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

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

SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conclusions

From the above, the following can be concluded:

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

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.