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.

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

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

SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this article, the importance of the execution speed of the first repetition for the dosage, control and evaluation of strength training is exposed in an orderly manner in order to give the opportunity to become aware of the repercussion of the appropriate application of this variable in the development of everything related to strength training.

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

SUMMARY

• Speed ​​control comes to overcome the series of inconveniences presented by the use of RM and XRM or nRM in the dosage of training and in the evaluation of its effect.
• It has been confirmed that each percentage of 1RM has its own speed for each exercise. This speed is very stable for the same person when their performance changes, and very similar between people, even when the level of performance between people is very different.
• If the average or average maximum propulsive velocity with which a mass displaces can be measured, by applying these equations we can obtain the percentage of the RM that said mass represents.
• The speed of the first repetition of the series serves to determine with what relative load the subject is training, as well as to determine what has been, and continues to be, the effect of training each day, what has been the evolution of the maximum intensity used every day, and what has been the pre-post training effect…
• The speed with each percentage is very similar between people with a very different level of performance.

Indeed, faced with all these inconveniences, it is necessary to find an appropriate solution. If the training schedule is nothing more than the expression of a series or ordered succession of efforts that are dependent on each other, and the effort is the actual degree of demand in relation to the current possibilities of the subject, which represents the nature of the effort, the appropriate solution will be to be able to measure with high precision the character of the effort. This is achieved if it is known:

• The Degree of Effort that represents the first repetition of a series.
• The Degree of Effort that represents the loss of speed within the series.

This article will deal with these two factors as key elements of the quantification, dosage, control and evaluation of the training load and its effects.

The speed with each percentage of the RM and its stability. Degree of Effort that represents the first repetition of a series

A few years ago Professor González-Badillo wrote: “if we could measure the maximum speed of movements every day and with immediate information, this would possibly be the best point of reference to know if the weight is adequate or not”… ” You could also record the maximum speed reached by each lifter with each percentage, and based on this, assess the effort” (González Badillo, 1991, p. 172). Currently, it can be affirmed that these hypotheses-proposals have been confirmed.

In the year 2000 these authors presented the first data in relation to speed with each percentage (González-Badillo, 2000). Subsequently it has been confirmed that each percentage of 1RM has its own speed. This speed is very stable for the same person when their performance changes, and very similar between people, even when the level of performance between people is very different (González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010).

Therefore, throughout the approach to the application that has the knowledge of the speed of the first repetition under an absolute load, it is assumed that, although the value of 1RM can change between different days, the speed at which that each percentage of the MRI is performed is very stable.

For example, in the bench press exercise, whenever a well-executed progressive test is carried out until reaching RM and we verify the relationship between the percentages represented by the different displaced masses and the speeds at which they have been displaced, we found a very high fit to a second degree polynomial trend curve.

This kind of high fit has occurred in all the well-performed tests that have been carried out by the authors in the last 25 years. It must be taken into account that the concentric phase in the bench press test must be performed after a brief pause (1-1.5 s) after the eccentric phase, with the support of the bar on the chest or on a support .

The concentric phase must be performed without countermovement and the speed of execution must be the maximum possible before each mass. One should start from low relative intensities, equivalent to 15-20% of the RM. A high value of the R2 allows estimating (applying the corresponding regression equations) the speed with any percentage of the RM with a very small error.

The relationship between the different percentages and their corresponding mean propulsive velocities in the bench press exercise is expressed in Figure 1. The series of points that resemble a line—that appear at 100% MR height, rounded by a red circle, are the MR velocity values ​​for each of the subjects. Naturally, there are subjects whose average MR speed is above average and others below average. it is not possible for all subjects to perform their one-repetition maximum at the same speed.

Figure 1. Relationship between the RM percentages and their corresponding mean propulsive velocities. The 1596 data from 176 subjects are practically within the De 95% interval, with an R2 of 0.98 and an estimation error of 0.06 (González-Badillo and Sánchez-Medina)

These differences in the speed of the RMs are responsible for the points going slightly above the mean line or below. That is, the speed of each percentage tends to depend on the speed with which the RM was reached. If with the data of figure 1 the average propulsive velocity (VMP) is considered as an independent variable, we obtain an R2= 0.981; an estimation error of 3.56% and the following regression equation %1RM = 8.4326 * VMP2 – 73.501 * VMP + 112.33, where VMP is the mean propulsive velocity.

If we took the VM speed as a reference, not the VMP, the data would be the following: R2 = 0.979; an estimation error of 3.77% and the equation: %1RM = 7.5786 VM2— 75.885 VM + 113.02, where VM is the average speed of the entire route.

These equations make it possible to estimate with considerable precision the percentage represented by any absolute load once the VMP or MV at which it has moved is known, provided that the speed of movement has been the maximum possible for the subject.

It is preferable to take the average propulsive speed as a reference, since it better represents the true performance of each subject, by eliminating from the measurement the braking phase that occurs when the loads are medium or light. But if the speed meter used does not register this speed value, the average speed can be used, but taking into account that the speeds with each percentage will be slightly lower under light and medium loads if MV is measured than if MP is measured.

If the average or average maximum propulsive velocity with which a mass displaces can be measured, by applying these equations we can obtain the percentage of the RM that said mass represents.

Once you know the percentage that a given mass represents, you can estimate the RM at any time without the need to measure it, although knowledge of the RM is not necessary to dose the training or to assess its effect. Unfortunately, there are many “studies” that have been devoted to estimating the RM in some exercises, when really the value of the RM, when talking about the training load, practically and totally loses its “bad” application if we handle it properly the information that the knowledge of the speed of execution offers us.

According to the regression equation shown in figure 1, the average propulsive velocity that would correspond to each percentage of the RM is presented in figure 2.

Figure 2. Mean propulsive velocity corresponding to each percentage of the RM in the bench press exercise (González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010)

It is very important to verify that the relationship between speed and load is stable, that is, if these values ​​remain very similar when the subjects change their performance, since this is the basis for applying the speed of the first repetition of the exercise. series for reference.

The speed of the first repetition of the series is used to determine with what relative load the subject is training., as well as to determine what has been, and continues to be, the effect of training each day, what has been the evolution of the maximum intensity used each day, and what has been the pre-post training effect…

The training effect is assessed by speed changes at the same absolute loads at any time, which can be before and after a training period or in each of the training sessions. All this constitutes part of the maximum and best information that a coach can have to know what he is doing and improve his training methodology.

The speed of the first repetition of the series is used to determine with what relative load the subject is training.

In this sense, a series of data are provided that serve as a reference to confirm that, indeed, the speed values ​​with each percentage are very stable, even if the performance of the subjects changes and even if the subjects are of a very different level of performance. . A first example of this stability is presented in figure 3, in which the results of two measurements of the speeds are compared with each percentage of the RM in the bench press exercise.

first study: analysis of velocity in the bench press exercise

The values ​​for the year 2010 are the same as those in Figure 2. These values, which were recorded in the years 2006-2007, were obtained with subjects other than the participants in the 2014 study, whose data were recorded in 2013-14, 6-7 years apart. It can be seen that the speed values ​​with each percentage are practically the same. These data help to confirm that the speed with each percentage remains stable, even though the data is obtained with completely different samples.

Figure 3. Velocity with each percentage of the RM in the bench press exercise in two different groups of subjects and several years apart in the recording of the data. It can be seen that the differences (upper part of the figure) in the speeds do not exceed 0.02 m-s-1. (Figure by Sánchez-Medina).

Continuing with the examples, in the study by González-Badillo and Sánchez-Medina (2010), carried out with the bench press, it was verified that after a training period of an average of six weeks, 56 subjects, who improved as averaged 9.3% of their RM on the bench press, they kept pretty much the same velocity with each percentage. These data allow us to confirm that not only each percentage of the RM has its own speed, but that this speed is very stable when the performance is modified.

Not only does each percentage of the RM have its own speed, but this speed is very stable when changing performance.

Table 1 shows the average speed values ​​with each percentage before and after the training of the 56 subjects. The maximum difference is 0.01 m*s-1. It should be noted that these subjects trained according to their criteria, without any instruction, which means that the training sessions must have had very different characteristics.

Tabla 1. Mean propulsive velocity and standard deviation with each percentage of the RM in the bench press in 56 subjects before (T1) and after (T2) a training period of 9 weeks on average (González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010).

From the individual data of these 56 subjects we can extract additional information that allows us to continue reinforcing the stability of the percentage-speed of execution relationship. Several representative cases are discussed below.

Figure 4 shows the data of one of the subjects, who was very expert in training the bench press exercise, and who clearly improved his 1RM: 14.8%. If we look at the figure of test 2, T2 (red line), apparently, the speeds with each percentage are lower than those of test 1, T1 (blue line). This would go against the hypothesis that holds, but these data are not comparable, so they really do not go against the hypothesis.

The explanation is in the speed with which each RM has been achieved. In T1 the velocity was 0.17 m*s-1, while in T2 it was 0.06 m*s-1 (both values ​​in the red circles at the bottom of the figure). These two RMs cannot be compared, because they have been achieved at clearly different speeds, and, therefore, their speeds with each percentage cannot be compared either: the lower the speed with which the RM is achieved, the lower the speed with each percentage.

If the difference between the speeds of the RMs is equal to 0.03 m*s-1, we can already begin to observe a tendency to be lower than the speeds corresponding to the RM reached at a lower speed, and if the differences are greater than 0.03 m*s-1, the two RMs should no longer be compared.

Figure 4. Evolution of speed with each percentage in a subject who exceeds his result by 14.8% but performs his RMs at very different speeds (see text for further explanation).

It must be taken into account that the fact that the two RMs should not be compared is not due to the fact that one of them is considered a “true” RM and the other is not, since both are within the velocities of the RM of this exercise, whose average value may be around 0.17-0.18 m*s-1 (González-Badillo, 2000; González-Badillo and Sánchez-Mediná 2010), but to the fact that there is a high difference between them .

However, despite the fact that in T1 the speed of T2 almost triples, the differences in speeds with each percentage do not exceed, in the worst case (low percentages), 5% of the RM since the difference in speed each 5% is 0.08-0.09 m*s-1, a difference that is not exceeded in any of the percentages calculated, from 30 (0.09 m*s-1 difference) up to 95%.

Conclusions of the first study

As a result of the analysis of this case, at least the following practical applications can be deduced:

1) MRIs whose measurement speeds are greater than 0.03 m*s-1 cannot be compared, although in extreme cases such as the one we are presenting, in which the speed of the MRI is tripled, the effects do not go beyond one difference of 5% of the MR for the same speed of the same subject,

RMs whose measurement speeds are greater than 0.03 m*s-1 cannot be compared,

2) given the high probability that two RM are measured at different speeds, it is not advisable to ever measure the RM (it can be estimated, if necessary for something, as we will see in another section) and

3) only by measuring the speed with which the MR is reached, it is possible to have the necessary information to avoid the errors made with high frequency when measuring this variable.

Here we have to remember that the true RM will never be known, but some RMs can be considered as “true” or representative of the true RM when measured at velocities of their corresponding RM values. The more the measured speed (always higher speeds) deviates from the MR values ​​of an exercise, the more “false” is the RM measurement. This, once again, can only be known if the speed with which the exercise is performed is measured.

The errors to which we refer in the practical application 3) refer to the fact that most of the changes, such as the improvement or worsening of the results observed when measuring 1RM, are false, because if a subject, for example (it is a case real), lifts 82 kg in T1 and 92 kg in T2, it can be concluded after doing the calculations, that the subject has improved his mark by 12%.

But if one takes into account that this subject did the MRI of T1 at 0.33 m*s-1 (real data) and that of T2 at 0.2 m*s-1, the conclusion is false, because if the subject could have done the MRI at T2 at 0.2 m*s-1, it could also have been done at a very similar speed (0.2 + 0.02 m*s-1) at T1.

This would mean that he could have lifted a weight greater than 82 kg, then the improvement has not been, by any means, 12%. As an example, and making a few small calculations, if we suppose that the T1 would have done it at the same speed as the T2, at 0.2 m*s-1, and taking into account that every 5% the speed change is 0.08 m*s-1, the subject in T1 would have lifted approximately 88 kg, 8% more, given that the difference between T1 and T2 is 0.13 m*s-1.

Therefore, the improvement would have been approximately 4-5%, far from the apparent 12%. This example shows one more of the important applications that measure the speed of my execution has, although this application is better not to use it, because the RM should never be measured.

second study

A new example is shown in Figure 5. This subject improved his result by 11.8% and the velocities with the MRI presented a small difference of 0.02 m*s-1. As can be seen, the velocities with each percentage remained practically stable, with a maximum difference of 0.02 m*s-1, that is, the equivalent of a maximum difference of 1.25% of the RM with respect to T1.

Also, in this case, the speed in all percentages tended to increase slightly, so it could be said that the subject slightly improved (because the change can only be very small) his strength deficit. This slight improvement in speed can be explained because the subject, after his experience in doing the tests, decided to train by performing each repetition at the maximum speed possible, when previously he did it slowly voluntarily.

Therefore, it is confirmed that despite a considerable improvement of almost 12% (in this case we can say that it is real), the speeds with each percentage remain stable.

Figure 5. Evolution of speed with each percentage in a subject who exceeds his result by 11.8% and performs his RMs at very similar speeds

Figure 6. Evolution of speed with each percentage in a subject who does not exceed his result and performs his RMs at very similar speeds

Figure 6 shows an example of a subject who did not improve his result and that the speeds with each percentage were practically the same in both tests, although T2 was performed at a speed of 0.03 m*s-1 higher than the from T1.

But, precisely, this small speed difference could explain, on the one hand, why the speeds in T2 are minimally higher (0.01-0.2 m*s-1), and on the other, that it really cannot be said that the subject It did not improve its performance at all, since it improved speed by 0.03 m*s-1 with the same load (110 kg). This assessment can only be done if the speed of execution is measured

Figure 7 shows the case of a subject who improved his RM by 7.9%, who performed his two RMs at the same speed, but the speed with each percentage up to 75% of the RM tended to decrease. This was the only case, out of 56, that departed from what we have been maintaining. But when consulting the subject about his way of training, he stated that he trained slowly voluntarily.

Training slowly voluntarily may tend to proportionally decrease performance with loads moving at high speed and thus increase the strength deficit under these loads.

This way of training may tend to proportionally decrease performance with loads that are moved at high speed and thus increase the strength deficit in the face of these loads. Despite this circumstance, it can be observed that the decrease in speed with light loads did not exceed 0.06 m*s-1, which means that, in the worst case, the maximum difference in speed with each percentage in T2 with respect to T1 it was equivalent to 3.7% of the OR.

Figure 7, Evolution of speed with each percentage in a subject who exceeds his result by 7.9% and performs his RMs at the same speed.

In Table 2, made up of two groups of data, with a total of 20 subjects (the first 20, by random order, in the list of 56 subjects who repeated the tests) we can see the speed at which they reached their RMs. in tests 1 and 2, the average speed of the percentages from 40 to 90% of the RM, the maximum and the minimum difference obtained in the set of these percentages and the change in performance.

It is observed that the average speed from 40 to 90% follows the same trend as the difference between the speeds of the RMs. Only in the cases of JG and PC subjects, the maximum difference in some percentage is equivalent to a 5% difference with respect to the RM.

It can be seen that there are 12 cases of improvements ranging from 8.3 to 21.23% with an average of 13.9%, in which the maximum difference in speed with the percentages from 40 to 90% is 0.05 m*s-1 in the two subjects mentioned above (JG and PC), one case with 0.04 m*s-1 (V) and the rest with 0.03 m*s-1 or less. This data set again reinforces the stability of the speed of each percentage, even if there are important changes in the performance of the RM.

Table 2 Velocity values ​​with the RM (vel_RM), average velocity of the velocities with the percentages between 40 and 90%, maximum (max_diff), and minimum (min_diff) velocity difference with each percentage between tests 1 and 2 and change in performance (Change_RM) of the first 20 subjects in the list of 56 who repeated the tests.

Table 3 shows the speeds with the RMs, mean speeds from 40 to 90% of the RMs, differences in the speed with the RM and the differences between the mean speeds with the set of percentages in two tests for the same subjects included in Table 2. Taking the set of data included in the yellow columns, it is possible to calculate the relationship between the differences in the speed of the MRI and the differences in the average speed of

Tabla 3. Speeds with the RMs (Ve_1RM), mean speeds of the percentages from 40 to 90% of the RMs (Vel_mean_%), differences in speed with the RM (Dif_V_1RM) and the differences between the mean speeds with the set of percentages in the two tests (Dif_V_mean) of the same subjects included in Table 2.

Figure 8 shows the relationship between the differences in the speed with which the RMs were achieved (axis X) and the differences in the mean speed in the percentages of the RM from 40 to 90% (axis Y).

It can be seen that 12 of the 20 cases are found in the positive quadrants of the coordinate axes, which are the ones that correspond to the trend that indicates that the speed of the MRI determines the speed with each percentage, that is, the higher is the speed of the RM the greater the speed tends to be with each percentage.

There are three cases in which the velocities with the MRI were the same (points that coincide with the Y axis) and the velocities with the percentages changed minimally, between 0.03 and 0.02 m*s-1.

A case in which, having produced a decrease in the speed of the MRI in T2 by about 0.07 m*s-1, the average speed of the percentages was identical (point located on the X axis). This case can be considered as an example of a subject improving his strength deficit: although a lower MR speed should correspond to a slightly lower speed with each percentage, the subject maintained a speed.

There are two cases in the lower negative quadrant in which, having slightly increased the speed with the MR around 0.02 m*s-1, the speed with the percentages decreased by 0.02 m*s-1, which suggests that it was produced a minimal increase in strength deficit.

Finally, there is a case in the upper negative quadrant in which a subject who performed his MRI speed at a slower speed (0.02 m*s-1) at T2 slightly increased speed with percentages (0, 01 m*s-1).

As can be deduced, the stability of the speed with each percentage is ratified. The changes are minimal and the trend between the speed with the RM and the speed with each percentage is fulfilled in a remarkable way.

Figure 8. Relationship between the differences in the speed with which the RMs were achieved (axis X) and the differences in the mean speed in the percentages of the RM from 40 to 90% (axis Y).

It must be taken into account that the subjects cannot behave like perfect “machines”, but that they respond in a way that is not exactly the same before a series of progressive loads when trying to perform a 1RM test. This means that under absolute load the performance is not exactly the same as under the immediately higher absolute load.

That is to say, if a subject achieves a certain speed at an absolute load, not always at the load immediately above, which will represent a certain percentage increase, he will respond by reaching exactly the speed that would correspond to that percentage increase in load. This can cause the subject’s force or load-velocity curve to adjust more or less to his true performance capacity, giving rise to small deviations from the model that represents the population to which the subject belongs.

Does performance level affect speed?

To continue adding elements to confirm the stability of the speed with each percentage, it could be assessed whether the speed with each percentage is similar or not between people with different levels of performance.

From the results of the study it can be deduced that, indeed, the speed with each percentage is very similar between people with a very different level of performance. By dividing the group of 176 cases into four groups based on their relative MR (RM * body weight-1), the mean speeds from 30 to 95% of the RM were 0.76, 0.77, 0.77 and 0.73 m*s- 1 (table 4), in this order, from the group with the lowest performance to the most expert group, respectively.

Therefore, the average speed is almost the same despite the performance increase considerably. Consider that the subjects with the lowest performance did not get to lift a weight equivalent to their own body weight in the bench press, while some of the most expert subjects came to lift twice their body weight or approached this mark.

Less performing subjects failed to bench press their own body weight, while some of the most experienced subjects lifted twice their body weight

Only the highly expert group, the one with the highest performance, experienced a minimal statistically significant average reduction in speed with each percentage compared to the others. However, a tendency to decrease speed is not even observed as performance increases, since the second group with the lowest average speed is that of the less expert subjects (0.76 m*s-1).

In addition, the statistical differences in this case are not relevant in practice, since the absolute difference between the most expert group and the least experienced group is not even 0.03 m*s-1 (specifically, 0.027 m*s- 1), which would be equivalent to a -1.69% difference in the RM percentages between the two for the same speed.

Tabla 4. Relative strength (relative strength), mean speed with percentages from 30 to 95% of the RM (mean test velocity) and speed with the RM (V1RM) of four groups of cases (subgroup) formed according to their performance.

However, if these results are analyzed in greater depth, it is concluded that these differences are not real. Responding to the question formulated in the lower part of Table 4, the apparent lower speed with each percentage of the most expert group is due to the fact that the average speed with which the components of this group reach their RM is slightly less than that of the others (0.045 m*s-1 with respect to the group with the lowest performance, and 0.019 and 0.014 m*s-1 for the other two groups).

This fact causes that, necessarily, the speed with each percentage tends to be lower, which comes to ratify, once again, what has already been revealed previously. Thus, the slight decrease in speed with each percentage of the top performing group in the bench press exercise is due to the tendency to decrease speed with RM in extremely expert subjects.

It is reasonable to accept that these subjects are able to make the most of their own strength potential, because they have more confidence in their possibilities and better technique when executing the exercise. It should be noted that, given the characteristics of the subjects in this study, the generalization of these data leads us to be able to apply them to the entire population, since in the group there are subjects who lift from less than 90% of their body weight up to subjects lifting twice their body weight.

This means that any young person practicing any sport or simply using strength training can be included here. Therefore, this is one of the few exercises that would really allow us to assess our strength-speed “profile”.

If we execute the exercise well, we will be able to know to what extent our performance in this exercise is in the average of the population in terms of speed with each percentage, if it is slightly above or if it is slightly below, or even if it is below. above or below in some areas and not in others of the force-velocity curve or not.

However, to make these assessments, one must also take into account the speed at which MR is reached. But the stability in the relationship between the percentages of the RM and their corresponding speeds also occurs in any exercise in which the measurements have been made well.

Table 5 shows the data corresponding to the complete squat exercise. The group consisted of 80 subjects. The differences in performance are important, from 93 to 126 kg on average, with coefficients of variation from 12 to 18%, and some subjects lifting more than twice their body weight (1.57 to 2.17 range in the highest performing group).

Therefore, we can admit that it is a sample that includes a range of performance in which a wide population of athletes can be found.

the average speed of all the percentages is practically the same

However, the mean speed of the set of percentages (mean test velocity) is practically the same (0.873, 0.867 and 0.865 m*s-1) The speeds with the percentage examples included in the table are practically the same in the three groups , existing between 0.01 and 0.02 m*s-1 as a maximum difference. The MRI speed of each group is practically the same as that of the others, and the same as that indicated in the year 2000 (González-Badillo, 2000). No significant difference is observed in any of these speed values.

Tabla 5. Comparison of the mean speeds of the tests with percentages from 30 to 95% of RM (mean test velocity), mean propulsive velocity with different percentages (MPV), mean propulsive velocity with RM (MPV with 1RM) in three groups formed based on their vative performance with respect to body weight (RSR) in the full squat test. The effect size is represented by the “eta” statistic (effect size n2) (Sánchez-Medina et al., 2017).

Therefore, In an exercise as different from the bench press as the squat, the stability of the speed is confirmed with each percentage, although the performance of the subjects is very different. It has been indicated that the speed with each percentage is dependent on the speed with which RM is reached. This tendency has been verified when analyzing the different examples of performance with the bench press exercise.

Although this tendency not only occurs in the same exercise when the speed of the RM changes due to its faulty measurement, but naturally also occurs between the different exercises, because each exercise has its own speed, and different from that of the others. , from his RM (González-Badillo, 2000).

In this article, published with data recorded in the 1990s, it was already commented that the speed with 40% of the RM of the bench press was 1.15 m*s-1, which differs in only two hundredths of a m*s-1 of the current data (1.13 m*s-1), and the squat had a speed of 0.93 m*s-1′ with 64.3% of the RM, practically the same speed that is currently proposed (0.92 m*s-1 with 95%. see table 6).

each exercise has its own speed, and different from the others

Likewise, it was confirmed that the speed with each percentage depended on the speed of the RM, because the snatch, with an average RM speed of 1.04, the speed of 1.15 m*s-1 was obtained with 91% of the RM, while, as we have indicated, this same speed of 1.15 m*s-1 with the bench press belonged to 40% of the RM, with a speed of his RM of 0.2 m* s-1. The same was the case with the power clean: 1.09 m*s-1 for 87% of the RM and a velocity of his RM of 0.9 m*s-1.

The fact that the speed with each percentage depends on the speed of the RM is so evident that we can say that it is “truth”, although this does not prevent someone from occasionally questioning it.

It is evident that if the speed of the RM of an exercise is, for example, 0.2 m*s-1, the speed of 95% of the RM of that exercise should be approximately 0.26-0.28 m *s-1, and 90% should be 0.32-0.34 m*s-1 and so on, but if the RM speed of the exercise is 1 m*s-1, 95% of the MRI will have to be a few hundredths of a meter per second faster, for example, 1.08-09 m*s-1, more or less, but always very far from 0.26-0.28 m*s- 1 of the exercise whose MRI velocity was 0.2 m*s-1.

Naturally, this is confirmed when the speeds of different well-measured exercises are compared with different speeds of their own RMs.

Table 6 shows the speed data with each percentage corresponding to four very common exercises in strength training (bench press: González-Badillo and Sánchez-Medina, 2010; pull-ups: Sánchez-Moreno et al., 2017; squat : Sánchez-Medina et al., 2017; rowing table: Sánchez-Medina et al., 2014).

Tabla 15.6. Speed ​​with each percentage in the bench press, pull-ups, squats and plank rows.

Table 6 shows that the speed values ​​of each percentage increase as the speeds of the RMs increase. The relationship between the speeds of the RMs and the average speed of all the percentages from 65% to 100% is almost perfect (r= 0.97; p < 0.05).

It is very relevant that with only 4 pairs of data the correlation is statistically significant. Therefore, it is confirmed that, indeed, the speed with each percentage is dependent on the speed of the RM of the exercise, as well as the differences in the speed of measurement of the RM when it is measured more than once within each exercise. .

As a synthesis of all the above, it is confirmed that training can be controlled through the speed of the first repetition in the series, provided that it is done at the maximum speed possible, and this is based on the fact that we can start from the assumption that if Although the value of 1RM can change between different days, the speed at which each percentage of the RM is performed is very stable.

It is confirmed that the training can be controlled through the speed of the first repetition in the series as long as it is done at the maximum possible speed.

Therefore, speed control can inform us with high precision about what real percentage or what effort is being made at each moment. Therefore the own speed of each percentage of 1RM determines the real effort. This means that the speed of the first repetition of a set determines the degree of effort that the load represents.

Thus, the training load (mass) can be determined by the speed of the first repetition. If this is so, what should be programmed is not the percentage of 1RM or an XRM, but the speed of execution of the first repetition of the series. Note: for convenience or to be more intuitive, it could be programmed by means of the RM percentages, but the absolute loads (masses) that correspond to those of the percentages would always be determined through the speed of the first repetition of the RM. series, not by the result of the arithmetic calculation of the percentage.

conclusions

From all of the above, it can be deduced that using the speed of execution as a reference to dose and control the training far exceeds what the percentage of 1Rm and XRM contributes. Therefore, the existence of a high stable relationship between speed and the different percentages of 1RM allows a series of applications such as those indicated below.

All the data that have been provided have been obtained and are applicable to men. For women, the corresponding speed values ​​have not yet been published, but laboratory data, in the publication phase, indicate that the speeds with each percentage are practically the same with women from a relative intensity of 45-50%, reducing approximately at 0.03, 0.04 and 0.06 m*s-1 with the intensities of 40, 35 and 30% of the MR, respectively.

the speeds with each percentage are practically the same with women

Knowing the speed of the first repetition (speed with each percentage) allows:

• Evaluate the strength of a subject without the need to perform a 1RM test or an XRM or nRM test at any time.
• Determine with high precision what real percentage the subject is using as soon as he performs, at the maximum speed possible, the first repetition with a determined absolute load.
• Estimate / measure the improvement or not in performance EVERY DAY without the need to perform any test, simply by measuring the speed with which an absolute load moves. If, for example, the difference in speed between 70 and 75% of the RM of a specific exercise is 0.08 m*s-1, when the subject increases the speed by 0.08m*s-1, with the same load absolute, there is a very high probability, almost 100% that the load with which you train represents 5% less intensity. Naturally, if what is produced is a loss of speed before the same absolute load (kg), we can be quite sure that the subject is below his previous performance, and in a proportion proportional to the loss of speed before the same load. absolute load.
• The measurement of the speed of the first repetition on a daily basis, just week before and after the training allows:
  • Know the degree and time of adaptation individually.
  • Discover the degree of disparity of the adaptive responses.
  • Check the effect of improving strength on other types of performance trained or not.

Regarding the speed of the MRI, it can be concluded that:

• The only way to be able to consider an MR as “true” or false is to measure the speed with which it is achieved.
• Two MR values ​​of the same subject cannot be compared if the values ​​of the speeds with which they have been measured are not the same or very similar.
• If the speeds at which the pre-post training RMs have been measured are different, with differences greater than or equal to 0.03 m*s-1, these RMs are not equivalent, so comparing the values ​​of the RMs (weights raised) pre-post training would lead to erroneous decisions, considering that there have been some changes in strength (in the MRI) that are not real.
• In addition, the speeds with each percentage would appear to be different, without meaning that they really are.

Regarding the assessment of the effect of training, it is concluded that:

• MRI is not necessary and should never be measured.
• The best procedure for assessing the training effect is to re-measure the speed reached at the same absolute loads that were measured in the initial test.
• This procedure is the most coherent and precise, since the effect of strength training is measured by the change in speed at the same absolute load or, as already indicated, the assessment of the training effect through changes in MR. , even in the not very probable assumption that the speeds with which the RMs are measured are the same or very similar, it would only inform us about the effect of the training before the maximum load (RM), but not before other lower loads

Other apps:

• Use strength training with all subjects, from children to the most advanced athletes or adults and older people who want to improve their health, without the need to do maximum effort tests (1RM, or XRM, for example) in any case.

The authors’ proposal, therefore, is that the mean propulsive velocity of the first repetition should always be used to program, dose and evaluate the training load and the performance of the subject.

No one doubts the importance of speed measurement for precise control of training dosage and evaluation of its effect. But surely many have wondered, what do I do if I can’t measure the speed? (note: it is better not to measure it than to measure it wrong),

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

• If speed cannot be measured, the best procedure is to subjectively estimate it by observing the ease/difficulty of performing the movement.
• When you notice an increase in playability (increase in speed), you should increase the absolute load a bit and wait for the speed to increase again with this new load.
• You can also apply the procedure to check if the subject is in the average, above or below the population in terms of the number of repetitions can be done with each percentage of the RM.

The most direct answer to the question would be: “if you cannot measure the speed, estimate it subjectively by observing the ease / difficulty of the execution of the movement”. In the 1970s and 1980s this was already considered necessary and the best way to adjust the training load, and these ideas were subsequently published: “If you can’t measure speed accurately, you have to judge it subjectively: you have to Observe the fluidity of the movement, the coordination, the ease to fix the bar, to recover in the clean and in the snatch, the greater or lesser elevation of the bar, the speed / ease of take-off…” (González-Badillo, 1991).

if you can’t measure the speed, estimate it subjectively by observing the ease/difficulty of executing the movement

This is really the best way to supply the execution speed measurement as a reference. Naturally, in order to roughly estimate the relative load, that is to say, the displacement speed represented by a weight, it is necessary to have some experience.

The best thing to do is to start estimating speed from the first sessions, to remember how to do it you can consult this note which explains how you can start training the squat from the beginning of the training practice.

In this article it is indicated that the observation of the changes in the ease / speed of execution of the exercise has to be the reference to gradually increase the absolute load, without the need to measure the speed. Since we would start with a very light load, which can be moved very easily or with high absolute speed, maintaining this ease of execution or slightly less, while increasing the absolute load, can allow us to train for a long time with a guaranteed improvement in performance. performance.

The key points of training if speed cannot be measured are:

• That the execution difficulty increases slightly, although it should increase, and
• May the absolute load continue to grow.

The “image” of the difficulty / ease of execution (speed) must be recorded in the technician’s mind, to assess to what extent it evolves. The evolution must be one of continuous small changes: increases and decreases in speed, in accordance with the periodic incorporation of higher absolute loads.

The longer the same speed can be maintained or recovered in successive load increases, the more positive the training will be, although, necessarily, the speed will tend to be less each time, because the absolute load that is applied each time must represent an intensity somewhat higher, but the slower this increase can be in relative terms, the better.

In the same way, the greater the increase in absolute load could be for the same increase in relative load, the greater the performance improvement will have been. When it is observed that this procedure is not enough to improve the speed with the weights with which you train, you can think about adding some weight and training at a slightly lower speed, higher relative intensity, as the maximum load of the session.

If the moment arrives in which the subject has already improved his strength enough and it is considered that he should or would need, given the strength needs in his sport, that the training loads be medium or high, a new procedure could be introduced, such as It would be to estimate how many repetitions the subject can do with a certain load (weight). This estimation is not made by reaching the maximum number of repetitions possible in the series, but leaving, according to the observer’s estimation, between 2 and 6 repetitions to be done.

The greater the number of possible iterations that you want to estimate, the more iterations you can leave undone.

The procedure would be as follows. If, for example, you want to know what is the load with which the subject can do 12 repetitions, which would be equivalent, on average, to 65% of the RM in the squat, the subject starts doing 8 repetitions with a small load. If, once the signal is finished, the trainer observes that the subject could do many more than the 8 repetitions performed, which is what should happen, because the load must be initially small, after a rest (about 3 minutes), it goes up. load a little and repeat the series of 8 repetitions.

If it is observed that you could still do more than 12 repetitions, for example, 16-18 repetitions, after a rest the load is increased again. If with this new load it is estimated that after doing the 8 repetitions he could do 4-5 more, it can be considered that this is the load with which the subject could do about 12 repetitions.

Once this is done, it would be best to train with half or slightly less than half the possible repetitions in the set (4-6 repetitions) with the selected load, depending on strength needs and training experience. Taking this load as a reference and observing how the difficulty / ease of execution evolves, enough sessions can be done with an acceptable control of the degree of effort made by the subject and the effect of the training.

When you notice an increase in playability (increase in speed), you should increase the absolute load a bit and wait for the speed to increase again with this new load.

As explained in the previous paragraph, when appreciating an increase in ease of execution (increase in speed), you should increase the absolute load somewhat and wait for the speed to increase again with this new load. After 4-6 weeks, if necessary, a trial could be done to select a new load that could be done fewer times or the same 12 repetitions.

Choosing to be able to do more or fewer repetitions in the series means that you want to train with less or more relative intensity: the fewer possible repetitions, the greater the relative intensity. Each relative intensity (percentage of the MRI) can be done on average a maximum number of times in the series, which serves as a reference to estimate the relative intensity, but this has an error or always low, since, as is known Given the same relative intensity, the number of repetitions that each subject can do can be sufficiently different so that the percentage can range up to 10% in some cases.

In parallel, the procedure can be applied to check if the subject is in the average, above or below the population in terms of the number of repetitions he can do with each percentage of the RM.

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).

In this article an analysis of the guidelines on the organization of strength training through speed is made.

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

• During training, the load can be modified to adjust the degree of effort with the programmed relative intensity.
• For the same loss of speed in the series, in all cases we will have useful information to know with high precision what training we have done, what degree of effort
• In training organized through speed, a determined number of repetitions in the series is not programmed, but rather a loss of speed in the series given the load or relative intensity selected.

First of all, it is convenient to take into account some prerequisites, taking into account that:

• The use of speed aims to provide information on the control of the training load and its effects.
• This information allows us to know with high precision with what relative intensity you train and with what degree of effort in the series, as well as what the training effect has been.
• For this information to be useful, the movements must be performed at the maximum possible speed, although the different values ​​of execution speed are not associated with specific training objectives.

Daily adjustment of the absolute training load

During training, it is possible to decide whether or not to modify the absolute load when the degree of effort represented by the first repetition with said load is lower or higher than the one programmed.

This adjustment would be logical if we want to be consistent with the programmed actual load (we are only referring to the speed of the first repetition in this case), and would consist of increase or decrease the absolute load by 1 measure necessary so that the relative intensity with which you train equals the programmed relative intensity.

This control would contribute in a precise way to carry out the programmed training and not a different one, which is already a great advance in the training methodology. But this control does not ensure the good result of the training. And this can be due to two reasons:

1. to that we have been able to make wrong decisions when programming the effort, or
2. because the decision we’ve made—whether or not to change the absolute load—is wrong, or both.

However, for the same loss of speed in the series, in all cases we will have useful information to know with high precision what training we have done, what degree of effort (relative intensity and loss of speed) and what its effects are. This will allow us to make better decisions in the immediate future based on the data and real behavior of the athletes.

In practice, when we observe a discrepancy between the programmed effort (only speed of the first repetition in this case) and the one that means for the subject the displacement of the absolute load that said effort represents, three situations can occur:

1. that the load moves at a higher speed than expected,
2. moving at the expected speed, or
3. to do it at a slower speed.

Naturally, in all cases three decisions can be made: maintain, raise or lower the load. But not in all cases these alternatives would be equally logical and reasonable.

If the load moves faster than expected

In the first case, if the absolute load moves at a higher speed than expected or programmed, it means that the subject has improved performance compared to what he had at the beginning of the training cycle, so it can be stated that the subject is training with a relative intensity lower than programmed.

The apparently most logical decision would be to increase the absolute load to the extent necessary to match the expected relative intensity. This would make it possible to comply in a very precise way with the programmed training (it is assumed that the loss of speed in the series would always be as expected).

But it is likely that when a subject clearly improves his performance after training for a few sessions, the most effective decision is to maintain the progression of the absolute loads predicted, even though the relative intensities with which he trains are less than those programmed.

In this way, a progressive load would be maintained in absolute terms, although the relative load remained more or less stable or even tended to regress, which would indicate that the performance improvement is greater.

In other words, we propose that it is probable that when the improvement in performance is important, the progression of the absolute loads is sufficient, and very favourable, for the improvement of performance, although the relative intensity remains stable or even decreases progressively. This decision should be kept as long as the performance improvement is maintained.

In any case, the speed measurement will continue to inform us of both the performance progression and the degree of effort that has caused it.

IF the load moves at the expected speed

In the second case, if the load moves at the expected speed and more than 6-8 training sessions have passed, the situation becomes worrying, because this would mean that the subject has not experienced any improvement in performance.

In this case, it would be necessary to analyze all the possible circumstances that could explain the lack of positive response. If no reasons unrelated to the training itself are found (illness, personal problems, excessive work or study…) and the subject recovers easily from one session to another, the decision should be made to increase the load, together with the introduction of some variability, apart from the increase in volume and intensity: training frequency, some different exercise…, but if, on the contrary, they are noticeable symptoms of fatigue, the load should be reduced.

If the load moves at a lower speed than expected

If, finally, the speed were lower than expected, an analysis of the possible causes would have to be carried out similar to that of the previous case. With non-training issues ruled out, it is unlikely that the reason for reduced performance is that the workload is low, so one should try to suspend the training session, or lower the absolute intensity to equal the expected relative intensity, or even lower it enough to get the speed above the programmed speed, and even take a rest or a few recovery sessions and increase the load again later.

What is indicated in the previous paragraphs is a great contribution of the measurement of speed: the coach knows the applied load and the effects that it produces permanently and immediately. It is the maximum and best information that a coach can aspire to in order to make informed decisions and improve his training methodology.

You have at your disposal, in each session, precise information on the training carried out and on the physical condition of the athlete or the person trained. This is what you need to make decisions that allow you to improve your own training as a coach and the performance of the people you train, of course, if you make the right decisions. But you will always have the information you really need to decide how to act.

The end result will depend on the technician’s ability to use that information.

The speed of the first repetition

Until now there has always been talk of the speed of the first repetition of the first series, which will indicate the relative intensity that represents the absolute load with which you train, but we have not said anything about how to manage this speed in the successive ones with the same exercise and absolute load.

In this sense, it should be considered that if more than one series is done, the absolute load will not change, even if the speed of the first repetition in successive series drops slightly. In addition, in each series the same loss of speed established for that session will continue to be applied, although, naturally, taking the speed of the first repetition of each series as a reference.

Therefore, what constitutes a training session is:

1. an initial speed of the first repetition of the first set,
2. The maximum speed possible in the successive series and,
3. a loss of speed in the stable series during the total of the series performed.

This means that the speed of the first repetition of each of the successive series should be the maximum possible, and the absolute load will not be modified if there is a slight loss of speed with respect to that of the first series.

It would not make sense or practical feasibility to try to adjust the loads further for several reasons:

• First of all, because the losses are very small between the first repetitions of each series (it can be reduced or adjusted if desired by slightly increasing the recovery times between series). These losses are greater the greater the speed loss programmed for the first series, that is, the closer we get to the maximum number of repetitions possible in the series. But this is something that is part of the characteristics of the training itself.
• Secondly, because it is not feasible, without interfering in the training itself, to re-measure and make load changes in each series, because this would add significantly to the training load itself (greater number of repetitions and series than scheduled).
• Thirdly, because fatigue is part of the training and determines the degree of effort, and this would be uncontrollable if the absolute load is constantly changing. If we were to make these adjustments on each set in order to train each set at the same initial speed (same relative intensity), we would also need to do it on each rep of a set, because it is clear that as we do reps on each set, the relative intensity (the degree of effort) that each repetition represents is different, since the speed decreases progressively.

None of these changes seems recommendable and all are far from viable.

Repetitions per set are not scheduled

It has already been discussed on a few occasions, but it is necessary to indicate it at this time. In training organized through speed, a determined number of repetitions in the series is not programmed, but rather a loss of speed in the series given the load or relative intensity selected.

Carrying out speed-based training and programming the number of repetitions in the series is a contradiction and indicates little or no knowledge of the meaning of the already-hyped “speed-based training”. This means that not all the subjects will perform the same number of repetitions, the same volume, but the same degree of effort, which is what has been programmed and what, as it is reasonable to accept, determines the effect of the training.

On the contrary, if the same number of repetitions is programmed for the same relative intensity, the degree of effort will be different between the subjects.

Pre-training assessment

The evaluation prior to the start of a training cycle is carried out through a test with progressive loads.

What must be measured is the average propulsive velocity with which the subjects move each load. The maximum load reached in the test is a relative load (determined by speed) equal to or slightly higher than the maximum to be used in training. It will never be necessary to measure the MRI.

The evaluation after the training is carried out by analyzing the changes in the average propulsive velocity before the same absolute loads as in the initial test. If the speed with the maximum absolute load in the final test is clearly higher than that obtained in the initial test, an extra absolute load can be measured that could serve as a reference for the following training cycle. But this extra load would never be included in the evaluation of the evaluated training cycle, because it is not a load common to the two tests.

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Dose / program the load (relative intensity) of the training through the speed and control that each training session is carried out at the programmed intensity through the measurement of the speed of the first repetition of the series.
• Know the real average speed with which you have trained throughout the cycle individually and as a group.
• Know the real time under tension of the entire training.
• Evaluate the effects of training in different zones of the force-velocity curve.
• Estimate and compare the changes on the RMs.
• Compare the changes in the mean of the VMP of the common loads pre-post training. This comparison could (should) allow to eliminate the comparison of the RMs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talking about the average speed lost during the entire training cycle is like talking about the degree of fatigue generated for each group and each subject individually. If we take into account that what is always programmed is a CE / degree of effort, which represents a degree of fatigue, which validates the CE itself, knowledge of this data is the most relevant of what can be expected in relation to the load applied or generated by the training already carried out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This type of distribution makes it possible to analyze discrepancies in the training effect when the same repetitions have been programmed for all subjects at the same relative intensity.

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

Therefore, the distribution of repetitions by speed zones allows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definitely, this type of information is the most relevant and precise to be able to carry out an analysis of the true load that has caused a certain effect, because it reflects very clearly the degree of effort made.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• In addition to determining the relative intensity with which you train, the speed of the first repetition allows you to achieve other important objectives:
  • Adjust the load (intensity) to the actual physical situation of the subject in each training session.
  • Guarantee control of a determining variable of load and performance, such as relative intensity.
  • Know the real average relative intensity of the maximum intensities applied.
• The speed measurement allows us to check the effects of training at different speeds (light, medium and high loads), as well as at the average speed of all common loads moved pre-post training. This type of measurement allows more information about the effect of training and minimizes the possible error in the quantification of its effects. For this reason, it is a measurement that clearly exceeds what the usual MRI measurement offers to assess the effect of training.
• It is possible to know exactly the average speed lost in the series by the different groups and by each participant:
  • If we take into account that what is always programmed is an EC / degree of effort, knowledge of this data is the most relevant of what can be expected in relation to the load applied or generated by the training already carried out.
  • Therefore, these indicators of fatigue are the ones that can get us closest to finding the relationship between the training performed and the effect produced.
• The measurement of speed allows us to reflect on the fact that with the same relative load, a difference of only 11 hundredths of more^-1 in average speed (for example, 0.69-0.58 m s^-1 in the case that we have presented), it can generate effects with a clear trend in favor of the group with the highest average speed and in some cases obtaining significant differences in favor.
• Faced with a loss of speed in the series that is equal or very similar for each of the subjects, there is a high variability in the number of repetitions performed. This confirms that it would not be correct to program the same number of repetitions with the same relative intensity. This information can only be obtained if we measure the speed of execution.
• In order to distribute the volume (repetitions) between the intensities used, intensity zones expressed in percentages of the RM have traditionally been created. But this procedure encompasses all the drawbacks associated with the use of MRI as a reference to measure and assess the training load. The solution to this problem lies in the use of speed zones instead of percentage zones, because the speed at which the charges have moved expresses very precisely what real relative intensity the subject has used:
  • It is understood that this type of information is the most relevant and precise to be able to carry out an analysis of the true load that has caused a certain effect, because it reflects very clearly the degree of effort made: number of repetitions with each relative intensity (in zones of one tenth of m s^-1 difference).
• If we add to this the information provided on the loss of speed, the average speed and the average maximum speed of the entire training cycle, we will probably have the series of variables that allow a better analysis of the applied load.
• In addition, the correct selection of the load by controlling the speed of the first repetition and the percentage of speed loss in the series, not only allows obtaining more improvements in performance, but by doing it in conditions of less tissue stress, it is very likely that it will contribute to the reduction or abolition of the number of injuries caused by strength training or any other physical training.

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