In this entry a brief introduction is made on the history of strength training since the beginning of the 20th century.

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.

Uniting experience in training practice and theoretical scientific research

There is another way of approaching training that has the vocation of applying scientific knowledge to training practice. But it must be recognized that this is not easy. Scientific studies related to sports performance cannot cover all the variables involved in training.

The coach has the “obligation” to keep up to date on (true) scientific advances, but then he has the double task of knowing how to interpret and apply this knowledge in practice and establishing the control plan that allows him to advance “scientifically” in the rationalization of his own work. This is an exciting task, which never ends and is peppered with successes and failures continuously.

The coach has the “obligation” to keep up to date on scientific advances and to know how to interpret and apply this knowledge to practice and establish the training control plan.

The coach must try not to make serious mistakes that clearly go against what is scientifically proven, even if the absence of those mistakes does not guarantee success. However, attempts to disseminate scientific findings in texts organized with sections on their applications to sports practice have greatly improved the training of coaches, have stimulated research and have contributed to improving results.

The texts promoted by the International Olympic Committee on different fields of research and training (strength and power, resistance, biomechanics, medicine, development and training in children…); the publication of physiology texts such as those by Mcardle et al., Wilmore and Costill, Astrand and Rodahl, or monographs such as those by Zatsiorsky (1995) or Enoka (2002)…. are very valid examples. All these texts try to expose in an accessible way for the majority of specialists in sports training, as well as for scientists in general, the latest scientific advances and their possible applications to sports practice.

Naturally, like any publication, with the passing of the years they lose part of their updating, but to make up for these deficiencies, recurring periodical publications are used.

Therefore, in addition to the contributions of the texts in the form of books, there are bibliographic sources where the original articles appear with the methodology and the results of the investigations, which constitutes the fastest updating route, although this information will always be about a narrower field of knowledge.

In any case, the effect of a certain type of training on one or several qualities over several weeks is studied, although unfortunately not always adequately.

Science only explains the body’s reaction to different types of efforts, from which deductions can be made to guide training. Therefore, training must be programmed based on an objective, which will be achieved if the degree of stress is applied which, according to research, without forgetting experience, causes the programmed effort and the consequent effect. Combining the scientific information and the “common sense” of the coach, it is likely that the organization of the training will be more rational.

training must be programmed based on an objective, which will be achieved if the degree of stress is applied which, according to research, without forgetting experience, causes the programmed effort and the consequent effect

It is increasingly common for high-level athletes to benefit from meticulous scientific monitoring that includes tests every day, every week or every 2, 4, 8… weeks. The function of these tests is to know the evolution of the physical condition and to evaluate if the effect of the prescribed training program is in accordance with the objectives set. In this way, it is more probable that scientific criteria and procedures can be established that allow the programming and control of an athlete’s training regimen and progress adequately, avoiding the appearance of overtraining.

History of contributions to strength training

The use of strength training as a complement to the specific training of other sports began to become popular in the middle of the last century. From the 1960s and 1970s, the great debate began about using or not using this type of training, since detractors maintain that strength training “slows down” the athlete.

One of the first investigators to be interested in the physiology of muscular force was Dudley Allen Sargent (1849-1924), a medical trainer at Harvard University. This researcher was the creator of the famous Sargent vertical jump test, and proposed the use of very light loads to train strength.

A. V. Hill established the relationship between muscle tension and the speed of muscle shortening or force-velocity curve

At the beginning of the last century, the British physiologist A. V. Hill established the relationship between muscle tension and the speed of muscle shortening or force-velocity curve, so useful today in the assessment of physical condition, the effect of training and the degree of of fatigue.

In 1948, doctors Thomas De Lorme and Arthur Watkins, working with soldiers recovering from World War I wounds, developed training PECRIMEA to overcome the weakness caused by atrophy typical in these cases. Originally they established that the necessary dose to obtain results was between 70 and 100 repetitions per exercise (the famous 10x10RM), although they later corrected it and left it between 20 and 30 repetitions per exercise, which would give rise to the 3x10RM formula, although not all series to failure, but only the last one.

The German physiologist Erich A. Müller and his partner T. Hettinger contributed to the development of strength training when in 1953 they observed that Isometric type training could be useful for the development of strength. In the 60s, the most representative were the studies of Richard A. Berg, who carried out a series of investigations over several years in which he searched for the optimal stimulus for strength training.

Although his studies have not appeared in publications recognized as scientific by the international community, it can be considered that Y. Verkhoshanky’s contributions during the 1970s were important for the advancement of sports training. His proposals on the location of strength training within the training cycle, the use of exercises called “plyometrics”, his contributions on the study of the force-time-velocity relationship and the application of factor analysis to analyze the determining factors of sports performance have been an important reference and have contributed to the development of the application of force to the training of different sports specialties.

the contributions of Y. Verkhoshanky on the study of the force-time-velocity relationship and the application of factor analysis to analyze the determinants of sports performance have been an important reference

Perhaps his most representative work is Fundamentals of Special Strength-Training in Sport, published in Russian in 1977 and translated into English in 1986. Subsequently, the entire scientific community has become interested in the mechanisms that explain the development and manifestation of strength and its possible applications to sports training. The phase in which strength training was considered detrimental to different sports has been passed, and coaches in almost all specialties have become interested in the application of strength training to improve specific results.

Some scientific institutions, such as the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), the European College of Sports Sciences (ECSC) and the International Federation of Sports Medicine (IFSM) have contributed to the advancement of studies on the sports performance. In 1987, the US National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) created The Journal of Applied Sport Science Research, which would later be renamed the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.

These publications are especially focused on research related to the study of force and its applications. Its aim is to establish a bridge between scientific research and practice. From the 1970s and 1980s, the development of studies on muscle strength and power reached a great impulse.

From the 1970s and 1980s, the development of studies on muscle strength and power reached a great impulse.

Authors such as Edgerton, Gollnik and Saltin, with the analysis of muscle structure and power production, were responsible for many of the first studies on the characteristics of the human muscle fiber and its behavior during exercise, Komi, in the study of the stretch-shortening cycle, Sale, which has contributed to the knowledge of the neural effects on the production of force and power, the studies of MacDougall, Edman, Herzog and Goldspink on the muscular transformations and power production due to training, the studies of the hormonal and neuromuscular effects of strength training by Kraemer, Häkkinen… and some others have contributed to the advancement of knowledge about strength training. All these advances go hand in hand with a way of approaching training in an increasingly scientific way.

The variable “velocity” has recently been introduced as a useful reference for the control, dosage and assessment of the training effect, with an original publication in 1991 (González-Badillo, 1991). Throughout this text, extensive information is given on most of the numerous studies in which speed has been used as a reference for dosing, monitoring, and evaluation of training effect.

Training periodization is still a way to “schedule” or “organize training.” This article describes in detail what it consists of and provides an introduction to linear and nonlinear periodization.

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.

Without going into any type or model yet, the basic principle of “periodization” is the change in volume and intensity over the training time frame. The typical trend of these changes is from high volume with low intensity to low volume and high intensity. Naturally, they do not make sense, although it is not the most important thing, that this model of training organization (intensity and volume manipulation), already used by the Greeks in antiquity, is identified with a specific name and not with a term. generic that includes its characteristics in its definition, such as the term “programming”.

More specifically, it is considered that “periodization” has as its main objectives

1. The appropriate balance between training loads and preparation for competition during the season;
2. Control fatigue and reduce the probability of reaching overtraining; and
3. Getting ready for competition at the right time (DeWeese et al., 2015).

One would have to wonder if there is any model, plan, program, way… of training that does not seek these objectives. It does not seem reasonable to accept that by giving it a specific name all these objectives will be met. And, furthermore, it is said that this is achieved mainly by adequate (non-linear) variability, which can be achieved through manipulation of volume, intensity and selection of exercises. Naturally, there is no training program, whatever its name, that does not contemplate and apply this manipulation.

A differentiation between “periodization” and “scheduling” is sometimes proposed. Considering that in the first case it is “a division of training time into phases that guarantee when the necessary adaptations have to be made to achieve specific performance objectives”. While the programming is “the concretion of this work plan through the determination of the exercises, series, repetitions, intensities, pause times…”.

programming is “the realization of this work plan through the determination of the exercises, series, repetitions, intensities, pause times…”

Naturally, “achieving the appropriate adaptation or performance objectives at a specific time” is a wish (“periodization”), without any basis or justification, and that only makes sense if accompanied by the proper and adequate manipulation of the variables that determine the applied load is a big problem under study and not easy to solve) and the effect that this produces (the way to measure the effect is also an important problem, not always adequately solved).

Therefore, regardless of other considerations that question the use of the very concept of “periodization”, what is really important is, once again, the manipulation of numbers; intensities, series, repetitions, rest times… Therefore, “periodize” has no meaning or effect on performance without the expression of the variables that determine the load.

linear periodization

While the volume tends to increase from the beginning of the training cycle until it reaches its maximum value soon, and then decreases until the end of the cycle, the intensity presents a tendency to increase from the beginning of the cycle. When this occurs, the training schedule is referred to as “linear periodization” (PL). The term “linear” itself is not very consistent with reality either, since neither the volume nor the intensity evolve in a neal way, but with a tendency to increase or decrease, but necessarily with permanent ups and downs of greater or lesser magnitude.

When it comes to strength training, in LP four main phases or objectives or denominations are usually differentiated: “strength-endurance” or “muscular resistance” phase, “hypertrophy” phase, “maximum strength” phase and phase of “power”. The latter is sometimes divided into a “force-power” phase and another “power” and “RFD peak”.

When it comes to strength training, in PL four main phases are usually differentiated

This type of approach is also sometimes referred to as “block periodization”. All these names are meaningless because:

1. In the phase of “strength-endurance” or “muscular resistance” there is also an effect on hypertrophy, strength and power,
2. In the “hypertrophy” phase, muscular endurance, strength and power are improved, then there would also be resistance, strength and power phases: would it make sense to improve hypertrophy and not improve strength? strength, is it possible that the power does not improve? For both questions the answer is negative, an affirmative answer is not possible in either of the two cases,
3. From the foregoing it can be deduced that if strength improves (third phase), power will necessarily improve, and it is also probable that hypertrophy and resistance will continue to increase, then this phase is also one of power and probably also hypertrophy, and if the strength, surely it will also improve resistance to the same load,
4. It is not possible for power to improve in the fourth phase without strength improving.

In summary, “giving names” to the phases is, in addition to being useless, clearly wrong and indicates a lack of knowledge of the training effect. The approximate and typical loads of these phases are usually the following:

• In the “strength-endurance” or “muscular resistance” phase, training sessions are programmed with a high number of repetitions per series (15-20), with a stress character (EC) maximum, that is, 1-3 series of 15-20RM (maximum number of repetitions possible in the series, which is known as “until muscular failure”), and the recovery time is low, one minute maximum. The percentage of the RM could be of the order of 60-65%. This training is proposed for 2-3 days / week
• In the “hypertrophy” phase, training is scheduled with a high number of repetitions and series with maximum EC (4-6 series of 8-15 RM), and a recovery time between series of 1-2 minutes. The percentage of the RM would be approximately 65-80%. This training is proposed for 3-5 days/week.
• In the “maximum strength” phase, the number of repetitions per series is reduced (3-5 series of 3-8 RM) and “muscular failure” continues, the percentage of the RM would be estimated between 80 and 90 %, and recovery time between sets of 3-5 minutes. This training is proposed for 3-5 days/week.
• And in the “power” phase, the highest intensities are reached (3-5 series of 1-3RM), the estimated percentage would be 90-100% of the RM and 5-8 minutes of recovery 4-6 days / week ,

“Giving names” to the phases is, in addition to being useless, clearly wrong and indicates a lack of knowledge of the training effect

In the first three phases, single and multi-joint exercises are included, and in the fourth, multi-joint exercises are a priority, but always, as in the other phases, for muscles and small ones. In the first three phases it is usually indicated that the movement be carried out at a moderate speed, even setting specific and constant times for the concentric phase of the movements or a certain stable proportion of eccentric-concentric time, and in the fourth phase it is usually call phases of “morphological adaptation”, and the last two of “neural adaptation”.

With some small variations in the magnitude of the loads, this is the guide model that is proposed with great frequency in the literature to apply to athletes, whatever their specialty, and to non-athletes, although for these sometimes more are proposed. repetitions per series, because supposedly “it is a minor load”.

This approach, which is the most common and widespread, in addition to what is indicated in previous paragraphs, needs some comments.

We haven’t met anyone who, after doing, for example, a true 10-12RM set, was able to do, with a reasonable recovery time (3-5 minutes), a second let alone a third 10-12RM set. with the same absolute charge. For this reason, in addition to the observations that we have made in previous paragraphs regarding the name of the phases and their meanings, we consider that this type of training is not possible to carry out in practice, regardless of whether trying to do so may offer better or worse results than other less tiring workouts, which will be seen in another section.

The claim that the movement is done at a specific non-maximum speed and that muscle failure is also reached is not possible, because the speed of the last repetition must necessarily be equivalent to the speed of the RM, which would be the speed minimum at which the subject can perform the exercise. This means that, if a certain execution speed is to be maintained, all the repetitions would have to be done at the RM speed or, otherwise, the proposed execution times cannot be met, because, necessarily, there would be a decrease in the execution speed.

One more point needs to be made regarding the fourth phase, the “power” phase. According to the scheme described, in this phase it is considered that “power is developed”. In addition to the fact that it has already been indicated that power has been developed in all the previous phases, unless the effect of training had been null or negative for strength, contrary to what is proposed, this fourth phase is the one in which Probably less power will be developed, since the conditions for already high power levels in the execution of the training are the least ideal: maximum load and minimum speed of execution, which gives rise to minimum values ​​of power.

It does not seem reasonable to claim that the phase in which less power is generated in training actions is the phase in which power is developed the most.

Naturally, if only Olympic or partial Olympic exercises were used in this fourth phase, such as the clean or the power snatch, the power generated in each repetition would always be greater than performing a bench press or a sit-up. any other exercise, but this does not mean that power has not been developed earlier, nor does it mean that these Olympic exercises cannot or should not be trained in the earlier phases.

However, it is true that in some versions of the “periodized training” model, “maximum power” phases with explosive or ballistic exercises are proposed, especially based on jumps. Although these conditions would allow reaching higher power values ​​in each execution, this variety does not solve the mentioned problems, because the power will continue without improving if the maximum force does not improve before the loads with which it is jumped, then this still does not make sense ” new stage”.

The denomination of the phases as “morphological adaptation” or “neural adaptation” is not justified, since both types of adaptations are taking place at all times, especially neural adaptation, since the nervous system cannot be excluded from either physical activity or type of physical training that is carried out.

This sequence of “objectives” and types of loads is justified because it is assumed that the effect produced in each of the phases is necessary to obtain a better result in the next one. That is, to improve strength it is necessary to have previously improved or developed muscular endurance and hypertrophy, and to improve power it is necessary to have previously improved strength. None of this is justified or adjusted to reality:

neither greater hypertrophy nor greater training volume are necessarily accompanied by greater strength gains

On the one hand, neither a greater hypertrophy nor a greater training volume are necessarily accompanied by a greater gain in strength (González-Badillo et al., 2005; Pareja-Blanco et al., 2016; Schoenfeld et al., 2019). For the same maximum and relative intensity of each session, a volume of 65% of the maximum volume performed by a group of competitive athletes offered the same effect as the group that performed the maximum volume (González-Badillo et al., 2005).

Given the same relative intensity in each session, losing 20% ​​of the speed of the first repetition in the series produced better performance in the squat, jump and 20-meter race than losing more than 40% (situation close to muscular failure), at despite the fact that the group that lost more than 40% experienced a greater increase in muscle volume (Pareja-Blanco et al., 2016). Given the same relative intensity and number of repetitions per series in each session, performing five series produced greater hypertrophy than doing one or three series, but not greater strength (Schoenfeld et al., 2019).

On the other hand, it is absurd to consider that “before improving power, you have to improve strength”. The improvement in power at the same absolute load can only be achieved if the maximum force applied at said load has improved: more force applied at the same absolute load for the same distance means doing the same work in less ti increased power, which , necessarily, means that power has increased. If we consider power as a product of strength and speed, the conclusion is the same: more strength for more speed (less absolute load time, more power is impossible.

Therefore, with the same absolute load, it is impossible for “strength to improve without improving power”, in the same way that, in “in the power phase”, it is impossible for power to improve if at the same time it does not the maximum applied force is improving.

Naturally, the degree of load applied, and especially the degree of fatigue generated during the session, will cause the training effect to occur to a greater extent in some areas of the force-velocity curve than in others.

But, in whichever of the areas that the effect occurs, if the force has increased, the power will necessarily improve at the same absolute load. If presumed “maximum power” is measured through jumping, throwing, or lightly loaded actions, it is very likely that performance on these exercises will improve more when fatigue has been reduced, late in the process, by doing fewer repetitions per set. “and explosively” as recommended in the model. But coming to the conclusion that all the previous process is necessary to improve potency does not make any sense.

Periodization in linear or undulating periodization

The use of the same types of training described in the previous point, but applying one of them every day, every week or every two weeks, repeating the hypertrophy-strength-power sequence, in this same order or in other alternative orders, with a The tendency to increase intensity and decrease volume gives rise to what has been called non-linear or undulating periodization (NLP).

All the observations indicated for the LP would be applicable in this case, in addition to the fact that the physiological stress would increase even more, since very high intensities would be reached from the first training sessions. It is argued that this model is justified by the need to provide even greater variability to training, facilitating adaptation and recovery from different loads.

It is likely that, indeed, there is more variability in volume and intensity, but achieving greater or better adaptation and recovery between loads by including all the phases (3 or 4) mentioned in the same week is not guaranteed.

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

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

summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a conclusion, the following can be stated:

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

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

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

When should you start strength training?

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

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

How much force do you have to develop?

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

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

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

What exercises should be used?

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

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

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

How often do you have to train?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUMMARY

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

What is muscle failure and origins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is it proposed to train to muscular failure?

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

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

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

The possibility of achieving greater recruitment of motor units.

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

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

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

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

muscle damage

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

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

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

Increased levels of anabolic hormones.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increased muscle mass

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

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

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

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

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

Longer time under tension

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

analysis of studies on muscle failure maintaining constant effort

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subjects performed three different volumes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disadvantages of programming and training with the classic XRM or nRM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This entry provides a detailed review of the different recommendations for strength training.

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

SUMMARY

• The only possible objective when strength training: Improve the speed of execution before any absolute load.
• Resistance to train: minimum individual percentage up to 95% of the 1RM.
• Repetitions per series: from 8-10 to 1.
• Character of the Effort: from 8-10 repetitions of 30-40 possible to 1 repetitions of 2-3 possible.
• Effort Index: Probably shouldn’t be higher than 20-22.
• Recovery between series: between 2 and 5 minutes.

If you intend to program strength training, the first thing that must be clear is what strength is being trained for. Although this first question is key and necessary, it is not sufficient knowledge since the problem of how to achieve those objectives remains to be solved. For now it is better to focus on the initial question:

Why train strength?

Single possible goal: Improve speed under any absolute load, including competition specific load. Given the relative loads, the speeds will always be practically stable. They could only be improved very slightly, until the minimum strength deficit of the subject was reached. The variation margin can be +-0.02/0.03 m*s-1 with the same relative load (real percentage of the RM), depending on the type of training performed.

This single objective, expressed in another way, would be equivalent to improving the maximum applied force under any absolute load, including the specific load. Naturally, this is so because by improving the maximum force applied to a certain load, the speed must necessarily improve proportionally.

If we consider only the specific loads, this single objective can be expressed as improving the useful force, which would be the same as improving the specific RFD, and both translate and are equivalent to improving speed before the specific load or competition load.

Single possible goal: Improve execution speed under any absolute load

These improvements can be given in:

• Discrete or isolated specific actions, which correspond to generally acyclic actions, of short duration and high or maximum absolute speed of execution or movement
• Repeated specific actions, which correspond to cyclical or mixed actions, which are carried out at a specific time (typical of the competition). In these cases, the improvement in strength is expressed as an increase in the average speed of execution or displacement in the total time that the action lasts or in the distance to be traveled by any means on which the propulsion depends totally or to a great extent. of muscle action.

When dealing with mixed actions, the improvement is expressed in the same way as the cyclical ones, but it is also manifested as an improvement in speed in the discrete actions that can be carried out during the course of the sporting action.

In short, whenever you train with a single possible objective: to improve speed at the same absolute load or, in other words, to improve the maximum force applied at the same absolute load. The exception, as indicated, is Weightlifting, which never improves speed at the maximum competition load but maintains the same speed at increasing loads.

However, in this sport the objective applied to other sports is also met, but in the event of any absolute load less than the maximum. In other words, the improvement in speed for the same absolute load that is not the maximum that the subject can lift will mean an improvement in performance, which will translate into an improvement in the maximum load that can be lifted in an exercise at the same speed. (speed typical of competition exercises)

If the speed improves with what is considered the maximum load, it is because it is not the maximum load, and, therefore, this means that you will be able to lift another somewhat larger load. The speed with the maximum load cannot be improved because it is the own speed of the RM of the exercise in question.

How can you strength train?

Strength training has three options:

1. Train with non-specific but useful exercises. This would have as its objective and effect the improvement of the maximum force applied before any load, and even, due to the fact of being useful exercises, it should have a positive effect for the improvement of speed before the specific competition load.
2. Train with the competition exercise or with one very similar, but with extra opposition to the movement. Given the similarity that the exercise used is supposed to have with the competition exercise, we could call this alternative specific strength training.
3. Train with the competition exercise. This type of training has never been called, and probably never will be, called strength training, but it is certainly a very important route to strength improvement. Naturally, in this case we could also call it specific strength training.

Training for the improvement of maximum strength and RFD with non-specific but useful exercises

training goal

Improve the maximum force applied to any load, including the competition load. It is nothing more than repeating the objective of strength training, how could it be otherwise. However, it would be pertinent to add that in this improvement of the maximum force applied each, the improvement of the RFD must necessarily be included. All training that produces an improvement in the maximum force applied to a load necessarily implies an improvement in the RFD: if the same load moves faster, it will be because more force has been applied to it in less time, since the distance is the same, and this is nothing more than improving the RFD: improvement of force production in the unit of time.

This will always happen. It doesn’t make any sense, and it would be an inadmissible mistake, to say, pretend, propose… that “maximum force” is going to be trained, not RFD (in training jargon it is more likely that “explosive force” would be said in instead of RFD, but has the same meaning).

Naturally, the way of training, especially the degree of fatigue generated in the series, may cause greater effects when faced with some magnitudes of loads than with others, that is, with some speed values ​​than with others, and for this reason the RFD can improve more before some loads or others. If before light loads the maximum force applied does not improve, that is to say, if the speed does not improve before these loads, the RFD will not improve either, it can improve more before some loads and others. If the maximum applied force does not improve with light loads, that is, the speed does not improve with these loads, the RFD will not improve with these loads either, but if after that same training the maximum applied force improves with high loads, the RFD will have also improved under those loads.

It must be taken into account that the maximum RFD can be reached without the need for displacement. Therefore, training cannot be identified exclusively with the use of very light loads or with very fast movements. The improvement of the RFD is more related to the intention of applying the maximum force in the unit of time – (Behm and Sale, 1993) than to the resistance against which it acts.

The RFD can be trained with any load as long as the force production per unit of time is the maximum possible in each action.

The RFD can be trained with any load as long as the force production per unit of time is the maximum possible in each action. In this case, if the muscle activations are dynamic, the movement speed must be the maximum. Each magnitude of load, and therefore each speed of execution, may have specific ways of improving performance, such as greater or less hypertrophy when fatigue is high and the final speed in the series is low, or using light loads and few repetitions. and achieve positive effects at high speeds (maximum force applied) by a specific adaptation.

If the speed is the maximum, both the training with light and high loads produces a great neural activation, improving the stimulus frequency in both cases (Van Cutsem et al., 1998), which gives rise to a greater production of force in the time unit (RFD).

Therefore, the muscular adaptations that favor RFD are achieved with both light and high loads, which is necessarily accompanied by an improvement in the maximum applied force. Probably, the use of both types of loads is the most effective, and this, in fact, has been observed experimentally, for example, in vertical jump training (Adams et al. 1992; Fatouros et al., 2000).

Resistances or training loads to use

Anything from the minimum individual percentage, which can be extremely low, up to 90-95% of 1RM. This does not mean that all athletes or people must reach the maximum percentages indicated. Understand that “percentage” is a “degree of effort”, which is defined with high precision when determined by speed. Any resistance beyond what is commonly used could result in an increase in maximum strength. Thus the minimum percentage that would be useful to a subject cannot be determined, but in some cases it may be a very small burden. As strength potential develops, the greater the minimum percentage of training required to produce an appreciable effect is likely to be.

However, it must be remembered that the relative training intensity should not be increased as long as the increase in absolute load is sufficient for performance improvement. And we would even be in the best situation if increasing the absolute intensity, the relative intensity tends to evolve in regression.

When talking about training programming based on the needs of sports specialties, the theoretical evolution of relative intensity and other load indicators will be specified.

Repetitions per set to be performed

From 8-10 to 1. It is practically neither necessary nor desirable to go outside of this small range of repetitions per set. Although this variable is indicated only as a reference, since, as indicated, the number of repetitions should not be programmed if the speed of execution can be measured in each repetition.

The number of repetitions that each person performs will depend on the loss of speed in the programmed series.

The number of repetitions that each person performs will depend on the loss of speed in the programmed series. We know that if all the subjects did the same repetitions per set, a significant part of them would do a different training than the majority.

Effort character (CE)

From 8-10 (30-40) to 1 (2-3). It is in line with the percentages and average repetitions indicated in the two previous points, and, therefore, it does not mean that all people should reach the CE with fewer possible repetitions (number in brackets) than those proposed.

Therefore, for its correct interpretation, the indications made in this regard above must be followed. What should be added here is that, according to the numbers of this CE, the maximum possible number of repetitions in the series is never reached. Speed ​​loss in the series From 10 to 25-35% of the speed of the first repetition in the series, depending on the exercises.

the maximum possible number of repetitions in the series is never reached

This variable includes the repetitions per series and the CE: the number of repetitions per series depends on the programmed loss of speed and the characteristics of the subject, and the CE is defined by the percentage of repetitions performed before a certain loss of speed , which will be practically the same for all subjects. The maximum losses are not applicable to all subjects or to any subject when they start their sporting life

Effort Index (IE)

It probably shouldn’t be higher than 20-22. More information is needed when talking about the adaptation of training to the strength needs of the different specialties. It is worth remembering that training with light loads does not mean that the IE is lower, and therefore, it must be taken into account that for the same IE, the lower the relative intensity, the lower the loss of speed in the series.

recovery between sets

2-5 minutes. The recovery time will depend on the degree of fatigue generated in the series and the speed of the last repetition in the series. At medium and low loads, the determining factor is the fatigue generated. Before high loads it is the speed of the last repetition, even if the fatigue is not so high.

The recovery time will depend on the degree of fatigue generated in the series and the speed of the last repetition in the series.

execution speed

Maximum or close to the maximum possible before each resistance or weight.

Weekly frequency

From 1 to 3-4 times, but not more than 2 times the same exercise. As long as the muscle activation is done at the maximum speed of muscle shortening or at the maximum tension production in the unit of time, in such a way that the aim is to reach the maximum slope in the force-time curve before any useful and non-specific load. of training.

Target duration of this type of training

the whole cycle

fundamental exercise

Non-specific useful exercises. Some of these exercises are included in the section on training different exercises.

Train with the competition exercise or with one very similar, but with an extra opposition to the movement: specific strength

Training objective

Improvement of the force applied in the competition gesture. This implies improving the maximum force applied to the competition load, as well as improving the specific RFD. All of which can be expressed as improvement of the useful force: the force that allows to improve the specific performance.

Loads or degree of opposition to movement.

Slightly higher than the resistance (load) typical of competition. The magnitude of this extra load is not sufficiently defined, but it probably should not be high enough to interfere with technique. In addition, it may be more favorable for more than one magnitude of resistance to be used at different times of the cycle, although always respecting not to deviate excessively from the dynamics of technical execution (characteristic of the evolution of the force applied when performing the gesture of competition).

Perhaps the best reference to determine the load is the quantification of the loss of speed produced by the extra load applied with respect to the speed of execution without load. The question remains for future experimental investigations that can provide an answer to what are the most appropriate values ​​of loss of speed, and therefore, of extra load.

Apart from adjusting to these load indicators, it is convenient to take into account other aspects when carrying out this type of training, that failure to comply with them makes the training useless and even negative. For example, running in a straight line with drags can be more positive than doing with weighted vests, because it adjusts more to the characteristics of the race and reduces less impact on the joints.

running in a straight line with drags can be more positive than doing with weighted vests, because it adjusts more to the characteristics of the race and reduces less impact on the joints

In this way, the opposition to displacement is constant and acts during the moments of application of force in the concentric phase of each support —a determining phase in the speed of displacement—, while with the vests the eccentric phases are also overloaded, apart from the very inertia created by the weight of the thrown vest, in motion, which can introduce a strange variable in the coordination of the race.

However, if you run with changes of direction, you should use a vest or weights held with your hands, because the effect you are looking for is not only in the start of each action and in the concentric actions, but also in the braking — eccentric action— for the change of direction and sense, favoring that at the critical moment of these movements, when the RFD must be and needs to be greater, the action is hindered sufficiently, although not excessively, by the load extra added.

Apart from these possible benefits, the negative effects are minor, since the maximum speed that is reached is very low in this type of exercise. However, it is not positive to use weighted vests when doing other exercises considered specific, such as, for example, small games in soccer, because this implies, on the one hand, prolonged efforts with an extra load that can generate excessive cardiorespiratory and joint fatigue, and, above all, because it interferes with technical gestures, upsetting the relationship between distances , actuation times and displacements of the mobiles, both in acceleration and deceleration actions.

it is not positive to use weighted vests when doing other exercises considered specific

In other cases, such as hitting the ball with heavy rackets, the effect can be negative due to the serious interference it would have with the technique. Therefore, the gestures intended to improve the force of the hit through the gesture itself should not be done with ball hits, but by performing the gestures only with the heavy racket. And once recovered from these exercises, which should cause very little fatigue, in the same session the ball should be hit with a normal racket and progressive speed until the technique is adjusted again.

Another example also applicable to tennis and many other sports is the use of rubber bands as a way of resisting the execution of movements. This is a serious mistake, because the rubber does not offer resistance to movement in the initial phase of any action, but when there has already been a displacement and the speed has increased, precisely in the phase of the specific action in which less is applied. force of the entire stroke, due precisely to the high speed of the action.

Using rubber bands as a way to oppose resistance is a mistake because the rubber band does not offer resistance to movement in the initial phase of any action, but rather when there has already been a move and speed has increased.

Therefore, in the limiting phase of the action, which is the first 100-200 milliseconds before starting the movement, static or isometric phase of the action, and in the first milliseconds of the dynamic phase of the movement, the rubber is not doing no opposition, then it has no effect as an extra charge, but also when the important thing is to be capable and apply more force at a higher speed in the thrown phase of the movement (improvement of RFD at high speeds, the most difficult thing to improve) , the rubber does not allow this capacity to be trained, since the speed is low, it cannot increase, since the greater tension of the rubber prevents it.

In short, something truly counterproductive for what it does not contribute and for what it interferes with.

Another example, if a tennis player is tied a rubber band around his waist so that he can go up to the net to hit the ball and quickly return to the bottom line to repeat the action, the effect that is being produced it is partly null and largely negative. Null because the rubber does not intervene in the start of the race towards the net, a critical phase of the action, and negative because it facilitates braking when approaching the net (opposite effect to what is intended with any exercise with extra added load) and misaligns the phase of approach to the ball, decisive in the proper hitting to pass and place the ball.

The exercises considered as “specific” can cause some cases more damage than those not considered as such, and, in the best of cases, be useless.

In addition, when you return to the bottom of the track, the rubber helps you, it never acts as an extra load, but quite the opposite, as a force that facilitates the action. Actions with soccer goalkeepers that are tied to the posts with rubber bands and other similar ones have the same drawbacks.

Definitely, the exercises considered as “specific” can cause some cases more damage than those not considered as such, and, in the best of cases, be useless.

repetitions per series.

As a general rule, less repetitions than those carried out during the competition or less distance or less time, depending on the case. The objective and the reference is that there is no high fatigue and, therefore, that during the totality of the actions a significant speed is not lost from the first to the last action or repetition. Keep in mind that the goal is to improve strength, not “endurance”, although, naturally, the improvement in strength will always have a positive effect on endurance (more average speed for the same load and time or distance).

Character of the effort

It is determined by speed: slight loss of speed in the series and between series. Decreasing speed between sets or repetitions will mean reduced force applied (peak force and RFD). If possible, other criteria should be included, such as the dynamics of the execution of the technique.

Weekly frequency

As a general rule, 1-2 times a week, but this training will be applied whenever the muscle activation is done at the maximum speed of muscle shortening, in such a way that it is a question of reaching the maximum slope in the force-time curve before the competition exercise or one very similar.

Exercises:

Their own or similar.