therefore, what must be programmed is not the percentage of 1RM, but the speed of execution of the first repetition of the series.

But speed control not only allows us to know very precisely the true effort that a given load represents when doing the first repetition, but also allows us to know in what proportion or percentage speed is lost as repetitions are made within from the series.

And this is important because the loss of speed in the series is a highly valid indicator to know the degree of effort that the subject is making, since it presents a high relationship with indicators of the degree of mechanical, metabolic and hormonal stress caused by the exercise. training.

loss of speed is shown to be an important predictor of metabolic and hormonal stress

Thus, we found high relationships between the loss of velocity in the series and the loss of velocity with the load that was moving at 1 m/s before the effort, both in the bench press (1= 0.97) and in the squat. (r = 0.91), and with the loss of height (loss of speed) in the jump after the effort (r = 0.92), with ammonium (R* = 0.93) and lactate (r = 0.95-0.97) (Sánchez-Medina and González-Badillo, 2011).

Testosterone (r = 0.83), growth hormone (r = 0.82) and insulin (r = 0.88) are also discharged, and these relationships increase for ammonium (p = 0.94 -96) and lactate (p = 0.98) when using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (data from the same previous study, but not yet published. Sánchez-Medina’s Doctoral Thesis, 2010).

All these relationships indicate that the greater the loss of speed in the series, the greater the mechanical stress, that is, the greater the effort, at the same time that the loss of execution speed is shown to be an important predictor of metabolic stress and hormonal.

The question that arises at the moment 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 formulate it and have the appropriate mechanical and physiological data available to try to find an answer is already a great advance. In fact, at this time we could give an indicative and useful answer for most of the subjects.

For example, ammonium is practically unchanged in the bench press and full squat exercises if the number of repetitions performed does not exceed half of the repetitions that can be performed (Sánchez-Medina and González-Badillo, 2011). That the ammonia remains at its resting values ​​means that the emergency pathway of energy production, which is responsible for the increase in ammonia, has not been put into operation.

This path consists of the fact that, given the high and continuous demand for energy, it is not enough to use ADP+CP to produce ATP and the system has to resort significantly to the use of 2 ADP (ADP+ADP) to produce ATP, which which leads to the production of adenosine monophosphate (AMP), inosine monophosphate (IMP) and the degradation into ammonia (NH3) and ammonium (NH4), hypoxanthine, xanthine uric acid, formation of free radicals and losses of purines, this supposes a loss nucleotides (Hellsten-Westing et al., 1993), which can lead to chronic ATP depletion and increased recovery time if sessions that significantly trigger these processes are frequently repeated (Stathis et al. ., 1994, 1999).

If we also know, from extensive practical experience, that doing half or less of the repetitions that can be performed 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.

it would not be very advisable to frequently exceed (in some cases it would never be necessary) half the repetitions that can be done in a series

If we analyze the relationship between the loss of speed in the series and the number of repetitions performed, we can state that in the bench press exercise the loss of speed when half of the possible repetitions have been done is between 25 and 30% of the speed of the first repetition, and that in the complete squat the loss of speed of execution in the same conditions would be approximately 15-20%.

Therefore, if it is possible to know what degree of effort each percentage of speed loss means, the application of speed as a way of training control is very useful, probably the best procedure, using the mechanics way, to know with high precision and immediately the training load.

Knowledge of these data would allow not only to program the intensity or degree of effort based on the speed of the first repetition, but also to determine the degree of effort in the series, by being able to decide the loss of Speed ​​that is allowed in the series itself.

By way of example, at this time we can anticipate that in the exercise of the bench press, the relationship between the percentage of speed loss in the series (PPVS) and the average percentage of repetitions performed in the series (PMRR), for the intensities of 50, 55, 60, 65 and 70% of the RM is practically the same.

The percentage of repetitions performed for the same loss of speed must be 2.5% higher when the relative intensity is 75%, 5% higher for 80% and 10% higher for 85% (González-Badillo et al., 2017).

The data corresponding to the intensities between 50 and 70% appear in Table 1.

Tabla 1. Loss of speed in the series and average percentage of repetitions performed with intensities of 50 to 70% of the RM in bench press.

• PPVS: Percentage loss of speed in the series.
• PMRR: Mean percentage of repetitions performed.
• SD: standard deviation.
• CV (%): Coefficient of variation.

for the same loss of speed in the series, each person may have performed a different number of repetitions under the same relative load

It can be seen that, given the low CV values, the PMRR for the different percentages are practically the same. Therefore, when repetitions are performed at the maximum speed possible with any of these RM percentages, the percentage of repetitions performed for a given loss of execution velocity in the series can be known with considerable precision.

It should be remembered here that for the same loss of speed in the series, each person may have performed a different number of repetitions under the same relative load. This means an important advance in the precision to quantify and assess the CE in the series and training session. One more application of speed as a reference to dose and control training derives from the fact that each exercise has its own speed for its RM (González-Badillo, 2000).

The speed at which the RM of an exercise is reached determines its characteristics and its own training intensities for each objective.

Although, as we will see in later chapters, the load with which maximum power is reached is not relevant either for training dosage or for assessing its effect, these loads are determined precisely by the speed of the RM of each exercise. For example, the faster the speed with which the RM of an exercise is reached, the greater the percentage with which the maximum power is reached in the exercise.

There is a very high positive trend between the own speed with the RM in four exercises (snatch, power clean, squat and bench press) and the percentage of the RM with which maximum average power is reached (r = 0.94). (González-Badillo, 2000). It must be taken into account that these power values ​​are calculated through the product of the force and velocity values ​​provided by a linear velocity or position meter, in which the force is determined by the equation F = m( g+a), and the speed is measured directly by displacing the charge (mass).

The speed at which the RM is reached can range from less than 0.2 m/s in the bench press exercise to values ​​close to 1 m/s in the power clean or snatch. These observations confirm that, depending on the exercise with which you train, the same percentage can mean a very different magnitude and type of load, and that to obtain the same effect, you would have to use different percentages.

For example, if a subject intended to train with the maximum average power load in the bench press, he would have to train with 37-40% of the RM, while in the power clean he would have to train with 87% of the RM. Therefore, if we train both exercises, for example, with 80% of their respective RMs, in the case of the bench press we will be training with a load well above that with which maximum power is reached and in the case of the power clean with a load below that of maximum power.

an exercise like the full squat should never be trained with loads greater than 80% of the RM

However, and use this idea to better understand the consequences of, for example, “training with the maximum power load” in all the exercises, a training with 37-40% of the RM in the bench press, with 6 -8 repetitions per series, it is a very light effort that anyone can do at any time, and its effect, load and The degree of fatigue would be very low, however, training with 87% of the RM in a clean exercise is a significant effort, which is very close to the RM of the clean exercise.

Another example could be the following: for the same subject or group of subjects practicing a sport, an exercise like the full squat should never be trained with loads greater than 80% RM (personal suggestion based on extensive experience and results of competition studies), while this same group of subjects could always train, from the beginning of their sporting life, at least with loads equal to or greater than 75-80% of the real RM in the power clean exercise.

These differences in training loads are due, especially, to the fact that the speeds of the RMs of both exercises are very different, much higher in the power clean than in the squat.

From all the above it follows that use the speed of execution as a reference to dose and control the training It far exceeds what the 1RM percentage provides and comes to offer the same contributions as the Character of Effort (it really is another way of applying the CE) but with a much higher precision and eliminating the risk of subjectivity.

Therefore, the existence of a high relationship between speed and the different percentages of 1RM, as well as between the loss of speed in the series and the percentage of repetitions performed in the series allows:

• Evaluate the strength of a subject without the need to perform a 1RM test or an XRM test at any time.
• Determine with high precision what actual percentage of 1RM the subject is using as soon as they perform the first repetition with a given load at the maximum speed of execution possible.
• Program, dose and control training with high precision through speed, and not through a percentage of 1RM.
• If the speed is measured every day, it can be determined if the load proposed to the subject (kg) faithfully represents the true degree of effort (% of real 1RM) that represents the first repetition and the degree of effort that represents the number of repetitions performed (valued for the loss of speed in the series).
• Use strength training with all subjects, from children to the most advanced athletes or adults and seniors you intend. improve your health, without the need to do maximum effort tests (1RM, or XRM, for example) in any case.
• Estimate the improvement in performance each day without the need to perform any tests, simply by measuring the speed with which an absolute load moves. YES, for example, the difference in speed between 70 and 75% of the RM of a specific exercise is 0.08 m/s, when the subject increases speed by 0.08 m/s under the same absolute load , the load with which he trains will represent 5% less than the RM of the subject at that moment, which, naturally, will have increased in value. Naturally, if what is produced is a loss of speed under the same absolute load, we can be quite sure that the subject is below its previous performance, and in an average proportional to the loss of speed.
• Estimate, through the loss of speed in the series, the percentage that represents the number of repetitions performed with respect to those achievable under any load.
• Being able to calculate the Effort Index, probably the best indicator of the degree of effort and fatigue that can be used to estimate these training variables.

Therefore, as we have indicated, what is programmed or should be programmed is not the percentage of 1RM, but the speed of execution of the first repetition of a series (Of course, if we associate the percentages with their corresponding speeds, it would be indifferent to use one procedure or another) and the loss of speed in the series allowed. The speed with each percentage of 1RM is not modified or it does so in a very slight way when the subject modifies the value of his RM after a period of training.

What most determines the slight speed changes between a test and a post-test with each percentage of 1RM, if they occur, is the speed with which the RM is performed and measured (González-Badillo and Sánchez-Medina , 2010), in such a way that two MRIs could not be compared if they were performed at different speeds. But this problem disappears if, as we have indicated, we never measure the RM, neither to take it as a reference to program the training nor to assess its effect, but instead we use the speed and speed changes before the same loads for both objectives.

what is programmed or should be programmed is not the percentage of 1RM, but the speed of the first repetition of a series

Our proposal, therefore, is that the average propulsive velocity should always be used to assess the training load and the performance of the subject (if necessary, the article Sánchez-Medina et al., 2010 can be consulted).

Another component of the training load, the intensity depends both on the intensity’s own value and on the number of times (volume) that said value is applied. For this reason, whenever we talk about intensity, we will also talk about volume, and therefore, load.

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

• Intensity is the degree of effort developed when performing an exercise or training activity in repetition.
• The character of effort is the relationship between what has been done and what is achievable.
• The relative intensity is the percentage of the 1RM, which is the maximum weight that a subject can move in one repetition.
• The measurement of the 1RM displacing the maximum weight supposes an excessive effort and a risk for any athlete.

Training actions are rarely performed only once, the normal thing is to perform several times / several repetitions with a certain intensity. Therefore, both the intensity and the number of times each intensity is to be performed must be taken into account.

Intensity is the degree of effort developed when performing an exercise or training activity in each unit of action (repetition).

The intensity represents the degree of muscular activity developed to oppose a resistance, whether this resistance is constituted by one’s own body weight (which occurs with all the efforts that consist of jumping or moving the body in any medium without additional added loads), as if it were about overcoming an external resistance.

The most precise and sufficient way to determine the intensity when working with external loads is through the maximum possible speed of the first repetition in the series, but power could also be used when dealing with machines in which actions are performed. cycles that give power data as the product of force and speed. The maximum possible speed of the first repetition will always be accompanied by the maximum production of force in the unit of time (RFD) for the load, absolute, relative, with which you train.

The effort is defined as the degree of demand or demand on the organism (real load) of a physiological, mechanical, technical, emotional type in each unit of action. The relationship between the degree of demand and the current / real possibilities of the subject at a given moment constitutes the character of the effort (González-Badillo and Gorostiaga, 1993, 1995).

Therefore, the character of the effort is or expresses the load itself, that is, it defines it, and is determined by the relationship between what is done (degree of demand caused by the activity or work done, which is expressed by the series and repetitions performed before a determined absolute or relative determined load) and what is achievable (current possibilities of the subject, that is, the maximum work that the subject could perform: maximum number of repetitions in the series or in a set of series).

The character of effort is the relationship between what has been done and what is achievable. The maximum character would be the maximum number of repetitions in the series or set of series.

There are different ways of expressing intensity that are more in line with what is generally understood as “strength training.” Really, all training is strength training, because from a physical point of view, performance can only be improved by applying more force to the same load, that is, reaching more speed with the same load, which is what is intended with everything. type of training, except in weightlifting, in which the speed does not change, but the load that moves at the same speed.

absolute intensity

Weight (kg). Weight is an indicator of absolute intensity. It has the advantage that it can be used to compare the training of each subject with himself over time: speed change for the same load (weight). In addition, it is the best indicator of the relative load used by the subject and of the training effect if the speed with which each repetition is performed is controlled.

Relative intensity: Percentage of 1RM.

When it comes to displacing external loads the percentage of one repetition maximum (% of 1RM) could be used. This expression of intensity is typical of what we think of as “strength training.”

Advantages

This way of expressing intensity has some advantage, such as the fact that the load (weight) that each subject should use could be individualized, apparently in a simple way, no matter how large the training group was. You would simply have to indicate the percentage of 1RM with which you would have to train.

If the percentage of 1RM is considered and interpreted as “degree of effort” and not simply as an arithmetic calculation, it could also have an important application to indicate the evolution of the maximum relative load used in each training session or week.

If a person honestly wants to report his “philosophy”, his “theory” or his idea about training programming, he must do it simply, quickly and accurately indicating the maximum intensity (in this case the percentage of 1RM considered as “degree of effort”) of each session in the fundamental exercise or exercises.

This information is the most important, although, naturally, if the volume values ​​are added with each intensity, the information will be more complete. This is so as long as the percentages are real, that is, they accurately represent the true effort that each percentage represents.

Drawbacks

1 – Time misalignment of the theoretical percentage: The MRI value is not the same every day. It tends to increase in a few sessions if the subject is not highly trained, and is generally below the maximum value measured before (usually weeks, months, and even years before) starting the training cycle when subjects are highly trained. However, in neither of the two cases are the changes stable, but oscillations occur within the improvement or stagnation of the MR value.

For all this, the effort made during the session can clearly differ from the programmed one. The drawback of this error is usually much more serious in trained subjects than in beginners, since it would be the trained ones who would run the greatest risk of training with loads higher than those programmed..

A clear and negative consequence of this situation, whatever the level of performance of the subject, is that we will never know with what load we have –
trained, which is quite serious, since we will be considering that the effect of the training, good or bad, obtained is due to loads or efforts different from the real ones. Dragging this problem would never improve our training methodology, because we would almost always handle wrong data.

2 – That the value of the MRI is not real: A high percentage of the measured MRIs are false. Given that each exercise has a speed of its RM (González Badillo, 2000), the RMs will be false whenever the subject reaches his RM at speeds higher than the speed of the RM of the exercise (there is no other possibility of error because at measure 1RM the speed can never be less than the speed considered as typical of the RM of the exercise).

The more the speed at which the RM has been measured moves away from the speed of the exercise, the less accurate the measurement will be. This lack of precision is always manifested by resulting in an RM value that is lower than the real or true value, although, naturally, the true value of the RM will never be known.

Therefore, when we speak of “true value of the RM”, we must understand a value of RM reached at the speed of the exercise or very close to it. This means that each load (weight) that we use, taking a false RM as a reference, will always be a lower real percentage than the programmed one. This circumstance means that this error has fewer negative consequences for training than other errors, since we would always train with loads lower than those programmed.

3- The effort represented by each percentage of 1RM is different depending on the exercise: To the previous drawbacks we must add that, even if the real percentage of the RM represented by each weight is known, the effort represented by each percentage is different depending on the type of exercise. This different effort depends on the speed of the RM.

For example, a load of 85% 1RM represents a very different effort than a bench press and a power clean. These differences are due precisely to the fact that the speed of the RM is different for each exercise (González Badillo, 2000).

4 – The measurement of 1RM supposes an excessive effort and with risk for any athlete, and especially for young people: Based on what we have just indicated in relation to the inconveniences of measuring and using the RM as a reference, it is reasonable to conclude that the RM does not should never be measured. It can be estimated through speed.

With respect to the dosage, we have already given the arguments, and as regards the assessment of the effect of the training, it only serves, in a not very precise way, to know the effect of the training on the maximum load (loads that move at very low speed), but not for all other loads or speeds.

The measurement of 1RM supposes an excessive and risky effort for any athlete, and especially for young people.

XRM or nkM

This The way of expressing the intensity of the training indicates that the maximum possible number of repetitions should always be done with the load (weight) that is being trained. The X and the “n” represent the number of repetitions to perform. It is understood that being able to perform a certain number of repetitions means that you are working with a certain intensity or percentage of 1M, since with each percentage of 1RM you can perform, on average, a certain number of repetitions. This way of expressing intensity includes volume, and is very common in expressing training, especially when it comes to studies that intend to be published.

This way of expressing or dosing the training load does not present any possible advantage. So we will only talk about its drawbacks.

The first observation regarding this type of expression and dosage of intensity is that doing the same repetitions with a certain load does not mean that you are working with the same percentage. The maximum value of the range in which the number of repetitions performed at the same intensity is found, from 50 to 85% of the RM, can double the minimum value, with an average coefficient of variation of 20% (González-Badillo et al. al.. 2017). Therefore, two subjects who have trained with the same number of maximum repetitions per set may have trained with very different relative loads.

1RM should never be measured

The second observation regarding this type of expression of intensity is that it is not possible to perform more than one series with the same load (weight) and the same number of repetitions when this has really been the maximum possible for the subject in the first. series. Therefore, it is not realistic to propose a training such as: 3x10RM, which means that the subject must perform 3 series of 10 repetitions with a load (weight) with which, in the first series, they can only really perform 10 repetitions. .

Another big drawback is that, by always training with the maximum number of repetitions possible per series, Even if fewer repetitions are made in successive series with the same weight, at least the following negative effects can be produced: excessive fatigue, increased risk of injury, and reduced execution speed under any load. (high loss of speed in the series). All this can lead to reduced sports performance.

Lastly, it has been observed that performing the maximum number of repetitions possible in each series does not provide better results than performing the same number of series and fewer repetitions per series with the same relative intensity (González-Badillo et al., 2005; González-Badillo et al., 2006; Folland, et al , Izquierdo, Ibáñez et al. 2006 Groeller, 2016; Drinkwater, et al., 2007; Willardson, et al., 2008: Pareja-Blanco et al., 2017) nor on other untrained exercises (Pareja-Blanco et al., 2017)

From all that has been said, it can be deduced that it would be very reasonable for no XRM value to be measured, neither for training nor to assess the effect of performance.