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

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

Clarifications on some common terms

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

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

Maximum strength

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

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

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

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

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

Explosive force

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

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

elastic-explosive strength

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

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

Reflex-elastic-explosive strength

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

ballistic force

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

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

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

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

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

quick force

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explosive power (explosive power)

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

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

force-speed

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

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

Resistance force

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

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

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

These 8 errors related to strength training contribute to the confusion and paralyzation of the development of sports training methodology. When programming a training, a series of objectives and types of training are usually proposed that are not always correct.

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.

Mistake 1: proposing power training as an objective and sometimes as a phase of a training cycle

This proposal, already discussed in other sections, is wrong because there is no such thing as “power training”. This is so because power is trained in each strength training session. Only improving the applied force (maximum force before the same load) is guaranteed to improve power. In other words, any training that has the effect of improving strength will produce an improvement in speed with the same load, which necessarily means an improvement in power: the same work in less time.

Therefore, it would not make sense either to consider the objective or the “strength-power” phase within a cycle, which is very common in many training proposals. It is not possible to improve power if strength does not improve, and therefore, all training. of strength that produces an improvement in strength performance will mean an improvement in power.

any training that has the effect of improving strength will produce an improvement in speed for the same load, which necessarily means an improvement in power: same work in less time.

Training with the maximum power load can ensure power improvement in the training exercise itself, but only temporarily. In addition, the improvement of power in the training exercise does not guarantee the improvement in the competition exercise. Performance improvement is nothing more than moving the same load at a higher speed, and this necessarily means that power is improved.

Ignorance about this error is so serious that in “scientific” publications it is even considered as a “key finding” that there is a high correlation between strength and power, and especially between changes in strength and power, and therefore This leads to the advice, as a practical application of the “finding”, that it is very important to improve maximum strength if power needs to be improved, something obvious.

Mistake 2: proposing a “transfer phase” in a training cycle

There is no “transfer phase” in a training cycle, because the transfer is intended or sought from the first training to the last, not from a specific day. What has happened if before starting the “transfer phase” the performance has improved? When an exercise is being trained, nothing about it is “transferred”, just said exercise is trained.

There is no “transfer phase” in a training cycle, because the transfer is intended or sought from the first training to the last

It is unreasonable that by the will of the person who schedules a training session on a specific day, a transfer effect begins, at the same time that, also by human will, no transfer has occurred prior to that day. This problem arises from a misinterpretation of the concept of transfer.

Mistake 3: Proposing an “explosive strength phase” in a training cycle There is no such thing as an “explosive strength phase” in a training cycle.

“Explosive force” should be understood as force production in unit time (RFD). Like the transfer, the improvement of the RFD / “explosive force” is intended from the first moment of the cycle until its end. Whenever you try to apply force as quickly as possible (reach maximum speed if there is displacement, maximum slope in the force-time curve, maximum RFD) you train the RFD (“explosive force”), not from of a certain day, nor during a specific period of time “ordered” by whoever schedule the training.

Mistake 4: Proposing a “maximal strength transformation phase” in a training cycle

There is no such thing as a “maximal strength transformation phase” in a training cycle. The transformations (physiological, anatomical, technical…) that give rise to the development etjera transformation, modification, change naming. There would be no training if there were no positive or negative transformation, modification, change (neural, structural, metabolic, enzymatic). The maximum force value reached cannot be “transformed” into anything. What can be transformed is the force-velocity curve, but this is intended from the beginning of the cycle, although sometimes it is not achieved, which would mean that there has been no change in force performance.

Mistake 5: proposing to perform “maximum strength training” at some stage of the cycle

There is no “maximum strength training” but an indeterminate number of workouts for the improvement of maximum strength. Maximal strength can be improved and with any training load (although not all loads work for all subjects). The problem arises from a misinterpretation of the concept of maximum force.

There is no “maximum strength training” but an indeterminate number of workouts to improve maximum strength

Before each load there is a value of maximum force or maximum force applied. All training is necessarily maximum strength. It is not possible to perform other types of | strength training other than for the improvement of maximal strength, regardless of the load with which training is carried out and the load with which maximal strength is measured. The only possible goal when strength training is to improve maximal strength.

Mistake 6: proposing to perform a “speed training, but not maximum strength”

It is not possible to improve speed under a load without improving the force (maximum force) applied to said load. That is to say, a speed training that is not at the same time of maximum strength is not possible. Only improving strength will improve speed.

Error 7: proposing a “ballistic” training against a training with high loads or any training mistakenly considered as “maximal strength”

When speaking of “ballistic” action, we must understand an action in which the effort is made to apply the force as quickly as possible, that is, an action, static or dynamic, in which an attempt is made to reach the maximum slope in the force-curve. time or maximum RFD. If the form of force application meets the indicated requirements, the training could be called “ballistic”, although the use of the term is not necessary nor is the term the most appropriate. Therefore, a “ballistic” training is not the one that is carried out with light loads or performing jumps or throws, but all that in which the RFD is the highest possible, whatever the load and even if the action is static.

a “ballistic” training is not the one that is carried out with light loads or performing jumps or throws, but all that in which the RFD is the highest possible

As has been commented, there is so much contradiction in the literature, that there is talk of both “ballistic training” to refer to light loads and high speed of execution, and “isometric force ballistic training”, in which there would be no displacement and therefore velocity would be equal to zero.

Error 8: proposing a training considered as “resistance training to loss of strength” (the term strength-resistance to force is commonly used)

It does not exist or it should not exist, because all training is “resistance to loss of strength”. Resistance to loss of strength is trained with specific training or exercise, which includes the specific degree (opposition to movement). All training is resistance to loss of strength.

The improvement of the strength before an absolute load necessarily improves the resistance before that load because said load becomes a relative intensity. lower, which means that you will be able to move more times (which is less relevant) or that you will move faster (which is important) for the same time or for the same distance, because the effect of the training on the resistance it is measured by the changes in the average speed during the time or the distance that the effort lasts.

8 most common mistakes related to strength training. 8 most common mistakes related to strength training. 8 most common mistakes related to strength training. 8 most common mistakes related to strength training. 8 most common mistakes related to strength training.

In this article a review of the 4 errors using speed in strength training is made.

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

The attempt to take the speed of execution as a reference to organize the training, what has been called “speed-based strength training”, has given rise to a series of errors about what speed control can provide, attributing in some cases functions that it does not have. We have talked about what strength training can contribute, although it is also convenient to understand what the use of speed as a reference for training organization cannot contribute, as well as the inappropriate use of the concept of training based on speed.

Probably all errors arise from a poor understanding of what it means to “rely on speed of execution” for training. The first thing that should be very clear are all the possible contributions derived from speed control and, therefore, from the functions that are specific to it, which, in turn, would avoid errors related to what the controller cannot provide. speed control. There have been some clarifications below.

Probably all errors arise from a poor understanding of what it means to “rely on speed of execution” for training.

Execute the movements at the maximum speed possible

The first condition that must be met when training with the speed of execution as a reference is that each repetition must be performed at the maximum possible speed.

Not training at the maximum speed possible before the selected load (mass) does not make sense for two reasons. In the first place, because if the execution speed is not the maximum possible, the speed does not serve as a reference to determine either the relative intensity with which one trains or the degree of fatigue generated, which can be estimated by the loss of speed. in the series or between series as long as the speed is the maximum possible (Sánchez-Medina and González-Badillo, 2011; Rodríguez-Rosell et al., 2018)

Secondly, because if the load is moved at the maximum possible speed at the same relative intensity, the effect is greater than if it is done voluntarily at a lower speed (González-Badillo et al, 2014; Pareja-Blanco et al ., 2014).

If a certain relative load does not move at the maximum possible speed, the full training potential of said load is not used.

It could be said that if a certain relative load does not move at the maximum possible speed, the full training potential of said load is not used. If any professional considers that moving the load at the maximum speed possible is not necessary or is less favorable than doing it slowly voluntarily, it does not make sense to incorporate speed as a reference for dosing and control of training and its effect.

Therefore, whenever we talk about execution speed in this text, we refer to the maximum possible speed, unless otherwise indicated.

Mistake #1: There is a specific speed for each training objective

There cannot be a specific speed for each objective because the objective of strength training, as indicated, is unique: to improve the maximum force applied to any load, or, which is equivalent, to improve the speed to any load. This is so because by improving the maximum force applied to any load, it will have been possible to improve any of the possible objectives in the face of said load: in addition to the maximum force, – the production of force in the unit of time (RED), the speed at which the load is shifted, which means improved performance and improved power that is generated.

Therefore, if someone considers that these objectives are independent of each other or that some can be achieved and others cannot, or that there are objectives that are different from these, they are in serious error. Therefore, there is not a specific speed for each objective that we set ourselves, but having properly chosen the training speeds, the objective of improving the maximum force applied to any load will be achieved, which is the only possible one, although the training speeds most appropriate in each case may be diverse, depending on the characteristics and initial situation of each subject.

As a consequence of these errors about the concept of “maximum strength training”, in the literature related to proposals on how to train taking speed as a reference, numerous objectives are proposed, such as: training for maximum strength, speed, power, strength -power, strength-speed, speed-strength…, and each of them is associated with a speed of execution. For example, “maximum strength” is said to be trained at very low speeds < 0.5 m:s*), without further clarification.

This, naturally, is a mistake, among other reasons, because there are exercises that cannot even be performed at these speeds. For the rest of the “objectives” different speeds are given. If the term speed appears before the term force, such as “target” of “speed-strength”, the speed with which you train is greater than if the order is “strength-speed”. And so an imaginary force-velocity curve is configured, placing “their targets” along the curve.

The objective of strength training, as indicated, is unique: to improve the maximum force applied to any load

Naturally, there is not a specific speed for each objective that we set ourselves, because there is only one objective and because this objective can be achieved with a high variety of training speeds, which would be the same as saying that it can be achieved with a high variety. of relative intensities, as we have been able to verify in numerous cases throughout this text. But, naturally, as strength performance improves, the most appropriate maximum speed limit values ​​to achieve all the possible effects derived from strength training change.

If, for example, in the early stages of training we say that the limit velocity, that is, the minimum of the cycle, is 1 m*s-1, it means that it is considered that given the initial situation of the subjects: age, time of training, experience, biological maturity, development of strength potential up to now…, the training will always be carried out with speeds >= 1 m*s-1.

As progress is made in each of the indicators of the initial situation of the subject, the speed limit values ​​would decrease, that is, each time it would be allowed, or, probably, it would be necessary, to train with lower speeds to obtain the same values. goals. It should also be taken into account that the speed values ​​for the same initial situation of the subjects may be different depending on the exercise used in the training.

Naturally, if all training is done at low or very low speeds, it is likely that the effects will tend to be greater in the zone of maximum loads (low speeds) than in the zone of light loads (high speeds) where the effect can be small or close to zero effect. On the contrary, if the speeds have always been high, it is likely that the effects will manifest themselves more notably in the high-speed area, although they will also occur, with a very high probability and even in some cases to an equal or greater extent. in the low speed zone.

In short, what really exists are strength training at different speeds, but all of them are maximum strength training.

Mistake #2: If you program a speed or speed-based workout, you have programmed a good workout

This error arises because it is based on the false assumption that each speed value serves to achieve a specific objective. The deduction is elementary and contrary to reason, because a “magical effect” is attributed to the fact that you train at a specific speed, “because that speed has the property of producing a specific effect.”

In proposing this, one is not even aware that what is being proposed nullifies the possible advantages of using speed “as a base” for strength training, because what is being done is transferring the errors of the programming based on the percentages of the RM or the XRM to the speed field.

The reasoning on which this proposal is based is simple: if high intensities are “good” for training “maximal strength”, I program a low speed and I am already achieving the objective of “improving maximum strength”, therefore ” the programming is good. Naturally, this does not make sense.

Many different speed ranges are useful to achieve all possible goals derived from strength training. For example, it is not true that for certain objectives, such as improving RM, it is necessary to use a certain speed in all cases, nor that another specific value is necessary to improve power.

Therefore, there is no optimal speed of general validity, but in each case, especially depending on the initial situation of the subject, certain speeds will be more appropriate than others. Even assuming that a training program based on speed is properly programmed, correctly applying all the indicators of speed control, the result can be a good, bad or regular programming, because the choice may or may not have been correct. of the speeds of the first repetition and the loss of speed in the series, which would also result in proper IE or not.

Mistake #3: Scheduling via speed ensures transfer

The speed itself does not ensure the transfer of anything. If the appropriate speeds are chosen when performing the appropriate exercises, the conditions can be given for transfer to occur. But if the speeds (of the first repetition and of the losses) are not adequate, the chosen speeds may not only not produce transfer, but may also lead to interference (negative transfers).

It could be affirmed that the values ​​of speed and loss of speed in the series are closely related to the transfer (some of the studies commented throughout the text show this tendency), but not the fact of programming the training through the speed.

Error #4: the use and control of the speed solves the problem of the correct and correct selection of the loads

The use and control of speed does not solve the problem of the correct and correct choice of loads. However, the adequate use of the information that supports speed control does contribute to a great extent so that the professional has an increasing capacity to approach the choice of the best and most adjusted loads for the training of their athletes.

This is so because the information derived from speed control is the most relevant information that a technician or coach can hope to obtain about the characteristics of the training he is carrying out and its effect. The proper use of this information will allow the improvement of the training methodology.

These insights therefore allow informed decision-making, based, for the first time, on remarkably accurate knowledge of the magnitude and UP? charge that has produced a certain effect. Without forgetting that, precisely, the best measure of the effect is another important contribution offered by speed.