Every cycle of strength training must be structured with a progression in the training, in which the load (volume-intensity synthesis) increases almost in each training session. This means that during the first weeks each of them reaches a greater volume than the previous one.

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

summary

• During the first two years of training, a slight progression of the loads is programmed, such as 45 to 55% of the RM for the entire cycle (PIE).
• This progression in absolute intensities, although the relative intensity is maintained, is enough to produce a significant improvement in strength.
• Two sessions per week is a sufficient load for almost all sports specialties, three sessions is a necessary frequency in some cases, when experience and strength needs are high.
• Each session could be made up of 2-3 fundamental exercises plus another 2-3 complementary ones.
• Speed ​​control serves as a proper benchmark for determining relative intensity because each percentage has its own speed.

The number of weeks that this progression can be maintained is different depending on the circumstances or others, which are briefly explained in this entry.

The first years of training

In the first and perhaps in the second year of training, the most appropriate programming model would be an approximation to that of stable intensity (PIE). In this case, it is not a question of programming a single intensity value for the entire cycle, but rather a slight progression of the loads, for example, from 45 to 55% of the RM for the entire cycle.

In the first and perhaps in the second year of training, the most appropriate programming model would be an approximation to that of stable intensities (PIE).

Given that, in most cases, from the first sessions there will be an improvement in strength performance when, as programmed, the value of the relative intensity higher, for example, from 45 to 47.5%, the absolute load calculated on the initial MRI will no longer be the programmed 47.5%, but somewhat less, so that it will again be close to 45%. In this way, the subject continues to train with a practically stable relative intensity, but with a higher absolute intensity.

This progression in absolute intensities, although the relative intensity is maintained, is enough to produce a significant improvement in strength. In these cases, the circumstance will arise that those athletes who improve the most will be those who have trained with lower relative loads, that is, they will have trained less than the others.

In some subjects, there will even have been a tendency to train with an increasingly lower relative intensity, in such a way that the maximum training intensity of the cycle will have been done in the first training sessions.

In successive years, progressive loads continue to be programmed, but since the improvement in strength will be less per unit of training session, the relative intensity will tend to increase, even though the subject improves his performance.

In these stages it can be thought that within the cycle a week of recovery can be programmed every 3-4 weeks of load progression: Even when the loads are reaching the maximum values ​​expected for the specialty, a reduction of load during the final two-three weeks of the cycle. This reduction is produced especially by the decrease in volume and to a lesser extent by intensity, which could remain stable or even increase.

The progression in absolute intensities, even if the relative intensity is maintained, is sufficient for a significant improvement in strength to occur.

In the most advanced athletes, and if they train at least three times a week, the following possibilities can be chosen:

At the beginning of the cycle you could go up to a progression of four weeks in a row and then one of recovery. This would be done in the following cases:

• If you start the cycle with very light loads in the first and second week, although in progression.
• If the athlete starts the cycle with very little work capacity: this circumstance occurs when a long time has elapsed since the last strength training.
• When the cycle is very long and we want to delay the acquisition of the form.

If none of these circumstances occurs, we will do two or three weeks in progression, followed by a download. If only two weeks are done, it must be because the volume has increased or it must increase quickly, otherwise it would not make sense. and we should continue with one more week of progression. The most accelerated dynamics would occur when these situations occur:

The usual thing is to plan two or three weeks in progression, followed by one of unloading.

• The athlete starts with a high level of performance and work capacity
• It is necessary to provoke a rapid adaptation, provided that the athlete is able to support it.
• It would not be advisable to do more than twice a dynamic of three progressive weeks and one of recovery at the beginning of the cycle. With two we would have covered the first First Phase (8 weeks) of a long cycle, and we would have had the opportunity to do a large volume of work. This dynamic is not being considered as ideal, but simply presented as a possibility, if a lot of volume is necessary, although this should only be exceptional.
• The dynamics in the second and third phases are characterized by the use of one or two weeks between medium and high, followed by one of volume reduction. As the cycle progresses, the maximum volumes that are reached per week will be less
• The last phase could be continued at low volume for a few more weeks as a maintenance phase.

Until now, the dynamics of the volume (as a component of the load) have been discussed, but nothing has been said about its magnitude. No figures, not even indicative, can be given on high, medium or low volume values ​​in strength training that could serve as a basis for everyone.

In each specialty, the ideal load margins for the specialty must be observed and analyzed, as each coach must adjust these margins to the needs of their athletes. However, there are certain training variables that determine the volume and on which some guidelines can be given that will limit the volume variability margins, on which you can work.

In this case we would talk about the frequency of training, the number of repetitions per series (defined by the loss of speed in the series as the best procedure) and series per exercise, the type of exercise used and the intensity (percentage). or the minimum CE from which the volume is counted.

The type of exercise is a factor that can greatly vary the load: the load of a full squat or a power clean has nothing to do with that of a biceps brachii exercise, although both groups have done the same repetitions (volume).

In this situation, one might think that if we took into account the tonnage (number of repetitions for the average weight lifted), the differences between these exercises would be seen, and therefore, this would be the solution. But behind the tonnage, so much information is hidden and lost, that it is in no way worth taking it into account.

behind the tonnage so much information is hidden and lost, that it is in no way worth taking it into account.

Some exercises are not even part of the training volume, that is to say, they do not influence the dynamics described above, as for example occurs with abdominal exercises: these exercises, although they are very important for some specialties, such as artistic gymnastics or pole vaulting, would be done in a significant amount, but it would never mean a load of strength to take into account such that a week has been of high or low load.

The same goes for those that have a localized effect and are performed as a supplement and not as part of the training.

The intensity or degree of effort from which we consider that an improvement in performance can be achieved also plays an important role in assessing the level that we are using. In this regard, it is very important to take into account that two training sessions with the same number of real repetitions and the same exercises appear as two very different apparent loads if in one case the repetitions are counted from 50% and in the other from 80%. .

In fact, it would be two training sessions with the same load, although the resulting value was different due to the way of quantifying it.

The frequency of strength training per week is an indicator related to the overall workload, although the increase in frequency does not mean an increase in the overall load. As a general rule, and except for sports whose specific training is training with loads, as obviously corresponds to weightlifting, it should be considered that one session per week is a low or very low load, two sessions per week is a sufficient load to In almost all sports specialties, three sessions is a necessary frequency in some cases, when experience and strength needs are high. Each session could be made up of 2-3 fundamental exercises plus another 2-3 complementary ones.

two sessions per week is a sufficient load for almost all sports specialties

The number of exercises per training and in the total for the week is the necessary complement that should be added to the training frequency in order to have a better global idea of ​​the load. The number of exercises is so important that the frequency of training could be considered above, because it is possible that every day, or even twice a day, we do strength training in short sessions, of one or two exercises per session.

In this case, the training frequency could be much higher, although it does not correspond to a higher load. The distribution of the volume in small units produces better benefits in terms of strength and activity of the nervous system. This means that, with a greater number of sessions, within certain margins, it would not necessarily produce a greater load, but probably, the contract, and with greater benefits.

In any case, we must always bear in mind that the greater or lesser actual duration of the effort (volume) must take physiological conditions as a reference; in which the subject is during training and the biomechanical indicators that determine the quality of the movements or exercises (speed, above all) that are performed in each session.

The maximum load expressed as character of the effort (CE) has been until now the most appropriate way that has been proposed to express the dynamics of the effort programmed through a training cycle. But now we have taken a step forward and the speed of execution has been incorporated as the most precise and useful way of expressing, dosing and controlling the intensity of the training.

The distribution of the volume in small units produces better benefits in terms of strength and activity of the nervous system.

The programming of a strength training consists, fundamentally, of establishing a sequence of maximum efforts for each temporary unit of training: week, day or session, in each of the fundamental exercises with which one works.

These efforts, as we have indicated, must be represented by the CE (number of repetitions achievable and number of repetitions performed in the series) and, especially by the speed of execution and the loss of speed in the series, although, as a guide you could add the percentage of 1RM that would correspond to it, although the best way to control the effort is through speed.

Once everything related to the needs or basic strength requirements of a specialty is known, programming can begin, but previously you must have at least the following information:

• Competition date.
• Training weeks available.
• Physical-technical starting point of the athlete or team: current state of fitness, experience in strength training, age and knowledge of the technique of some exercises.
• Characteristics and dates of the last strength cycle performed.
• Individual strength needs.

Depending on the preceding data, the evolution of the maximum work intensity throughout the cycle will be different.

To program the intensity, two aspects must be determined:

• The maximum daily and weekly intensity.
• The frequency of each peak intensity per week.

The maximum weekly intensity is the maximum intensity that we plan to achieve during the week in a specific exercise. Although this does not mean that every time you exercise you reach that maximum intensity. For this reason, it is also necessary to determine the weekly frequency with which this maximum intensity and other minor ones are used.

The maximum weekly intensity is the maximum intensity that we plan to achieve during the week in a specific exercise.

Of course, if an exercise is done only once a week, all of the above will go away, and if it is done twice, the problem is greatly simplified. Although, for example, if an exercise is performed three times a week, and the expected maximum weekly intensity is an effort equivalent to 85%, it could happen that said maximum intensity will be used every day, but also that only one will be used and in the other two, it will reach 75% or 80% of real effort.

We believe that the intensity should be programmed like this because it is the best way to reflect the effort that we want the subject to make. To the programmed intensities it would be necessary to add the series and repetitions per series that must be done with each one.

Although the expression of the programmed effort through the percentages (relative maximum intensity) presents some advantages at the time of training planning, if we intend to permanently adapt the load to the real possibilities of the subject each day, we would have to resort to the programming through the CE and, especially, through the speed of execution.

Speed ​​control serves as a good benchmark for determining relative intensity because each percentage has its own speed, and each degree of execution speed has a distinct effect on performance. The proposal is justified because it is based on the assumption that although the value of 1RM may change between the different days, the speed at which each percentage is performed is very stable.

Therefore, the speed control informs with more precision about what percentage or what effort is being made at each moment. To this should be added the control of the loss of speed in the series, which would allow to have the most precise information about the degree of effort made.

The comparison of the different training periodization models does not offer a clear superiority of any of them. As a conclusion of a recent review (Hartmann et al., 2015), for example, there are equal or significantly greater effects on the “maximal force” (practically always understood as 1RM) of the model of nonlinear programming (NLP) in front of the of linear programming (PL), while in studies that have compared the effects on “explosive” force and medicine ball throwing in competitive athletes, a significantly higher improvement is observed with LP than with NLP.

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

• It cannot be concluded which type of training periodization models offer better results.
• No study has controlled fatigue or degree of exertion in each session.
• In a new study matching the relative intensity of the subjects, the results showed a clear tendency to improve more with linear programming.

However, the relatively short duration of the training periods, the difference in the types of sports or subjects to which the training is applied, the values ​​of the training variables, the length of the “mesocycles”… mean that cannot conclude which type of training periodization models offer better results.

The comparison of the different training periodization models does not offer a clear superiority of any of them.

Harris et al. (2015), after a meta-analysis, concludes that there are no differences in the effectiveness of the LP model compared to NLP, neither in the upper nor lower limbs. Bartolomei et al. (2014) did not observe significant differences between LP and PNL in the strength of the lower limbs or in the power of the vertical jump after 15 weeks of training, although they did in the upper limbs in favor of PNL.

However, the results of this study are questionable, as the groups differed in intensity (% of 1RM) and volume. The group to which the LP was applied reached 85% more than the RM in 17 sessions, while the NLP only in 8. It does not seem reasonable that the effect of two ways of organizing training (two ways of programming) can be compared when there are so many discrepancies in key training variables.

Painter et al. (2012) found that although performance tends to favor LP relative to strength and unit time force output, no significant differences were observed between the two groups. However, it was observed that the efficiency (volume of work in relation to the changes produced) of LP was higher than that of NLP in relation to strength improvement.

Miranda the al. (2011) find that both LP and NLP significantly increase RM in leg press and bench press, but with no differences between groups, although NLP had a larger effect size than LP. Apel et al. (2011) observed that weekly LP and NLP achieved significant increases in strength at 8 and 12 weeks of training, but at 12 weeks LP offered better results than weekly NLP. It is suggested that this minor improvement is due to the greater fatigue produced by the weekly NLP, so that in long-term training it would be more practical to apply the LP.

Hoffman et al. (2009) compared NP, PL and NLP training. They found significant improvements in RM in the squat, bench press, and vertical jump in all groups at 7 weeks of training, but not between 7 and 15 weeks. Only the PL group improved their medicine ball throw after 15 weeks of training.

According to Apel et al., in long-term training it would be more practical to apply the LP

It is concluded that the results do not offer a clear answer about which model produces the best results. Hartmann et al. (2009), compared the effect of a training with LP against another of NLP. After 14 weeks of training, with 3 sessions per week, they found an improvement in bench press RM and maximum speed in the thrown bench press with no differences between the groups.

There is speculation about the possibility that performing muscular resistance training in the third weekly session in NLP may have led to excessive fatigue and not improving performance in “power” due to low intensity. In a recent review (Williams et al., 2017) the effect of periodized training (P) versus NP on strength gain was compared. RM was measured in the bench press, leg press, and squat.

It was observed that the P training offered a moderate size of the favorable effect when compared to the NP (TE = 0.43 and without the appearance of zero in the confidence interval: 0.27; 0.58). It was concluded that the typical variation of training P is determinant for the improvement of strength.

As a summary, it can be admitted that there is no relevant information to be able to affirm that one way of organizing training is superior to the others. The number of values ​​that the variables that determine the training load can acquire, as well as the combination of these values, is such that it is difficult to control all this variability so that only the sequence of the loads applied in each appears as an independent variable. training organization model.

Without claiming to be exhaustive, leaving aside the classic load differences related to volume and intensity, some highly relevant aspects not studied in the literature in relation to programming problems are indicated below:

Relevant aspects not studied in the literature in relation to programming

• No study has controlled fatigue or degree of exertion in each session. If the same intensities and repetitions have been programmed for all the subjects, regardless of the programming model, one may have the false belief that all the subjects have done the same training, which, as indicated in previous points, is not This is correct, because given the same relative intensity (assuming that this intensity has been the same for everyone), performing the same number of repetitions in the series can cause different fatigue for each subject.
• In relation to the degree of fatigue, it has never been considered the loss of speed in the series, which is decisive to better understand the load or degree of fatigue generated by the training and to equalize the loads for all the subjects: this would mean doing different numbers of repetitions, but the same degree of fatigue in the series.
• No study has checked whether the intensity with which the subjects trained each day was the programmed intensity and whether it was the same for all.
• No study has considered the Effort Index (IE) that each training session has entailed: the effects of two or more relative intensities or sets of different relative intensities cannot be compared if they are performed with a different EI.

As can be deduced, despite the huge number of studies carried out with the objective of elucidating which is the best training organization model, valid information cannot be expected from any of them if, at least, the sources of information are not considered. variance that can be generated by what is indicated in the four previous points.

New Study Equating Subjects’ Peak Relative Intensity

This problem has been addressed in a recent study in which all the load indicator variables were equalized except the evolution of the maximum relative intensity of each session. With this approach, a training session with a progressive trend in intensity and a regressive trend in volume was compared to another with these same trends, but in an undulating manner.

That is to say, the effects of what in the terminology discussed would be a LP training with another of NLP were compared. The particularity and the difference with the rest of the studies carried out to date is that in this case the intensity (maximum and warm-up intensities) of each day and the loss of speed (the degree of fatigue) were the same for the two groups. , and every day the execution speed was controlled to verify both the intensity with which the subject trained and the loss of speed at which he reached.

Naturally, the number of repetitions in the series was not programmed (although measured), because this would have caused not all subjects to experience the same degree of fatigue. The trained exercise was the full squat, and the speed loss in the series was 15% of the speed of the first repetition.

the results showed a clear trend (percentage changes and effect size) to improve more with LP

There were no significant differences between the groups, but the results showed a clear trend (percent changes and effect size) to improve more with LP. In addition, there were significant interactions (p < 0.05) group x measures in favor of LP in all “strength” variables in the squat and vertical jump (CMJ), which was not trained. A faster and more frequent weekly strength improvement (1RM) was also observed in the squat and CMJ in the LP than in the NLP (laboratory data in press).