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

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

1. Select the variables that determine the load

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Determine the duration of the cycle.

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

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

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

4. Determine training frequency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

schedule training

The organization of intensity and volume in training loads is a basic aspect in training programming. In this entry the considerations of combining volume and intensity are evaluated and the key questions regarding the programming of the loads are answered.

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

• By increasing or keeping the intensity and/or volume stable, the effect on training is positive. In all other cases the effect is not defined or is negative.
• Stimulus levels should be applied when it best suits the subject’s capacity and produces a positive effect.
• The application of excessive loads almost always has negative consequences such as the risk of injury and the difficulty of executing a correct technique.

Changes in the training load are produced by modifying some of its factors: volume, intensity and type of exercise. Regarding the exercises, the difficulty and load increase, regardless of other factors, as a greater number of joints and muscle groups are involved, which is generally accompanied by greater technical difficulty and greater mechanical work due to unit of action (repetition).

But if we keep an exercise or group of exercises stable, the changes in volume and intensity are what will determine if the changes in the load are positive, negative or null for performance. When we talk about intensity, unless otherwise stated, we always refer to relative intensity, not absolute (weight).

Changes in the training load are produced by modifying some of its factors: volume, intensity and type of exercise.

Taking into account all the possible combinations in the change of these factors within a training cycle: increase or decrease the volume y The intensity As well as the possibility that one or both of them remain stable, there can be nine situations, which we are going to analyze below, indicating their effect on performance depending on the way and when they are used.

1. The volume and intensity increase: the effect will tend to be positive.

Whenever this combination occurs within the training process, there is an initial improvement in performance, unless both variables (volume and intensity) are already at a very high degree of load in relation to the subject’s possibilities. If this last circumstance occurs, the effect will be null in the best of cases, and almost always negative. If this circumstance does not occur, and therefore the effect is positive, it must be considered that this load trend would only be valid for three or four weeks in a row, and must be modified later.

Only very slight increases in the load and with very low training frequencies allow this trend to be maintained for a longer number of weeks.

this trend of the loads would only be valid for three or four weeks in a row, and must be modified later

2. The volume increases and the intensity remains stable: the effect will tend to be positive

The effect will be positive if the trend does not continue. Only between two and six sessions would the positive effects be maintained without increasing the intensity. It is a form of progression suitable for the Beginnings of a training cycle.

3. The volume increases and the intensity decreases: the effect is not defined.

It would be useful when you want to increase muscle mass or you want to make a deep change in the training system to break a state of negative adaptation (stagnation). However, in any of these cases, it would always be necessary to increase the intensity again after a few workouts, otherwise the aforementioned objectives would not even be obtained.

4. The volume remains stable and the intensity increases: the effect will tend to be positive.

It is an always positive trend change for strength performance. Its best application may be at the point in the cycle when a considerable volume of work has already been achieved. One or two weeks with this tendency can have a very good effect.

5. Volume and Intensity remain stable: the effect is not defined.

This situation should not continue for more than two or three sessions in a row. If this is done, the effect could be positive, otherwise it would be negative.

6. The volume remains stable and the intensity decreases: the effect will tend to be negative

We cannot expect anything positive from this trend that is worthwhile in strength performance: there is no increase in the stimulus in any of the variations, and neither could we expect an improvement in form due to the recovery effect, since the volume does not decreases. Seeking recovery by only reducing intensity is not appropriate for strength.

Seeking recovery by only reducing intensity is not appropriate for strength.

7. The volume decreases and the intensity increases: the effect will tend to be positive.

This trend may be valid for: a) maintain the performance achieved b) recover the body without loss of strength and c) occasionally, to improve performance after a high volume phase.

Its most effective application occurs in the 2nd phase of the training cycle.

8. The volume decreases and the intensity remains stable: the effect will tend to be positive

It is positive only as a recovery, well in a week of unloading before a competition.

9. Volume and intensity decrease: the effect is not defined.

It would never offer positive effect for strength improvement. It would make sense as a form of deep recovery in phases of active rest. Within the training cycle it can be used in a session as a way of unloading.

To all these possible combinations, we should add the combination that we could consider the most favorable and desired, which is the one in which the relative intensity remains practically stable while the absolute intensity increases, with volumes also practically stable or minimal oscillations, or In any case, a downward trend. This trend will continue as long as it remains positive, during all training cycles.

As a synthesis of the previous assumptions about adaptation to strength training, we can say that each level or degree of stimulus should be applied at the time it is most necessary, best suited to the athlete’s capacity, and produce a sufficient positive effect. Once a charge has been used successfully, it has little or no effect if we want to use it again.

Each level or degree of stimulus should be applied at the time it is most necessary, best suited to the athlete’s ability, and produce a sufficient positive effect.

Therefore, if we are capable of providing successive adjusted stimuli, each time more demanding, within the strength needs, and with real variability, it is more likely that the progression in the results will be maintained for longer and greater. By using a small stimulus, but one that is enough to provide great progress, we are not only applying adequate training, but we are preparing the athlete to be able to face other higher loads when necessary.

If heavy loads are used, even if they are not necessary, there is also great initial progress, but this almost always has negative consequences: risk of injury, rendering useless the application of lighter loads that would have been effective at the time, not creating the adequate conditions for the correct learning of the technique in some exercises that require it, reduce and range of stimuli applicable throughout sporting life, and therefore, the possibilities of variability.

As a conclusion, the following can be stated:

1. In strength training it is easy to progress in the first cycles of work, but this should not lead to violently increasing the training demands with the intention of progressing more quickly. The efforts required by each stage of sporting life must be respected. A lower degree of effort does not mean that progress is necessarily less. An effort adjusted to the real needs of the athlete can mean a greater and better development of strength both in the short and long term.
2. The degree of effort must be strictly adjusted to the circumstances of age and experience.
3. Almost any training can be effective for a few weeks or months, but progression over many years, improvement in technique, and joint and muscle health are more likely to be achieved with rational training, according to the adaptation assumptions indicated.
4. The magnitude of the load depends fundamentally on the volume, the intensity and the exercise that is used.
5. The introduction of a higher load magnitude is allowed and justified when the preceding ones have been assimilated. That is, when these loads are below the current stimulation threshold of the neuromuscular system, and therefore the organism no longer presents a positive reaction to said loads. In this situation we can say that the charges used up to now have already produced their effect.
6. The charges lose their effect firstly in absolute terms, due to the continued use of the same weight, and then in relative terms, due to the continued use of the same percentage. This means that as performance increases, smaller percentages may become less effective.
7. Certain modifications of the volume and intensity of the training produce a positive effect, while others have no or negative effect.
8. The positive effect of a cargo modification and its validity period also depend on the circumstances in which said modifications occur.

The application of large loads almost always has negative consequences: risk of injury, making useless the application of more effective light loads, difficulty in learning the correct technique, etc.

But before programming a training session, a series of questions must be answered, the answers of which will establish the reality on which action must be taken. Once this reality is known, it will be necessary to also take into account a series of basic methodological considerations derived from the theory of training and from experience in sports practice. These considerations can be addressed through a series of key questions about training scheduling.

When should you start strength training?

The moment of the start of strength training in an athlete who is going to the competition could be determined in the first place by the needs or strength demands of the sport or sports specialty. However, it is considered that starting to improve strength through training especially aimed at this objective from the very beginning would always be positive whatever strength needs may be in the future.

The important thing, and the “risk”, is not the moment to start the strength training, but the way to carry out said training. The correct training of strength from the earliest ages does not present any indication in the physical and technical development of the athlete and it is recommended as a way to avoid injuries and improve performance (Payne et al., 1997).

How much force do you have to develop?

In this case, when we ask ourselves this question, we are referring to the maximum degree of force development, assessed through the RM estimation, but not by its direct measurement. The degree of development of these strength values ​​must be directly related to the needs of the sport or specialty. To know our objectives, the strength values ​​achieved by the most outstanding athletes in the specialty can be taken as a reference point, but mainly the effect of strength improvement on performance improvement in competition or in specific tests can be considered.

But in addition to the maximum force expressed as , the useful force (another maximum force value) must also be considered, in other words, the maximum force value that the athlete is capable of applying when performing the specific gesture, as well as the ability to produce force in the unit that the improvement of the maximum force (in this case the estimation of the RM) presents a positive relationship with the improvement of the performance and with the useful force, the development of the force must continue to be maintained .

If there is an increase in strength but it is not accompanied by an improvement in performance, we should consider reducing resistance training and looking only to maintain it until the specific performance improves. There may come a time when inadequate strength training (even if RM improvement occurs) is related to the loss of one’s own specific performance. In this case, strength training would have to be reduced or changed—or both.

What exercises should be used?

Although in the first steps of training an athlete it is necessary to stimulate all muscle groups in a balanced way and ensure a solid strengthening of tendons and joint ligaments, specific performance is achieved by training those movements, muscle groups and responsible energy systems. of performance in competition.

For this reason, since the athlete begins the path of high performance (since he decides to practice a sport with the aspirations of becoming a high-level athlete in the future), the work program must especially include only non-specific exercises. most useful and specific strength-building exercises applicable to your specialty.

the work program should especially include only the most useful non-specific exercises and the most specific exercises for strength development applicable to your specialty

How often do you have to train?

As infrequently as it produces sufficient force development. In some moments the frequency should be only what is necessary to maintain the force. The training frequency must necessarily increase as sporting life progresses, although the margin of increase is very small if the same volume is not distributed in different sessions. The greater need for strength in a specialty also demands a greater frequency of training.

In some cases, the limiting factor of the training frequency is not the lesser need for strength in the specialty, but the frequency of competitions and the possible interference between training and the development of more or less antagonistic qualities. A higher frequency does not necessarily mean a higher load. The same proposed load (understood as a synthesis of volume and intensity) carried out in two sessions, on the same day or on separate days, implies less real load than if it is done in a single session. That is, we would talk about more frequency but less fatigue.

What relative intensity (%1RM or speed of the first repetition) should be used?

The most suitable maximum relative intensity of training is directly related to the strength needs in the specialty. That is, the greater the need for strength, the greater the maximum intensity that must be reached through sports life, as well as the frequency with which it is used. But it is convenient to add some other orientations that complete this aspect that is so decisive and dangerous in the training schedule. Among these aspects, we highlight the following factors to define the relative intensity:

The subject’s initial training level. The degree of training of the subject takes precedence over the strength needs of the sport. It is not possible to train with the typical intensities used in a specialty if the athlete, given his level of training, neither can nor needs to use high intensities to sufficiently improve his strength.

Speed ​​and phase-angle-position of the competition gesture in which the force will be applied. The speed at which the force will be applied in competition is decisive in the choice of training intensity. It will be necessary to consider to what extent the improvement in maximum strength (1 RM) has an effect on the force applied at competition speed (useful force). The force applied at the competition speed will be the reference point to assess the effects of strength training. Many of the exercises and training intensities will need to be close to competition speed and the angle at which force is applied.

Time that can and should be devoted to strength training. The strength training load is subordinated to the frequency of competitions. When competitions are very frequent throughout the season it is necessary to allow recovery before and after each test, which means that the time dedicated to strength training cannot be high. The time that can be dedicated depends on this circumstance. Although, on the other hand, it would be necessary to consider the time that must be dedicated to strength training for the desired effects to be produced. It is necessary to take into account both conditions and adjust the training so that it is effective and not useless.

What is the specific musculature involved and the type of muscle activation? Both determining factors determine the range of exercises to be applied in strength training and the form of performance. The greatest training potential is found in the most specific exercises. The problem of training is not solved by performing many and very varied exercises, but by using those that have a more direct influence on performance.

Other questions such as what are the limiting factors from the point of view of strength performance, as can occur in endurance sports, or what is the need to maintain a certain degree of strength during the competitive phase, the number of competitions that have to be held and the distribution of them, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the athlete or what role the athlete plays in the case of team sports, must also be taken into account before making decisions about the work to be done.

The training cycles are training time slots in which all the necessary loads have been applied, according to the programmer’s criteria, to achieve the expected objective.

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

• Each training cycle will be made up of 5 phases in which a maximum volume will be reached with a minimum intensity in the first phase, and the volume will gradually decrease and intensity increase during the cycle until concluding with recovery in the last phase.
• It has been possible to establish that the training volume has a certain individual value for each athlete, above and below which the best results are not obtained.
• If strength and endurance are trained separately, especially every other day on every other day, both can be improved.

The permanent objectives throughout the training cycles will be the improvement of the applied force (improvement of speed) before any load and, especially, before the competition load (improvement of useful force), as well as the corresponding improvement of production. force in unit time (RFD) and specific RFD.

During the duration of the cycle, the evolution of intensity and volume occurs, as well as the exercises used. The evolution of these variables is continuous, so the inclusion of a series of “phases” within a cycle only makes sense if it is done with the aim of giving guidance on the moment of evolution of these variables.

The “moment” is defined by the volume and intensity values. For a better definition of the cycle, we will add its duration, generally indicating the number of weeks it comprises. When the strength needs are high, the values ​​of the intensities and volumes are the highest that can (should) be programmed, and therefore there are more differences between the different moments or “phases” of the cycle. The opposite occurs when force requirements are low.

When strength needs are high, the values ​​of intensities and volumes are the highest that can (should) be programmed

Therefore, the way of developing each of the training cycles is determined especially by the intensity and volume, which will be different depending on the characteristics of the sports or sports specialties and the characteristics of the subjects. The following are the basic characteristics of the different “phases” of a training cycle. These phases could be the following:

First phase:

Priority objective: to improve the maximum force applied before any load and the RFD before the training exercises. This should have a positive effect on the useful force: force applied before the load and gesture typical of the competition

Basic training: the highest number of repetitions per series of the entire cycle and character of effort (CE) from low to high, depending on the strength needs and experience of the subject. It is in this phase that the volume values ​​are highest and the intensity is lowest (actual percentage of 1RM lower or velocity of the first repetition higher). The volume tends to increase in the first weeks, reaching the maximum values ​​of the entire cycle per unit of training and weekly. The loss of speed in the series will be the lowest of the entire cycle: the lower the relative intensity, the less the loss of speed in the series should be.

In order to make this description of the phases clearer, the classification of the CE grades in relative terms is considered. When it is said, for example, that the CE is “high”, it should be interpreted as the maximum or almost maximum requirement for the subject or the specialty to which the training is applied, but not in absolute terms. In other words, both subjects with high strength needs and those with low needs will be able to reach “their high EC” in this phase, but it will not mean the same degree of effort for everyone. In the event that the speed of movement of the load could be measured, the CE will be determined by the speed of the first repetition and by the loss of speed in the series.

Second level:

Priority objective: improve the maximum force applied to any load, the RFD and the specific force: peak force and specific RFD (useful force)

Basic training: decrease the number of repetitions per set, increase the actual percentage of the RM, or decrease the speed of the first repetition

Increased speed loss in the series.

Third phase:

Priority objective: improve or at least maintain the maximum force applied to any non-specific load and improve the specific RFD and peak force (useful force). ,

Basic training: reducing the number of repetitions per series. Increase in the actual percentage of the RM or decrease the speed of the first repetition. Maximum or almost maximum loss of speed in the series of the cycle. There can be an oscillation of these variables between sessions, applying light loads in some sessions in the event that an exercise was done three times a week.

Fourth phase

Priority objective: improve the specific RFD and peak force and at least maintain the maximum applied force under any non-specific load

Basic training: reducing the number of repetitions per series. Increase in the actual percentage of the RM or decrease the speed of the first repetition. Maximum loss of speed in the series within the cycle. There can be an oscillation of these variables between sessions, applying light loads in some sessions in the event that an exercise was done three times a week.

In addition to the time dedicated to this type of load, training of these characteristics can be extended in a maintenance phase for two or three weeks.

Fifth Phase

Priority objective: priority: recover.

Basic training: very little or no typical strength training.

Duration: between 1 and 4 weeks, depending on the time of the season.

The duration of the complete cycle should not exceed 12-14 weeks. The most frequent length could be between 8 and 10 weeks, although cycles of 4 to 6 weeks are also very effective and sometimes necessary. Other shorter cycles may serve to maintain or recover, or at least to approach recently achieved levels of strength performance.

In strength work, one cannot currently speak of programming with an annual cycle. The number of cycles can range from three to five-six, depending on the competition system. In these circumstances, each one of them would have a different character, giving greater emphasis to the volume and the first phases of the cycle in some cases, and accentuating the intensity in others.

It has been possible to establish that the training volume has a certain individual value for each athlete, above which the best results are not obtained.

If we assume that more than one cycle per year is carried out, the evolution of the volume within each cycle and between them through the years should be approximately as follows:

• In the first years (2-3) of strength training, the volume achieved each cycle is increasing.
• The progression of the volume within each cycle is faster and faster, as the maximum volume of each of them increases. For this reason, the maximum value of the volume is reached earlier and the progression time in each cycle is shorter.
• The volume decrease begins earlier and earlier with respect to the competition date within each cycle. The higher the maximum volume reached, the longer the recovery phase.

After these first seasons of strength training, the dynamics of the volume is quite stable, its modifications depending on the most important competition dates. If you keep track of the load that each athlete performs, you could establish the optimum volume of work for each one, or at least detect when a load begins to be ineffective, since It has been possible to establish that the training volume has a certain individual value for each athlete, above and below which the best results are not obtained..

Although it is possible that you will never know exactly what these optimal levels are, it is convenient to have an approximate idea of ​​the maximum load that a subject or a group of athletes can bear that reduces individual and collective performance within a specialty. sporty.

The youngest would perform between three and four cycles a year

In the first years it is more important that all the phases of each complete cycle are completed than to subordinate them to possible competitions. It would be convenient for the youngest to carry out three-four cycles a year, without excessively modifying this structure when it was necessary to adapt it to the competitions.

The dynamics of the volume per week can be in very different ways and quite irregular at times, although some basic rules can be given that quite likely ensure good performance in strength. The week is usually taken as a training unit and it is quite comfortable to organize the load distribution, although the smallest load units are not always a week, but a few days. In particular, we will talk about the load corresponding to the strength work that must go in coordination with the rest of the training.

If we find ourselves in a phase in which the fundamental objective is the improvement of strength performance, the global load should be subordinated to the training of this quality. If, on the contrary, it is intended to maintain performance, the strength work will not be very demanding and will not significantly influence the overall organization of the load, so it will not influence other training modalities and objectives.

if strength and endurance are trained separately, especially on alternate days on alternate days, both can be improved

According to these premises, the dynamics of the force will be in some moments different from the dynamics of the general charge, which is correct and necessary. It is possible to consider different weekly or monthly objectives with specific activities for each one without serious interference, although the performance is not as high as if we only worked for one of them.

Perhaps the greatest incompatibility could occur between strength training and resistance training, but it is known that if these qualities are trained separately, especially on alternate days on alternate days, both can be improved at a level sufficient for the demands of sports that do not require the development of any of them to a very high degree. In any case, always the resistance would benefit more from the strength than the strength of the resistance.

In this post, an exhaustive analysis will be made on why you should not reach muscle failure during training. Publications with several studies in this regard will be reviewed and the drawbacks of this form of training will be added.

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

• For the recruitment of motor units: with a predominance of fast fibers, very important for improving strength —and hypertrophy— and speed of execution, it does not seem necessary to reach muscle failure.
• the maximum volume achievable at the same maximum and average relative intensity does not produce the best results in competitive athletes in snatch, two-stroke and squat exercises.
• A high hormonal environment does not seem to have an influence during the post-training phase of protein synthesis, since hormone levels drop to basal values ​​within a few minutes.
• With less mechanical, metabolic, and hormonal stress—far from muscular failure—strength can be improved to the same or greater extent than reaching muscular failure.
• What has been observed is that more time under tension tends to produce more protein synthesis, but not more force.
• There are several studies in which it is concluded that reaching failure does not provide better results than not doing so.

What is muscle failure and origins

If you consult any text, not only ancient, but even modern, and ancient and modern “scientific” articles, related to strength training, in almost all cases it will be recommended that to improve “maximum” strength is necessary perform the maximum possible number of repetitions in the series. In this situation, you would be facing what is known as “reaching muscle failure”, that is, not being able to do more repetitions than have been done in the series.

This form of training was initially applied in the 1940s, when Thomas L. DeLorme, a US military physician and rehabilitation specialist, was trying to rehabilitate polio patients and war wounded. The idea of ​​training for the maximum number of repetitions in the series came to him from his own experience training “on his own” with weights to recover from rheumatic fevers, instead of on bed rest.

Initially, the training applied to the patients was 7 series of 10RM five times a week. He called this training “heavy resistance exercise” although he soon realized that this load was excessive and changed to “progressive resistance exercise”, which consisted of doing series of 10 repetitions, but not all with the maximum possible load, but a set with 50% of the 10RM, a second set at 75% and a third set at 100% of the 10RM.

If the patient could do more than 10 repetitions in the third set, the weight should be increased. This is “the famous 3x10RM training”, which had a different meaning from what has been understood to date. In fact, what became popular and applied to practitioners of strength training, competitive athletes or not, was 3x10RM, but all at 100 possible repetitions.

That is to say, the interpretation of the proposals of DeLorme and his collaborators was clearly wrong, because, over the years, it has been observed that DeLorme’s second proposal was more rational than the one applied by the majority of specialists in the training of force. For more information on DeLorme’s contributions, see Todd et al. (2012) and González-Badillo et al. (2017).

In the years 40-70 it was not very well known what was the reason why training until muscular failure was effective

Later, during the 1970s, the idea of ​​using training to failure was reinforced with the recommendations of Arthur Jones, founder of Nautilus 4 Sports / Medical Industries and MedX Corporation, who proposed that one series always be done until muscular failure. , 8-12 repetitions, once or twice a week maximum, and at low or controlled speed, because “this is best for improving muscle mass, strength, power, and endurance” (in Smith and Bruce -Low, 2004).

In the years 40-70 it was not very well known what was the reason why training until muscle failure was effective, and since it had not been experimented with other types of training, this effectiveness led to this type of training being considered as the best, and for many the only and necessary way to improve strength… and everything that can be improved.

Over the years, explanations for this apparent effectiveness have been found and up to now some reasons have been given to justify it. However, what is characteristic of these explanations is that they are always linked to the processes that produce or can produce a greater increase in muscle mass or hypertrophy. In other words, justifying training to failure as a way to improve strength is the same as justifying the way to achieve greater hypertrophy, a condition considered practically necessary and proportional to the improvement in strength.

Several comments can be made in relation to the above. The first is that strength improvement is understood exclusively as RM improvement. What happens with the rest of the loads that have to be moved “is not an improvement in strength”. The second is that it seems that if there is no noticeable or detectable improvement in hypertrophy there is no improvement in strength. As seen, these are two approaches that do not conform to reality.

Why is it proposed to train to muscular failure?

The reasons that are proposed to justify the application of muscular failure are, generally, the following:

• the possibility of achieving greater recruitment of motor units,
• the greatest muscle damage,
• increased levels of anabolic hormones,
• the increase in muscle mass,
• the longest time under tension…,

Since all this contributes to the improvement of hypertrophy and, therefore, “to the improvement of maximum strength” (1RM). Some issues related to this proposal are the following.

The possibility of achieving greater recruitment of motor units.

This is considered necessary because “the important thing to achieve maximum muscle activation is to reach failure, regardless of the number of repetitions performed” (Behm et al., 2002). Although, the same authors indicate that more than 20 repetitions no longer seems convenient.

However, for the recruitment of motor units: with a predominance of fast fibers, very important for improving strength —and hypertrophy— and speed of execution, it does not seem necessary to reach muscular failure, because it has been observed that this recruitment can be achieved with 3-5 repetitions less than those necessary to reach muscular failure (Sundstrup et al., 2012), and because, especially, these motor units are recruited without reaching failure if the action it is performed at the maximum possible speed (in an explosive manner) (Desmedt and Godaux, 1977, 1979: Van Cutsem et al., 1998

Since the absolute force at which a motor unit is activated is not fixed and varies with speed and type of activation, which is accompanied by a decrease in the recruitment threshold as force output in the motor unit increases. time (maximum explosiveness) (Desmedt and Godaux, 1977), which is consistent with the observation that most motor units are activated at approximately 40% of maximum load during actions performed at maximum speed (expression of explosiveness) (Enoka and Duchateau., 2019)

Therefore, the motor units of maximum activation threshold can be recruited almost immediately after beginning the exercise if the action is performed at the maximum possible speed, pol o that it does not seem that it is necessary to reach muscular failure to achieve the maximum possible recruitment. of motor units.

muscle damage

Muscle damage, since it will lead to greater degradation and protein synthesis, activation of satellite cells, inflammation, all closely related to hypertrophy. This muscle damage is associated with a high volume of training with medium or high loads, and the more you train, the greater the muscle damage. However, it should be noted that the training effect cannot be based on the proposition that “the more you train the better”, because, among other reasons, it has been observed that an excessive frequency of strength training, which would lead to a greater volume of work, can keep inflammatory processes increased and reduce Akt phosphorylation (Coffey, 2006, doctoral thesis), which which would lead to a decrease or inhibition of the cascade of signals that lead to protein synthesis.

In some studies it has been observed that the maximum volume achievable at the same maximum and average relative intensity does not produce the best results in competitive athletes in snatch, two-stroke and squat exercises (González-Badillo et al., 2005), although in this case none of the three experimental groups even reached muscle failure. Losing 10 or 20% of the speed reached in the first repetition in the series —which means being very far from muscular failure— in the squat exercise better results are produced, especially in actions performed at high speed, than continuing doing repetitions in the series until losing between 40 and 50% (loss close to muscular failure) of the initial speed (Pareja-Blanco et al., 2017; Rodríguez-Rosell, Doctoral Thesis).

Therefore, it does not appear that high muscle damage is necessary to improve strength.

Increased levels of anabolic hormones.

It is true that a higher hormonal level increases the probability of interacting with specific receptors, facilitating the metabolism of proteins and the consequent hypertrophy, and that the interaction with hormonal receptors initiates the cascade of signals or events leading to the alteration of the rate of synthesis. of proteins.

For this reason, when the role of anabolic hormones in training is discussed, it is generally associated with their possible relationship with hypertrophy, which, in turn, is consistent with performing the exercises until muscular failure. However, it has been questioned whether some hormones, such as growth hormone (GH), actually have a significant effect on muscle tissue hypertrophy (Rennie, 2003).

Some studies tend to confirm that in a favorable hormonal environment, the effect of training can be greater than in the absence of it. In this sense, it has been observed that carrying out an exercise that sharply raises the levels of circulating hormones improves the performance in the exercise that follows.

For example, exercising the legs before performing arm exercises (Ronnestad, Nygaarad & Raastad, 2011). This combination of exercises resulted in a significantly greater improvement in arm strength (1RM) and power at 30 and 60% RM (i.e. maximal strength improvement at these relative intensities as well, of course). ) than when the arm training was done without the previous leg exercise.

However, if training with the lower limbs is performed that tends to raise hormone levels after performing an exercise of the upper limbs (group A), no different effect is produced than if only the exercise of the upper limbs is performed (group B).

In this study, conducted with young male subjects, hormone levels after leg training were higher in group A than in group B, but neither were changes in muscle cross-sectional area (AST). and in the different types of fibers neither the increases in force were different between both groups.

These data seem to confirm that local mechanisms are the most relevant in gaining hypertrophy (West et al., 2010) and it is concluded that the subsequent elevation of hormone levels is not necessary to increase anabolic processes in young men. .

Since hormone levels remain high for a few minutes and protein synthesis continues for approximately 48 hours, it is considered that the anabolic effect due to the hormonal environment might not be very high (West 8 Phillips, 2012), and therefore , not having a high relevance in the improvement of strength.

In summary, these studies would indicate that a favorable hormonal environment during the performance of an exercise could have an influence on the improvement of strength, but this elevated hormonal environment does not seem to have an influence during the post-training phase of protein synthesis, since hormone levels drop to baseline values ​​after a few minutes.

In addition to these experimental evidences, it has been observed that in order to improve strength it is not necessary to train until muscular failure, which are the typical trainings that generate a higher hormonal effect (Kraemer et al., 1990), but rather that the effect is superior without that maximum hormonal stress, especially before actions carried out at high speed.

Increased muscle mass

Actually, all of the above is related to the increase in muscle mass. There is a general consensus that a moderate number of repetitions per set and training to muscle failure is the type of training that optimizes hypertrophy (Kraemer et al. 2002).

However, it has also been observed that with lower intensities, such as 30% of the RM, if repetitions are performed in the series until exhaustion, there are also important effects on protein synthesis and hypertrophy. Three series at 30% of the RM to failure can produce a greater increase in quadriceps volume (7%) than one series to failure with 80% (3.5%) and the same as 3 series at 80% to failure. failure (7%) (Mitchell et al., 2012), It is proposed that the rate of protein synthesis depends fundamentally on the recruitment of fibers and not exclusively on the use of high intensities. (Burd, Mitchell, Churchward-Venne, 8, Phillips, 2012).

These results seem to indicate that the mechanical signals for hypertrophy occur primarily in individual fibers, and that when low loads are used, but repetitions to exhaustion are performed, type II fibers are recruited. However, greater volume gain does not seem to necessarily translate into greater strength gain.

The described training produced greater improvements in knee extension RM in the two 80% than in the 30% RM groups, and equivalent changes in moment of force (Mitchel et al., 2012). Returning again to the most current and controlled studies (Pareja-Blanco el al., 2017), it has been possible to verify that almost reaching muscular failure (losing 40-45% of the speed in the series in the squat exercise) It produces a greater increase in muscle mass and in the percentages of changes from faster fibers to type II, but no greater improvement in strength at any speed or relative load.

To conclude, muscle mass is positively related to the force that a muscle can generate, but the results of well-controlled studies on the magnitude of the training load and the extent of its effect indicate that it is not necessary to train to produce the force. greatest possible muscle mass or condition or key to improving strength, because with less mechanical, metabolic, and hormonal stress—staying far from muscular failure—strength can be improved to the same or greater extent than reaching muscular failure.

Longer time under tension

In relation to the previous factors, this proposal is based on the fact that training until muscle failure at a certain relative intensity will subject the muscle to a longer time of tension or activity than if it does not reach failure, which would correspond to an average speed minor. It is considered that this may mean a greater stimulus for the muscles, which in theory could increase the possibility of adaptation in strength and hypertrophy.

Consequently, the complementary argument to this is that when doing a movement at a higher speed you cannot apply as much force as if you do it slowly, which would give rise to a smaller effect on the improvement of strength. Neither of the two ways of expressing this justification seems reasonable or serves to explain the effect of time under stress.

In the first place, regardless of whether or not the time under tension (TBT) is a decisive factor as an adequate stimulus to achieve better adaptations, it must be considered that the increase in TBT can occur, fundamentally, in three different ways that would be decisive in regarding the type of stimulus and the effect they produce, although not all of them would allow assessing the effect of TBT.

• The first of these consists of doing a greater number of repetitions in the series —usually until muscular failure— at the same relative intensity (higher TBT), always at the maximum possible speed, compared to doing fewer repetitions in the series (lower TBT). ).
• The second is to do the same number of repetitions at the same relative intensity, but, in one case, intentionally not doing them at the maximum possible speed (higher TBT) versus doing them at the maximum possible speed (lower TBT).
• And the third is the increase in relative intensity for the same number of repetitions, which means, for example, that the TBT with 30% of the RM to do 3 repetitions at the maximum possible speed would be much lower than doing the same repetitions with 90% at the maximum possible speed.

In all the forms indicated, the TBT is different in the two options described in each case, but only the second form would be useful to be able to really compare the effect of the TBT, since in the first the number of repetitions is different and in the third it is introduced the intensity variable, a factor that can have an important influence on the adaptation process, so that the TBT would not be the main or the only one responsible for the final effect.

What has been observed is that higher TBT tends to produce greater protein synthesis, but not greater strength. The study mentioned in the previous point by Mitchell et al. (2012) is an example of how a higher TBT by doing 3 sets to failure with 90% RM (higher TBT) produced greater muscle mass gain but less strength than reaching failure in a set with 80% RM. % (lower TBT), and even less strength but the same muscle mass as 3 series at 80% (intermediate value of TBT).

longer time under tension tends to produce greater protein synthesis, but not greater strength

This is a clear example in which there are difficulties to adequately assess the effect of TBT, since failure is reached with different relative intensities and with different TBT and effects. In another study, exercising at 30% RM to exhaustion slowly (6 s in knee extension) produced greater mitochondrial, sarcoplasmic, and myofibrial protein synthesis than doing the same number of repetitions with 1 s in each knee extension. No information is given about strength (Burd et al., 2012). In this case, there is the drawback that when training at 1 s per knee extension, the exercise was not performed until exhaustion. Therefore, it is observed that it is difficult to find the appropriate conditions to assess the effect of TBT in isolation.

The argument that moving the same load, absolute or relative, at a higher speed means that less force can be exerted and, therefore, less adaptation effect does not seem reasonable. The speed at which the same given load moves will be greater the greater the force applied to it.

Spending more time displacing the same load may add more time for the application of force and muscle activation, but with very low peaks of force, so the initial impulse, which determines the speed of displacement, that is, performance, will be much less. . For this reason, it has been proposed that the determining factor to improve performance, especially in high-speed actions, should be the impulse generated in each action (Crewther et al, 2006), not the time that force is being applied.

As indicated, the second way to increase TBT is the one that really allows us to assess the effect of TBT on strength. With the intention of verifying the effect of doing the movements at the maximum speed possible (lower TBT in this case) or at half that speed (higher TBT), two studies were carried out in which a group performed the training at maximum speed. possible (G100) in each repetition with the maximum load of the day and another at 50% (Gso) of said speed.

analysis of studies on muscle failure maintaining constant effort

One study was conducted with the bench press exercise (González-Badillo et al., 2014) and the other with the squat (Pareja-Blanco et al., 2014). In both cases, they trained 3 times a week for 6 weeks, and the maximum intensity of each session ranged between 60 and 80% of the RM. With these intensities, 3 series were made from 8 to 3 repetitions per series, all very far from muscular failure.

The speed and the execution time were controlled in each repetition. The relative intensity was adjusted in each session based on the average propulsive speed expected for the first repetition of the maximum load of each session. The TBT (execution time in the concentric phase of each repetition) was significantly higher in the G50 than in the G100 in both exercises (360.9 s vs. 228.8 s in the bench press and 383.5 s vs. 260 .5 s in the squat), but the improvements in all the variables indicating strength were significantly greater in the bench press, and in the squat there were greater percentages of improvement and effect sizes in all the variables and even a group x significant measure interaction in favor of the G100 in the vertical jump (CMJ) exercise, an exercise that was not trained.

All of these apparently justifying processes for the need for muscle failure to improve strength are related to the degree of mechanical stress, which is the basis for muscle activation to generate a series of chemical, electrical, and mechanical signals that cause a response. multiple physiological that culminates in the degradation and expression or synthesis of certain specific proteins that give rise to the adaptation of the organism to the type of stimulus received.

In this way, when exercises that are commonly known as strength training are performed, muscle tension tends to be produced, which generates a cascade of molecular processes that contribute to activating positive muscle hypertrophy signals and inhibiting muscle atrophy signals. Naturally, the degree of “tension” must have an appropriate value so that the processes of degradation do not exceed those of protein synthesis.

However, excessive stress could give rise to negative effects that explain why from a certain degree of fatigue or a certain degree of muscular approximation, the effects could be null or even negative for performance, especially for actions carried out at high speed. speed.

Among these factors could be: producing a significant reduction of ATP with high levels of ammonia; excessive muscle damage, with prolonged inflammation processes, with probable inhibition of protein synthesis and reduction of elasticity due to damage to intramuscular elastic structures; reduce the production of anabolic hormones such as testosterone, which would require a longer recovery time between sessions; produce interference with the specific training, due to excessive fatigue and the performance of a high number of requests at low and very low speed during “strength” training…

On the contrary, less fatigue, always performing the actions at the maximum possible speed and with a high average absolute speed during each session, could favor other mechanisms that tend to produce strength improvement without the side effects of reaching muscle failure. , such as the recruitment of fast twitches without excessive fatigue; the stimulation of the synthesis of fast fibers, which would mean a greater efficiency of release / removal of calcium in muscle activation; the non-significant reduction of the percentage of the fastest fibers to the slowest; the greater percentage increase in the cross section of fast fibers and, in all probability, the improvement of neural adaptations: recruitment, synchronization, stimulus frequency, intermuscular coordination.

Since the 1980s, it has been maintained that reaching or approaching the maximum achievable volume in the session, week, month or training cycle does not offer the best results.

Since the 1980s it has been maintained that reaching or approaching the maximum volume achievable in the session, week, month or training cycle does not offer the best results. In 1985 and 1986, a study was carried out in which the effect of doing different volumes was compared with the same maximum relative intensities of each session and the same average relative intensities of each session, week and complete training cycle (12 weeks). ) with competitive athletes and strength specialists (weight lifters).

Subjects performed three different volumes:

• One group reached the maximum volume that they had observed in practice that the subjects could support without reaching extreme fatigue that prevented them from continuing the training (G100),
• A second group performed the same training in terms of maximum and average intensities, but with 85% of the volume of the previous group (G85),
• A third group, also at the same maximum and mean intensities, performed only 65% ​​of the volume of the maximum volume group (G65).

The results showed a curvilinear trend between training volume and performance in the snatch, double jerk, and squat exercises. This tendency means that the G85 tended to obtain the best results, and the G100 and G65 groups obtained similar results. This study carried out in the 1980s, part of Professor Badillo’s doctoral thesis, and was published a few years later (González-Badillo et al., 2005).

The results of this study were included in the 2009 Guideline and “the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) in presenting its guidelines for strength training, stating that “greater volume does not appear to offer better benefits”, although , then they ignored the results and continued to recommend the classic XRM

Regarding the repetitions to be performed in the series (failure or no failure), for more than 25 years, it has been proposed that it is probably enough to reach a maximum of half of the possible repetitions in the series to improve strength performance. in most sports specialties and athletes.

The first application of this idea in a sport other than Weightlifting was with the women’s national hockey team —Olympic champions in Barcelona-92— at the beginning of the 90s. Over more than two and a half years, the team improved leg strength (improved full squat), jumping ability, acceleration, and threshold speed (commonly called anaerobic threshold or second lactate threshold) rdoing training, especially full squats, with loads lower than 80% of the RM and with less than half of the possible repetitions in the series.

In the early 2000s, this idea was applied in the experimental setting and training sessions were designed to compare the effect of reaching muscle failure or not (Izquierdo et al., 2006). One group would reach failure with 3 sets of 10 reps and the other would do half the reps possible in the set and 6 sets to equalize the total volume.

At the beginning of the 2000s, this idea was applied in the experimental field and training sessions were designed to compare the effect of reaching muscular failure or not.

This equalization of the volume was always considered unnecessary, but sometimes the demands of the publications force to modify the designs somewhat. In this study it was found that it was not necessary to reach muscular failure to achieve the same or better strength performance. Subsequently, a study was designed in which the volume was no longer matched, once again doing one group half the repetitions of the other (Izquierdo-Gabarren et al., 2010), once again obtaining higher effects in the group that trained with half of the possible repetitions in the set versus reaching muscular failure.

Naturally, these last studies can be considered relatively well controlled, because they were based on the initial criteria to determine the nature of the effort made in a series, estimating the relationship between the repetitions performed and those that could be done in the series. But when you can really talk about the true effect of training to failure or not is when you could start to control the load through the speed of execution, which allowed you to know with very high precision what the absolute load (weight) represented actually the relative intensity programmed for each session, as well as the degree of effort to which the subject was subjected in the series through the control of the loss of speed in the series.

This made it possible to eliminate from the design the number of repetitions to be performed in each series, one of the classic variables of any study that has sought to know the effect of the so-called “strength training”. Therefore, today, if the speed of each repetition can be adequately measured, it does not make sense to program the repetitions to be carried out in the series, because if they are programmed, each participant or athlete could be making a different effort.

it does not make sense to program the repetitions to be carried out in the series, because if we program them, each participant or athlete could be making a different effort

That is, to equalize the volume performed by different experimental groups, something apparently necessary “to control a possible intervening variable in the design, what it does, precisely, is to introduce a foreign variable into the design itself, since the same number of repetitions in the series before the same relative intensity can mean a different effort or degree of fatigue for each subject, since not all subjects can perform the same number of repetitions before the same relative intensity (González-Badillo et al., 2017).

Therefore, If the loss of speed in the series is taken as a reference, and is programmed as an indicator of the training load, and not the number of repetitions in the series, it will be achieved that, before the same relative intensity, the subjects of the same experimental group have made a very similar degree of effort throughout the training cycle, as well as that another or other experimental groups have made really different efforts.

This control of the effort made is what really determines the degree of load and what is interesting to control, if one wants to know the effect of certain types of training loads.

These advances in the control of the training load have allowed us to confirm through several experimental studies carried out in the last 10-15 years that, indeed, a fatigue far removed from that which corresponds to muscular failure tends to offer better results than reaching to failure.

fatigue less than that corresponding to muscular failure tends to offer better results than failure.

In summary, the results of these studies indicated that losing between 10 and 20% of the speed of the first repetition in the series in the full squat exercise, that is, doing half or less than half of the “repetitions possible in the series (very far from muscular failure), with subjects familiar with strength training, always executing the exercises to the maximum possible speed, with intensities between 70 and 85% of the RM, for 8 weeks at two sessions per week, offers better results in trained and untrained exercises than losing 30% or practically reaching failure, with losses of 40-45% speed in the series (Pareja-Blanco et al., 2017: Rodríguez-Rosell, Doctoral Thesis).

Similar results have been found when comparing three groups with losses of 10, 30 and 45% of the speed in the series in the squat exercise with intensities between 55 and 70% of the RM. The 10% loss offered the same or better results in the trained and untrained exercises than the 30% loss and, especially, the 45% loss (very close to muscular failure) (Rodríguez-Rosell Doctoral Thesis).

In the bench press exercise, with intensities of 70 to 85% and losses of 15, 25, 40 and 50%, the effects also tended to be higher with losses close to 30-40% of the speed loss compared to the 50%, loss very close to muscle failure. As can be deduced, these studies are the ones that offer the best guarantees that, indeed, the subjects trained with the relative intensities and the programmed degree of effort or fatigue, which allows us to confirm that the training until muscular failure (maximum or almost maximum loss of speed in the series) do not offer better results than lower losses of speed, even reaching a very low degree of fatigue, such as losing only 10% of the speed in the series.

Losing 10% speed in the squat set at intensities from 70 to 85% means that subjects did, on average, between 3.3 and 2 repetitions per set, when the repetitions possible, on average, at these intensities They range from 10.2 to 5. In other words, there were always far fewer repetitions than half of those possible in a series.

This caused the total repetition volume of the training cycle to be less than the volume of the group that reached near failure. With the 20% loss, the repetitions per series performed were, on average, from 5 to 2.7, practically half of those possible. With these intensities and in this exercise, doing more than half of the possible repetitions in the series (from losing 30% of the speed in the series) already begins to have less positive effect on performance, especially in actions performed at high speed. speed.

Apart from those mentioned, there are already several studies in which it is concluded that reaching failure does not provide better results than not doing so, but unfortunately, most of these studies are not based on designs that really allow us to conclude the advantage of not reaching failure. failed. One of those that comes close to confirming that reaching it is carried out by Sampson and Groeller (2016), who apply training to failure (6 repetitions with 85% of the RM) or doing only 4 repetitions with this relative intensity — this really means a very high effort character and, therefore, with a very high loss of speed in the series, that is, close to failure — it was confirmed that after 12 weeks of training with the exercise of elbow flexion, the effects do not depend on the number of repetitions performed to failure, nor is it a necessary condition to reach it, at the same time that it is not necessary to equalize the volume to obtain the same results in strength, muscle activation and in the cross-sectional area of ​​the muscle.

There are already several studies in which it is concluded that reaching failure does not provide better results than not doing so.

In addition, in this study, the group that performed the movements at the maximum speed possible in the concentric phase and in a controlled manner (2 s) in the eccentric phase, reduced the activation of the antagonist muscles (triceps), which suggests — it is a personal deduction, not that of the study authors, that this may be an execution strategy that favors concentric actions performed at the maximum speed possible. However, this study, which is one of the most adjusted to verify the effect of failure compared to no failure, has the drawback that the stimuli were very similar, so it is logical to expect that the results were also very similar.

In other words, although the results favor “the hypothesis of not reaching failure”, the study leaves a wide field of uncertainty about the minimum load that could be equivalent or superior in its effects to the load that represents muscle failure. The answer to this uncertainty can be found in the series of studies presented in the two previous paragraphs, in which you can see the progressive tendency to decrease performance from certain values ​​of: degree of effort / loss of speed in the series / degree of fatigue / decrease in average training speed / increase in volume.

Disadvantages of programming and training with the classic XRM or nRM

On the other hand, in a recent review, Davies et al. (2016) conclude that a similar increase in strength can be obtained without reaching muscle failure as reaching it. Programming, expressing and performing the training through the classic XRM or nRM, apart from the fact that you probably won’t get the best performance benefits, It has a number of drawbacks:

It is based on the mistaken idea that being able to perform the same number of maximum repetitions before the absolute load that corresponds to each subject means that you are working with a certain relative intensity or percentage of 1M, since each percentage of 1RM can be performed , on average, a certain number of repetitions.

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

two subjects who have trained with the same number of maximum repetitions per set may have trained with very different relative intensities

It is not realistic to propose a training such as: 3x10RM, which means that the subject must perform 3 series of 10 repetitions with a load (weight) with which, in the first series, they can only really perform 10 repetitions. No one person can perform this workout, because they will never be able to perform all three sets of 10 repetitions with the same absolute load.

Sometimes it is proposed that as the series is done, the load is reduced in order to reach the programmed repetitions, which is even more unrealistic, since it is not possible to know “what exact weight must be reduced” so that they can be done precisely. the repetitions predicted in the previous fatigue.

Always training with the maximum number of repetitions possible per series, even if fewer repetitions were done in successive series with the same weight, can produce at least the following negative effects: excessive fatigue, increased risk of injury and reduced execution speed before any load (high loss of speed in the series). All this can lead to reduced sports performance.

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

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.

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

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

SUMMARY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conclusions

From the above, the following can be concluded:

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

The density is expressed by the relationship between the total work or the number of repetitions performed and the time spent on it. In this sense, it is identified with a way of expressing the overall mechanical power of a training unit. Density is primarily determined by the recovery time between reps and sets, although it also extends to recovery between sessions and between full training cycles.

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 density is the relationship between the volume of training and the time spent doing it.
• A higher density tends to produce greater metabolic stress and greater fatigue.
• High intensities and densities of training, which are probably only necessary —if they are at all— for advanced athletes, have a limit from which their use can be negative.

The recovery time comes to complete the characteristics of the intensity of the training. Thus, given the same intensity and volume, the greater the density of the training carried out, the greater the overall mechanical power and, therefore, the greater the overall intensity of the training. The effects and importance of recovery go beyond the training session to influence the entire cycle, the relationship between cycles within a season and even between seasons.

The density is expressed by the relationship between the total work or the number of repetitions performed and the time spent on it.

On many occasions, the best solution to achieve a clear improvement in performance, whether there has been a phase of overtraining (stagnation or setback in results) or not, is a long recovery period without training, rest (González- Badillo, 1991, p.100).

The higher or lower density within an exercise or session can influence the training effect, since a lower recovery between series, that is, a higher density, tends to produce greater metabolic stress and greater fatigue., which must be taken into account as a determining factor of the overall load used and the effect expected from the training. Therefore, the training density can be considered as a complement to the other intensity criteria, but, although it is generally subordinated to the objectives defined by the other criteria, it must be taken into account as a possible determining element of the load magnitude. .

As occurs with the training volume as a component of the load, studies have also been carried out on intensity aimed at determining the degree of intensity or load and physical and sports performance. Making a synthesis of a good part of them, we highlight some data below.

The problem of optimal load and stimulus effectiveness within the training process is not satisfactorily resolved (Pampus et al., 1990). The importance of the optimal training load is justified by the small differences in performance between winners and losers in a competition (Kuipers, 1998), although there is very little scientific data on optimal training to reach maximum performance (Kuipers, 1998). , nineteen ninety six).

The importance of the optimal training load is justified by the small differences in performance between winners and losers in a competition.

While the rapid or immediate improvement in performance may be directly related to intensity, the final level of performance is inversely related to training intensity (Edington and Edgerton, 1976; in Stone et al. 1991). In this sense, it has been verified that if an athlete tends to perform the greatest possible number of repetitions with intensities greater than 90% of his RM, he does not achieve the best results (González-Badillo et al. 2006), as well as that the number of repetitions with intensities greater than 90% of the RM does not have a positive linear relationship with the results (González-Badillo et al. 2006).

The explanation for this lack of linearity when maximum achievable values ​​of maximum intensities are reached could lie in the lack of positive response of the organism to an excess of stimulation and a high training density. This has been concluded in some studies.

For example, it is stated that the coincidence of very high values ​​of volume at the moment in which a high intensity is also performed is very likely to lead to overtraining (Kraemer et al. 1995), or that using 70 repetitions per week with intensities 100% of 1RM led to overtraining (decreased squat result), while performing 40 repetitions per week with intensities close to maximum (95%) produced improvements in 1RM (Fry et al, 1994).

It has been proven that if an athlete tends to perform as many repetitions as possible with intensities greater than 90% of his RM, he does not achieve the best results.

From the study by Medvedev and Dvorkin (1987) it can be deduced that the optimum percentage of 1RM for strength improvement is not the same for all ages and performance levels. Indeed, in this study it was observed that the youngest subjects, 13-14 years old and 15-16 years old, improved more with mean percentages of 70 and 80%, respectively, with those who did 3-4 repetitions per series, which using 90% percentages with 1-2 repetitions per set.

It therefore seems reasonable that we should get the most out of each range of percentages before using the highest percentages. Even in the older group of athletes (17-20 years) in this same study, 80% produced in the long run (at the end of the 6 and 8 months that the study lasted) better effects than 90%.

These results seem to justify Edington and Edgerton’s (1976; in Stone et al. 1991) suggestion noted above that while rapid/immediate performance improvement may be directly related to intensity, the final level of performance is inversely related to training intensity (and in turn the training density), and also with the conclusions of Fry (1998), which indicates that the use of maximum intensities (1RM) can be satisfactory in a short space of time, but the continued use of these training units will frequently be negative to continue improving, y Fry et al. (2000), when they conclude that even in the event that the continued use of this work system does not produce a decrease in the result in the trained exercise (squat), it can be counterproductive in other performances such as speed (Fry et al. ., 2000).

the use of maximum intensities (1RM) can be satisfactory in a short space of time, but the continued use of these training units will frequently be negative to continue improving

Therefore, if a high intensity is maintained for a long time (90% for 6-8 months, in the study by Medvedev and Dvorkin, 1987), the results tend to decrease, and may even lead to overtraining, or, at best, cases, the results would be lower than those obtained with medium intensities.

These results are in the same line as those obtained by González-Badillo (González-Badillo et al., 2006), in which it was observed that the relationship between the number of maximum repetitions (90% and more of the RM) and the results is curvilinear, or with the results of Busso (2003), who finds a curvilinear relationship between the daily training load and the gain in performance.

This suggests that these high training intensities and densities, which are probably only necessary —if at all— for advanced athletes, have a limit beyond which their use can be negative.

In addition, this limit is not determined by the athlete’s own ability to carry out training sessions with these intensities, since those subjects who performed the greatest possible number of repetitions with more than 90% did not achieve the best, observing that these intensities did not have a positive linear relationship with the improvement of the marks (González-Badillo et al., 2006).

In this article, a definition of the sports training load is made in order to understand what loads we should apply in training.

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

Summary

• The load is the set of biological and psychological demands caused by training activities.
• The coach’s task is to define the load accurately and comprehensively and to control and analyze the relationship between the actual load and the proposed load as well as the performance.
• The more the volume, intensity and exercise are adjusted to the characteristics of the competition, the more specific the training load will be.

According to the elementary principle of adaptation of living beings to the demands of the environment, the following sequence can be applied:

1/ Current situation of the subject

2/ Application of the appropriate stimulus (load)

3 / Improved performance.

That is to say, the application of a load or stimulus that adjusts to the initial situation of the subject, referring to his work capacity, performance obtained to date, experience and objectives that are intended, must produce the desired effects.

Load is understood as the set of biological and psychological demands caused by training activities. In the concept of load we distinguish two variants: real load and proposed load The real load must be understood as the degree of effort that is programmed, which is manifested by the set of biological and psychological demands caused by training activities, which is expressed by wear / different physiological alterations / alteration of the homeostatic balance.

Load is understood as the set of biological and psychological demands caused by training activities.

This wear and alterations reflect the degree of effort made by the subject. By proposed load we must understand the set of stimuli expressed in the form of training (series, repetitions, times, speeds, distances, recovery breaks…). It is the cause of functional, biochemical, morphological and physical modifications.

The load that is programmed is the actual load, which is identified as the degree of effort programmed. This effort must be adequately expressed through the proposed load. That is to say, the programmed effort must be expressed in series, repetitions, weights, pauses, speeds…, which accurately reflect the real load and which cause the programmed effort. The precision and adjustment of the real load and the interrelation of this with the proposed load constitutes the essence of sports training.

Therefore, the training load initially presents two basic questions:

a) Is the actual programmed load correct?

b) Is the actual scheduled load well represented by the proposed load?

The precision and adjustment of the real load and the interrelation of this with the proposed load constitutes the essence of sports training.

This means that the fundamental task of the coach and of the training methodology is twofold: 1) define the load precisely and exhaustively and ii) control and analyze the relationship between the actual load and the proposed load and between both and performance. These tasks entail another relevant problem, which is determining how to measure and quantify the actual and proposed load, and how to validate models for measuring and quantifying the loads. The charge is defined by its magnitude and by its degree of specificity.

The magnitude of the load depends on the degree of stimulus that the load supposes. A stimulus is an agent that produces a functional reaction in the organism, and has two elements that determine its magnitude:

1) the amplitude, which would be represented by the tension or force in each unit of action, and

2) time, which determines the duration of the amplitude or voltage.

The amplitude element comes to represent the intensity component of the stimulus or charge, and the time is representative of the volume of the charge. If we consider the magnitude of the stimulus as the product of amplitude (intensity) and time (volume), different combinations of amplitude and time could give rise to the same magnitude, but stimuli with different characteristics.

For example, lifting 80 kg (intensity) 10 times (volume) would give us a magnitude of 800, which would be the same stimulus magnitude as lifting 10 kg 80 times, but naturally the characteristics of the stimulus and its effects are different. That is, the same numerical quantity can represent two functionally different stimuli. A third component that determines the magnitude of the stimulus is the exercise with which the training is carried out, in such a way that the same load (weight or intensity) lifted the same number of times (volume) can suppose a stimulus of different magnitude if the This exercise consists, for example, in bending the elbow or doing deep leg flexions.

the more the volume, intensity and exercise are adjusted to the characteristics of the competition, the more specific the load will be

Depending on the degree of volume and intensity, the stimulus can have three basic objectives: maintain the performance obtained, improve performance or recover the body. If the application of recovery-oriented stimuli is prolonged, the effect is detraining. If the stimulus aimed at improving performance is excessive and continuous, the effect will be negative and stagnation or loss of performance will occur.

The specificity is determined by the degree to which the load approximates the dynamic, kinematic and metabolic characteristics of the competition.

This means that the more the volume, intensity and exercise are adjusted to the characteristics of the competition, the more specific the load will be. In this case, volume, intensity, and exercise are considered specific. But if only one of these elements is not specific, the load as a whole will no longer be specific.

For example, a 100-meter runner can do the running exercise as training, which would be a specific element, but if the speed is very slow and is maintained for a long period of time, the training, despite having the exercise as a specific element, it will be very negative and therefore non-specific.

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

absolute intensity

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

Relative intensity: Percentage of 1RM.

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

Advantages

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

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

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

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

Drawbacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XRM or nkM

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

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

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

1RM should never be measured

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

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

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

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