In previous articles it has been seen that there are a series of determining factors of the force that a muscle or group of muscles can generate. Afterwards, the influence of muscle activation as the cause of a series of effects that translates into certain structural and neural transformations has also been analyzed, which give rise to the fact that this muscle activation constitutes what is understood as 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.

Well, whatever the way in which muscle activation is carried out, whether it is correctly or not, training depends on a series of factors, whether or not the training programmer is aware of them, or Whether you take them into account or not, they are the determinants of the effect produced by the training.

These factors of sports training are three.

1/3 Factors of sports training: the speed of the first repetition.

First indicator of the character of the effort (CE) and the effort index (IE). Determinant of relative training intensity

Justification.

• Because it determines the percentage of the current RM with which the subject trains: real effort that represents the first repetition
• Because given the same speed, this percentage is practically the same for all people
• Because it starts from the assumption that even if the RM value changes, the speed with each percentage is very stable. Which is sufficiently proven.

That is, even if a training programmer does not know or does not want to know that when he performs the first repetition of a set, the speed at which he executes it determines what relative intensity he is training, that speed will determine the effect of the training, because it represents a highly relevant variable of training and its effect.

If the programmer ignores this reality and programs a percentage based on a 1RM value obtained at some point, it is already known that there is a high probability that the athlete or trained person is not training with the intensity (percentage in this case) that the programmer thinks.

But without a doubt, even in this case, what will determine the effect of the training will continue to be the speed at which the load has been moved in the first repetition, which, in this case, would represent a percentage unknown to the programmer (cases are discarded). in which the programmers indicate that the loads do not move at the maximum possible speed).

The same situation would occur if the programmer proposes that you train with a load with which you can do a certain maximum number of repetitions in the series (XRM or nRM).

Everything said in the previous paragraph is valid, but with the added peculiarity that in this case the subjects, with a high probability, would train with different relative intensities. In this case, the speed control would “come to the rescue” and could determine with what actual relative intensity they trained, even though the programmer thinks it was the same for everyone.

2/3 Factors of sports training: The loss of speed in the series with respect to the first repetition

Second indicator of the character of the effort (CE) and the effort index (IE).

Justification: Because it indicates the degree of fatigue for the same speed of the first repetition and equalizes the effort for all trained subjects. That is, because although the number of repetitions performed in the series is individual (and different) for each speed of the first repetition of a series, the percentage of repetitions performed before the same loss of speed in the series is approximately the same, and for this reason, as has been verified, there will be a very similar degree of fatigue.

With the two sports training factors described, the effort made by the subject has been defined, since its product gives rise to the IE. Index that presents a high validity as an indicator of the fatigue generated by the training.

Unfortunately, if the programmer does not know the importance of the loss of speed in the series, the effect of the training will be produced with different efforts for each subject, unknown to the programmer. If the maximum number of repetitions in the series is programmed for all the subjects, the subjects will train with different intensities in most cases, but the influence of the loss of speed in the series will be present as a “factor” of the training effect. and it will be responsible, to a large extent, together with the speed of the first repetition, of the training effect.

Naturally, the programmer will not have information about what load could have produced the effects of his training, but whatever they are and whatever the reference for programming the repetitions in the series, the effect will depend on the loss of speed in the series, and , more properly, of IE.

3/3 Sports training factors: Exercise in question.

Justification:

Each exercise has a different speed for each percentage loss of speed in the series (González-Badillo, 2000). This is because the speed with each percentage depends on the speed with which the RM is reached, which is different for each exercise (González-Badillo, 2000).

This own speed determines the characteristics of the exercise in relation to the loads and frequencies that can be used. It is reasonable to think that doing a full squat exercise does not produce the same degree of fatigue as an arm push exercise. In addition, the speed of the RM means that some exercises can be trained with higher relative intensities than others.

A clear example is the comparison of the squat and the power clean. Certain athletes would not need, and should not, do a full squat with loads greater than 80% of the RM even at the end of their sporting life, even with extensive experience in strength training.

However, these same athletes can train with intensities of 75-80% of the RM in a clean force almost from the first day of training, once they have learned a fairly acceptable technique, and later they could reach intensities of 85 and even 90% of the RM in the exercise, if the technique was good.

Also, a clean workout can be done any time close to competition, and is highly unlikely to interfere with specific performance: it could be done up to a few minutes before some competitions.

These different possibilities of the exercises are related to the speed of the respective RM. A high speed of the RM acts as a “safety” of positive effect with minimal interference with any specific exercise.

In this case, the problem would come from not knowing that the speed of the RM is determinant of the characteristics of the exercises. This lack of knowledge can lead to the training being programmed with the same intensities, and even with the same repetitions per series, with exercises with very different speeds typical of RM, which can lead to proposing excessive intensities in some exercises or useless intensities. in others.

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.

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.

The following article introduces the concept of the Effort Index and its relationship with the loss of speed in the series and the character of the effort.

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

• Given the same relative intensity and the same loss of speed in the series, fatigue is also similar, although the number of repetitions performed in the series by each subject is different.
• The effort index is the result of multiplying the velocity of each percentage of the RM by the value of the loss of velocity in the series or set of series.
• The effort index has a much higher predictive value than any other variable to estimate the loss of speed with a load of 1 m·s^-¹, that is, to estimate the degree of effort.
• Only if the effort rates are equalized can it be ensured that the relative intensity is the independent variable of the training.
• Average ranges of the Effort index between 7.5 and 14.8 for the squat exercise with an intensity of 70 to 85% offer better results than values ​​higher than 22.1.

On the one hand, it has been observed that when training with loads with which a maximum number of repetitions in the series can be done between ~12 and ~4, and efforts are made that go from 50% of the possible repetitions to the maximum possible repetitions (XRM or nRM), there is a close relationship between the loss of speed in the series and the fatigue generated. Fatigue was estimated by the loss of speed before a load that could be moved at 1 m*s-1 and by the loss of jump height.

The relationship between these variables when dealing individually with each of the loads studied is almost perfect. But, in addition, in this case, when they were all considered together, the ratios were also very high. That means that when it comes to determining the intensity through the maximum number of repetitions possible in the series (between 12 and 4 repetitions maximum, in this case), lthe loss of speed in the series, or the number of repetitions performed in the set, remarkably accurately estimates the fatigue generated in the set.

However, in this case, two issues should be taken into account:

i) when training with these loads, not all subjects did so with the same relative intensity, since, as has been seen, performing the same maximum repetitions in the series does not represent the same relative intensity for all subjects, and

ii) A certain number of repetitions were performed with respect to the maximum possible, starting with at least half of the possible repetitions, so we do not know what happens when less than half of the possible repetitions are done in the series, load, which seems to be very important in training.

Therefore, the relative intensity was not the same for all subjects, the loss of speed in the series was not determined before the effort was made, but was measured afterwards, the efforts were always made with at least half of the possible repetitions in the series.

On the other hand, when starting from the same relative intensity, it has been verified that with the same loss of speed in the series, the percentage of repetitions performed in the series is similar, which allows us to admit that Faced with the same relative intensity and the same loss of speed in the series, fatigue is also similar, although the number of repetitions performed in the series by each subject is different..

Faced with the same relative intensity and the same loss of speed in the series, fatigue is also similar, although the number of repetitions performed in the series by each subject is different.

According to what has been exposed, given the same relative intensity, whether it is estimated by the maximum number of repetitions that can be done in a series, or by the speed of the first repetition in the series, the loss of speed in the series is a good estimator of the degree of effort made. However, we still do not have a solution to all possible situations that arise. On the one hand, because taking an XRM as a reference is not appropriate, for the multiple reasons that we have explained in chapter 4, and secondly because we have not contrasted the degree of effort generated at different relative intensities when these are determined by the speed of the first repetition.

In previous articles it has been shown that the definition and quantification of the character of the effort or degree of effort is expressed in the most complete and precise way by the value of the speed of the first repetition and by the value of the loss of speed in the series. If you start from the same speed in the first repetition, that is, from the same relative intensity, this variable is already controlled, so the only thing that remains to be checked is whether the loss of speed in the series correctly expresses the degree of effort. This has been amply verified through the studies commented in the previous sections. But it remains to be verified if, in fact, these two variables are valid when calculating the degree of effort generated with the combination of different relative intensities and different speed losses in the series.

the loss of speed in the series is a good estimator of the degree of effort expended

To address this problem, a study has been carried out, partially published (Rodríguez-Rosell et al., 2018), in which the loss of speed with a load of 1 m s has been analyzed.^–¹ (fatigue) and the jump loss (fatigue) produced in 16 efforts, consisting of four speed losses after three series with the maximum load of the day at four relative intensities. In the bench press the four speed losses with respect to the speed of the first repetition were: 15, 25, 40 and 55%, and in the squat: 10, 20, 30 and 45%. The four relative intensities for both exercises were: 50, 60, 70, and 80% of 1RM. Table 1 presents the scheme of the study.

squat

bench press

Tabla 1. Diagram of the efforts made with the squat and bench press exercises, with four relative intensities and four speed losses in each exercise (Rodríguez-Rosell et al., 2018).

Figure 1 shows an example of the protocol followed to carry out each of the efforts. In each session, during the warm-up phase, the load that the subject was capable of displacing at ~1 m s^-1 was measured.¹ (the three initial dark bars in the figure), the subject continued to warm up until reaching the load with which the expected effort for the session had to be made, performing the three series at the maximum speed possible to reach the expected loss of speed in each series (the three sets of lighter bars in the center of the image).

Immediately after doing the last repetition of the third series, the speed with the load that had previously moved ~1 m s^-¹ (dark bars on the right of the image) was measured again and a blood sample was taken. to measure lactate concentration. When it came to the squat exercise, before warming up with loads, a specific warm-up was done for the vertical jump and it was measured, and at the end of the last repetition of the training session it was measured again.

Figure 1. Real example of an effort protocol of a subject in the squat exercise with the load equivalent to 60% of the RM (0.98 ~1 m s^–¹ of speed in the first repetition of the first series) and a 30% loss of speed in each series. Recovery time between sets was 4 minutes. The average speed loss in the three series was 29.5%, and the speed loss with the 1 m·s^–¹ load after effort was 20.2%. The subject performed 7, 6 and 7 repetitions in the first, second and third series, respectively, until losing the programmed speed. (Rodríguez-Rosell et al., 2018).

Table 2 shows the speed losses with the load of 1 m·s^–¹ and the lactate concentration after the 16 efforts with each of the exercises. Within each exercise, there is a clear tendency to lose more speed (more fatigue) and to reach greater lactate contraction than more speed is lost in the series at the same relative intensity, but the values ​​of these two variables decrease as the relative intensity increases. Although the differences between the exercises in the variables of velocity loss and lactate concentration are indicated at the foot of the table, it must be taken into account that these data have been produced with different values ​​of velocity loss in the series in both exercises.

• SQ = ful back-quat exercise (n = 11); BP = bench press exercise (n = 10); REP = resistance exercise protocol; MPV = mean propulsive velocity; V1 m·s^–¹ = load that elicited
• MPV of ~1 m·s^–¹; RM = repetition maximum.
• Data are men ± SD Post-exercise lactate significantly different (P ˂ 0.001) from pre-exercise for all REPs.
• Significantly different than BP: p ˂ 0.001
• Significantly different than BP: p ˂ 0.01
• Significantly different than BP: p ˂ 0.05

Table 2. Loss of speed post effort with a load of 1 m s^–¹ (central column in each exercise) lactate concentration in the squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises (Rodríguez-Rosell et al., 2018).

the fatigue generated by the training section tends to be greater with the same loss of speed in the series the lower the relative intensity

Therefore, as indicated and shown in table 2, the loss of speed with the load of 1 m s^–¹, as an indicator of the fatigue generated by the training section, tends to be greater with the same loss of speed in the series, the lower the relative intensity. When training with 50% of the RM in the bench press, 29.6% is lost for the four speed losses with which it was trained (15, 25, 40 and 55% of the speed of the first repetition), while with 60, 70 and 80%, 23.2, 20.6% and 17% were lost respectively. In the squat the losses were: 21.6, 18.7, 14.9 and 15% for 50, 60, 70 and 80%, respectively.

Attention should be paid to this detail, since there is a tendency to think that if the relative intensity is lower, the fatigue will also be less, which can lead to important errors: if the loss of speed is the same, the lower the relative intensity (at least from 50% of the RM, but it is very likely that it also occurs at lower intensities), the greater the fatigue. This, on the other hand, should not lead us to another probable error, such as thinking that then what you have to do is train with relatively high loads, which cause less fatigue, because this can also have important negative effects, since with high loads, the average speed of execution must necessarily be very low, which may not always have a positive effect on performance, but rather the opposite.

with high loads, the average execution speed must necessarily be very low, which may not always have a positive effect on performance, but rather the opposite.

Given that the lower the percentage with which you train, the more repetitions you can do until you lose a certain speed in the series, the loss of speed with the load of 1 m s^–¹ It depends on the repetitions that have been made in the series when the percentages oscillate between 50 and 80% of the RM and its values ​​have been estimated by the speed of the first repetition in the first series of the session.

In fact, the relationship between these variables is r = 0.94 (p˂0.001). But it is evident that the fatigue generated by the first repetition must also be included in the assessment of the character of the effort, since it is the first indicator of the degree of effort that a subject is going to make. This would lead us to try to find an index that would represent the degree of fatigue more accurately and with high validity.

This index should include the two variables that, as we have been proposing, can influence the fatigue generated: the speed of the first repetition (relative intensity) and the loss of speed in the series. Therefore, this index could be the result of multiplying the speed of the first repetition by the loss of speed in the session, which in this case consisted of three series.

Three sets at the maximum load for the session is a very common set number and is even considered to be within an effective set range for strength improvement (Rhea et al., 2002a; 2002b; 2003). This index is a way of presenting what has been proposed for years, the “character of effort” (CE), but each time more precisely defined. In this case, we could call this expression of the CE the Effort Index (IE), which is what it really represents, the degree of effort or degree of fatigue generated or caused to the person being trained.

Three series with the maximum load of the session is a very common series number and even considered as included within an effective range of series for the improvement of strength.

But, this IE needs to be validated by comparing its behavior and its values ​​with an indisputable and clearly valid indicator of the degree of fatigue generated, such as the loss of speed under the same absolute load, which in this case is the load that can be moved at ~1 m s.^–¹ before making the effort, as well as the loss of height of the vertical jump, which is equivalent to saying loss of speed in the jump, when it comes to exercises performed with the legs, and that we have been using since before the first contact platforms appeared in the 80s.

The values of this IE will be the result of multiplying the own speed of each percentage of the RM by the value of the loss of speed in the series or set of series. If, for example, the relative load (real percentage of the RM) with which you want to train has an average propulsive velocity of 1 m s^-¹ and the loss of velocity that you want is 15%, the value of the IE resulting will be 15 (1×15).

Of course, when put into practice, this IE will not always have an exact value of 15, as the speed of the first repetition and the loss of speed in the set are not likely to always match the programmed values, but in practice, the differences are very small, so its value is practically the same as what has been programmed.

And if this is so, its effect must also be the same. It would not make sense to think that if instead of 15, the resulting IE had a value of 14.5, the effect would be different, especially since on another day it could be 15.3. To consider that these small differences could have a significant effect on the training result would be to give too much importance and power to IE, more than it already has.

Naturally, for the same loss of velocity in the series, the IE values ​​are lower the higher the relative intensity, since the higher this is, the lower the velocity of the RM percentages. This should give rise, as has been shown in the results of the commented study, to that the speed losses with the load of 1 m s^–1¹ (fatigue) tend to be lower with higher intensities, which, in turn, validates IE itself, because it determines the degree of fatigue (loss of speed in the series) based on its value as a product of the variables that make it up, not just based on the value of one of them.

Tables 3 and 4 show the IE calculations for the bench press and squat exercises.

Tabla 3. IE in the Bench Press Exercise (Rounded Values)

Tabla 4. IE in the Squat Exercise (Rounded Values)

The data in tables 3 and 4 are rounded, and may differ slightly from those published in the 2017 book on speed (González-Badillo et al., 2017). This is due to the fact that in that document the values ​​of the IE were derived directly from the real data of the study, while in this case it is the calculation of each IE according to the own speed of the corresponding percentage and the expected loss of speed. The blank spaces in the tables are due to the fact that with the corresponding relative intensities a loss of speed as indicated cannot be produced.

0.14 and 0.27 m·s^–¹ have been considered as the minimum possible speed in the series until muscular failure for the bench press and the squat, respectively. These values ​​correspond to those obtained as a mean in the respective tests of the maximum possible number of repetitions in the series (tables 1 and 3).

Once these questions related to the concept of EI have been clarified, it is necessary to verify its validity as an indicator of the degree of effort or fatigue generated in training. For this, its relationship with the two reference criteria has been verified, the loss of speed with the load of 1 m·s^–¹ and the loss of vertical jump (CMJ). The relationship of the IE and the loss of speed with the load of 1 m s^–¹ was r = 0.98 (p ˂ 0.001) for the bench press and r = 0.091 (p ˂ 0.001) for the squat (figure 2).

Figure 2. Relationship between IE (degree of effort) and velocity loss with 1 m s^–¹ load in bench press (top figure and squat (bottom figure). TEE standard error of estimate. (Rodríguez-Roseel et al., 2018).

The Effort Index has a much higher predictive value than any other variable to estimate the loss of speed with a load of 1 m s^-¹, that is, to estimate the degree of effort, which is what is programmed when designing a workout.

Therefore, this IE has a much higher predictive value than any other variable to estimate the loss of speed with a load of 1 m s^–¹, that is, to estimate the degree of effort, which, as indicated, is what is programmed when designing a workout. If we quantify these relationships in terms of explained variance, we see that bench press IE explains 96% of the variance of velocity loss with the 1 m s-¹ load, virtually all of the variance, and squat IE 83%.

In other words, in both cases a very high percentage of the variance produced in the loss of speed with the load of 1 m·s^–¹ is explained. The slightly lower value given in the squat may explain the greater technical complexity of this exercise compared to the bench press. In addition, the IE presents a high correlation with the loss of CMJ (r = 0.93; p ˂ 0.001; it explains 86.5% of the variance of the loss of high, and with a very low standard error of estimation: 1.8).

Therefore, these correlation values ​​and their corresponding explained variance values ​​provide us with high confidence in the predictive power of the IE in both exercises, with the particularity that the squat can be assessed by two exercises or fatigue indicator criteria.

But, in addition to what is indicated, the IE generated in the squat offers the opportunity to apply it to other variables related to an exercise frequently used in the training of any athlete, such as sprinting. In the commented study, the degree of fatigue throughout the 20-m race was also assessed. This test was performed ~2 minutes after the end of the effort. The relationships between the IE and a series of variables were: with the increase of the time in 20 m, r = 0.77 (p ˂ 0.001), with the loss of maximum speed, r = 0.84 (p ˂ 0.001) and with the increase of the contact time in the race, r = 0.66 (p ˂ 0.01). As can be seen, the IE in the squat has an important application in the prediction of fatigue in different types of performance.

In this sense, the relationship observed in the IE in the full squat exercise and the reduction in performance in the 20-m race is pertinent and very relevant. Figure 3 shows the graphical presentation of this relationship.

In the graph it can be seen that for an IE of 10, the increase in time in the race is more than 3.5%. This is a very considerable acute negative effect. This is more relevant if we consider that the IE that causes this performance reduction is small. It is equivalent to performing 4-5 repetitions with a relative load of 60% of the RM. Which means that at 60% RM you should lose 10% of your speed for the first rep in the set.

As explained in the graph itself, with 60% you can do about 16 repetitions on average. A 10% loss of speed in the set means that 26.9% of the possible reps have been performed, and this is equivalent to doing 4-5 reps in the set. That is, this training, with three series, is a moderate-low training, which could be very positive for the improvement of performance for many athletes, but that has caused an acute negative effect on a 20 m race at ~2 minutes after doing the squat exercise.

It is natural, on the one hand, that if the interval time had been shorter, as is usual in some training practices, the negative effect would have been greater, and, on the other hand, that, according to the graph itself, with higher EI, the effects would tend to be even more negative.

Conclusion: the supposed “transfer” exercise, in addition to not being such, can be carried out in quite negative conditions.

Figure 3. Relationship between the IE and the change in time in a 20 m race performed ~2 minutes after performing the squat exercise (see text for further explanation) (Data taken from Rodríguez-Rosell’s doctoral thesis).

This sequence of exercises, but with less recovery time between them, is considered in some cases as a “transfer exercise” or executed in this way because in doing the second exercise “something is being transferred” to the second exercise. However, these results indicate that the supposed “transfer” exercise, in addition to not being such, is being carried out under quite unfavorable conditions, with each loss of performance.

It is logical to think that if 20-m runs are done, it is to be done at the subject’s maximum personal speed or close to it, or, in the worst case, with a minimum loss of speed, which would be enough to interrupt the training. However, with this sequence of exercise, so common, neither “transfers” nor trains in proper conditions, but rather the opposite.

In addition to the speed losses with the 1 m·s^-¹ load, the CMJ is also a reference criterion for the assessment of fatigue. This exercise is also very easy to perform, it does not interfere with training and does not cause fatigue, therefore, if the loss of height were related to other exercises and with the loss of speed itself with the load of 1 m s^–¹, could be a very useful exercise to assess the degree of fatigue reached in a training session easily, quickly and cheaply.

As expected, since the jump loss is a loss of speed, the loss of CMJ has a high relationship with the loss of speed with the load of 1 m s-¹, r = 0.96 (p ˂ 0.001), so in the squat exercise, to estimate the degree of fatigue, it would be equivalent to measure the loss of speed with the load of 1 m s^-¹ or jump loss. But, in addition, the loss of CMJ serves as a good predictor of the increase in time in 20 (r = 0.79; p ˂ 0.001) and in 5 m (r = 0.84; p ˂ 0.001), of the loss of speed in the race (r = 0.77; p ˂ 0.001) and of the increase in contact time (r = 0.77; p ˂ 0.00 1).

If we take the regression equations indicated in figure 16.5 for the bench press and the squat, as well as the one associated with the CMJ in its relationship with the IE (y = 0.3306x + 9.3785), we can have a fairly approximate estimate of the loss of velocity with the 1 m s load.^-¹ and of the CMJ before different values of EI (table 16.13).

With these data and those that have been commented on the variables that make up the EI, a wide field of research opens up. The first thing would be to determine the effect of the different IE values ​​(Table 3). With these data and those that we have commented on the variables that make up the IE, a wide field of research opens up. The first thing would be to determine the effect of the different IE values, that is, of the different degrees of effort. There is still not enough data on this, although some guidelines will be given later that can serve as a reference to improve knowledge about the load-effect relationship of training.

Tabla 3. Estimated values ​​of velocity loss with the 1 m·s-¹ load and with the CMJ with a range of IE from 6 to 40.

In addition to what is indicated, the IE, the loss of speed with the load of 1 m·s^-¹ and the CMJ present a high predictive validity of metabolic stress, estimated through the lactate concentration after the effort.

The IE, the loss of speed with the load of 1 m s^-¹ and the CMJ have a high predictive validity of metabolic stress

In the commented study, the lactate concentration presented significant positive relationships with the IE in the bench press (r = 0.95; p ˂ 0.001) and the squat (r = 0.9; p ˂ 0.001), with the loss of speed with the load of 1 m s^–¹ in the bench press (r = 0.95; p ˂ 0.001) and the squat (r = 0.95; 0.001) and with the jump loss (r = 0.98; p ˂ 0.001). As can be deduced from these results, knowing the speed loss with the load of 1 m s^-1¹ and the loss of jump height, a very precise estimate of the lactate concentration can be made, or even better, if the values ​​of these two variables are known, it is not necessary to do any post-exercise lactate concentration test, since what is really important is knowledge of the degree of effort, determined by fatigue, something that the lactate concentration cannot give us.

Taking all these data as a whole, justified by the high validity shown, we can admit that this form of expression of the character of the effort (EC) allows us to advance in the knowledge of the load (effort) that is programmed and, especially, of the load that has been generated in each subject once the training has been completed.

As an initial practical application, if we take into account, as indicated above, that what is programmed is a series or orderly succession of efforts, if one wants to compare the effect of different ranges of intensity on changes in strength, or in other types of performance, one would have to control a key variable in performance itself, such as the effort generated, that is, the CE / degree of effort of each session through the IE.

This means that it would not only be necessary to cIt is not necessary to control that the relative intensity was real and that the loss of speed in the series is also controlled through a precise measurement, but it would be necessary to ensure that the IE was equivalent, and for this it would be necessary that the losses of speed in the series were different for each relative intensity, so that the efforts were equalized.. Only if this is done in this way, it could be accepted that the independent variable of the study is truly the relative intensity.

Only if the effort indices are equalized could it be accepted that the independent study variable is the relative intensity

To our knowledge, this control has never been carried out, so stating that entertainment with a relative intensity is better or worse than another is not relevant if the IE that has been generated with the different intensities is not equivalent.

The character of the effort (EC) quantified through the IE also has an important function as an independent variable, in such a way that it could provide information on the effect that each relative intensity can have, and other variables that constitute the training load, depending on the IE applied or generated.

Apart from the fundamental application as a control variable and as an independent variable, the quantification of the CE through the IE allows a better analysis of the effects of any design, being able to verify the relationship between the IE and the effects produced, apart from other variables with less discriminatory power such as the series, the number of repetitions per series and even the relative intensities, since the same value of these last variables can mean a very different degree of effort depending on what the values ​​of the others are.

As indicated above, today there is not enough data to be able to determine which IE is the one that can offer the best results, as well as with which variables this IE should be quantified or configured. Both issues must be considered, because, naturally, it is not the same to perform a squat training with an IE of 15, quantified by using 60% of the RM with a 15% loss of speed in the series (see table 16.12), than to train the same exercise with the same IE, but derived from using 85% of the RM and a loss of speed in the series of 25%.

Today there is not enough data to be able to determine which effort index is the one that can offer the best results, as well as with which variables this IE should be quantified or configured.

These two IE could generate a similar degree of fatigue, that is, a loss of speed with the load of 1 m s^–¹ very similar, but there is an important differentiating factor between both IE, which is the average speed with which the training would be carried out, much lower when 85% of the RM is used. This could lead to clearly different effects. All these issues must be taken into account if we really want to advance in the knowledge about training in general, and especially if we want to use the speed of execution as a reference for the dosage and control of the load and the effect it produces.

Table 4 presents a series of data that can be considered as the first information about what the trend of the effect of different values ​​of EI with different ranges of relative intensities may be. These are the real effects of two ranges of intensities: from 70 to 85% and from 55 to 70% of the RM in the squat exercise with different speed losses in the series.

In the first range he trained with four speed losses in the series: 10, 20, 30 and 40%. This resulted in the subjects training with certain IE, whose mean values ​​were 7.5, 14.8, 22.1, and 29.4, for losses of 0, 20, 30, and 40%, respectively. If we take into account that the groups that obtained the best results were those that lost 10 and 20% of the speed in the series, and that the extreme values ​​of EI of these two groups were 6 and 17, it can be suggested that these EI ranges are probably more favorable for improving performance with intensities between 70 and 85% than reaching higher values, between approximately 19 and 33. Or also, that average IE between 7.5 and 14.8 offer better results than values ​​higher than 22.1.

Probably average ranges of the Effort index for the squat exercise with an intensity of 70 to 85% between 7.5 and 14.8 offer better results than values ​​higher than 22.1.

In the second range of intensities, he trained with three speed losses: 10, 30 and 45%. This resulted in subjects training with mean EI values ​​of 9.6, 28.5, and 42.7, for speed losses in the set of 10, 30, and 45%, respectively. The group that performed best was the one that lost 10%, with EI values ​​between approximately 8 and 11, while EI values ​​greater than 25 do not seem to offer the best results. Therefore, given a range of relative intensities from 55 to 70%, applying IE between 8 and 11 may be more favorable than using IE of 25 or more.

Tabla 4. Effect of different values ​​of IE before different ranges of relative intensities. Explanations of likely effects are given in the table itself.

conclusions and practical applications on the effort index

• The high validity shown by the expression of the CE through the IE, as we do in this section, allows us to advance in the knowledge of the load (effort) that is programmed and, especially, of the load that has been generated in each subject once the training has been carried out.
• If we wanted to compare the effect of different ranges of intensity on changes in strength, or in other types of performance, it would be necessary to ensure that the IE was equivalent, and for this it would be necessary that the speed losses in the series or session were different for each relative intensity, so that the efforts were equalized. Only if this is done in this way, it could be accepted that the independent variable of the study is truly the relative intensity.
• Therefore, it is not pertinent to affirm that training with a relative intensity is better or worse than with another, if the IE that has been generated with the different intensities has not been controlled.
• The CE expressed through the IE can have at least the following applications:

1. 1. Act as an independent variable of any study on the effect of training.
   2. It is necessary and decisive as a control variable.
   3. It is very useful for a better analysis of the effects of any design, because it allows checking the relationship between the IE (degree of fatigue) and the effects produced.
   4. The choice of the speed of the first repetition and the choice of the loss of speed in the series or session can be done and in some cases should be done depending on the IE or degree of effort that we want to program.

Using the machines available in the aerobics area of ​​the gym does not have to be dull and boring if you intend to lose the kilos you gained during your Christmas vacation.

If you don’t already know Fitenium is a free, mobile and video-based social network for users who train strength and/or body weight exercises. At Fitenium users can find free personalized routines, follow their performance, compete and get discounts at nutrition stores and sports equipment. Download it here.

In addition to the various programs that some of these machines bring to carry out the corresponding routines, we have multiple options, so that the aerobic exercise time is not boring, thus boring me. Keep us from abandoning our New Year’s slimming aspirations.

treadmill

One of the most classic cardiovascular motor machines. As a general rule, people tend to warm up at a steady pace and set the speed after running, but treadmills work in infinite ways, taking into account different speeds and possible inclines. You Can: Even if you’ve already run out of steady-pace interval training sessions since your classic run, the treadmill is a great alternative (and can be mastered) for aerobic exercise. It’s not boring at all.)

If you just want to change the speed of the treadmill (without changing the incline), it’s a very cost-effective, healthy, and high-intensity workout. On the other hand, if you want to change only the incline, change the workout to continuous uphill and “downhill” (no negative incline). Therefore, in the quoted box, if the descent is for the period of time that the slope is made, combine the variation of speed and slope. This will increase your calorie intake steadily.

In addition, due to its versatility, it is the best alternative for winter, and it is necessary to go out by chance, that is why “Running is cold. The healthiest option is the main shortcoming that can be found in cold machines, both cold and cold, due to the impact on the knees during exercise. Possibility not in the extremities

The total calories you can burn in a treadmill session ranges from 400 to 500 calories, depending on the intensity and type of exercise you’re doing. If you choose to burn off these extra pounds on this machine, it’s a good idea to do slit training at varying speeds and inclines (although you do have to incline and exaggerate to accelerate). It must be dropped). A good idea is to alternate between periods of high speed and very low incline, periods of walking and good periods of incline.

elliptical machine

Analyzing the elliptical trainer from a global perspective, it is possible to move the upper and lower part of the body with the same machine to perform cardiovascular exercise. Therefore, it can be said that it is probably one of the most complete. Also, for this cardio exercise machine etc. There are no special features. And as if we were practicing backrolling, backwards,

Ellipticals take the impact off your knees, giving you one more point of advantage over treadmills in this regard.

When talking about work modality, the lower the resistance, the faster the pedaling, so there is more cardiovascular work, and conversely, the higher this resistance, the stronger the work. Cardio Endurance (this is me. Not to say we don’t talk cardio)

From 300 to 500 calories are the average that can be burned in the visceral vascular motility session on the elliptical trainer, many and monotonous. To perform the training, the period of pressing the pedal forward and the period of pressing the pedal backwards alternated, or the difficulty was added. In this case, step on the pedal with one foot (you need to use your arm to compensate). Unstable) Similarly, for a period of time in which the arm is not trapped. You can also try this alternatively. During the “active breathing” period, which helps you step on the pedal, you can use your arm to help yourself. A small amount of help imaginable

recumbent bike

This is a bit of a mandatory stance, so it’s not a common stance when riding a bike. The machine sits like a chair, except that the pedals are in front of you, not below you. This is probably the worst option you can choose among all the machines in the gym, unless jured or restricted (like when you had shoulder surgery at the gym and this was your only machine). I can get some exercise while I recover).

The only parameter that can be changed is the power or hardness of the pedaling. As a result, you can hardly afford to change your exercise and find another way.

rowing machine

The rowing machine is the perfect combination of upper body aerobic exercise and strength training. Adjustable in terms of power and hardness, the strength training targets mainly the arms and back and provides a significant cardiovascular workout.

The main problem this machine can present is that you have to round your back or bend your arch when performing the rowing movement, which can lead to injury or injury, so you need to move the movement to avoid injury. There is a technique.