Chapter 3
The Development Of Strength, Power And Flexibility
Merely learning the technique of the Olympic lifts with light to moderate weights will lead to an improvement in an athlete’s strength, power and flexibility during a lifter’s early training. As was noted in the previous chapter, the use of light to moderate weights actually leads to the fastest improvements in strength and power possible during the early stages of training. Therefore, the beginner does not generally need to devote special effort to developing his or her strength and power; early practice on the classical lifts alone will be nearly sufficient in this regard (a few strength building exercises are generally added to round out the program). However, the beginning lifter may well need additional training in the area of flexibility just to assume the positions that are required for the proper execution of the classical Olympic lifts.
In fact, it is vital for the athlete to have a certain degree of flexibility even to begin to learn all of the technique elements of the Olympic lifts. This does not mean that lifters (those generally not limited by lack of flexibility) deficient in certain aspects of flexibility cannot begin to learn, however. On the contrary, at least some elements of the classic lifts can and should be practiced immediately. But it is important for the coach to determine what the athlete has the flexibility to do and then not to go beyond the lifter’s capabilities in that area until his or her flexibility has improved. For example, the athlete may be flexible enough to execute the third and fourth phases of the snatch and clean but be unable to assume the proper starting position in the pull from the floor or to perform a full squat with the weight over his or her head. Such a lifter requires a crash course in flexibility while he or she is learning the limited stages of the snatch and clean, so that once adequate flexibility has been cultivated, the athlete will be able to move on to the squat version of the snatch with the bar being lifted from the floor.
In essence, the first two chapters of this book were about what to do with the body while lifting. This chapter is about how to condition the body to achieve maximum strength, power and flexibility. The chapter begins with a discussion of the role of strength and power and explains how those capacities are developed. The latter part of this chapter presents a discussion of how to develop flexibility.
Strength And Power And Their Importance In Weightlifting
Another Look at Strength Versus Technique in Weightlifting
The shared root of all weightlifting and weight throwing sports is the desire to measure strength. The elegant techniques described in earlier chapters have evolved to maximize the performance of weightlifters. Similar techniques exist in all of these weight sports, making the application of strength to the object being lifted or thrown as efficient as possible. There can be no doubt that, even in the purest of strength events, technique makes a difference. However, in focusing on the importance of developing proper technique, many people get carried away with the role of technique in the sport of weightlifting, as in other weight sports, to the point where they forget about the foundation of the sport: its function as a measure of strength. Surely the athlete who wishes to achieve success in weightlifting without technique is foolish, but the athlete who thinks that technique will make him or her a champion is engaged in pure fantasy.
There have been world champions in weightlifting who had relatively poor technique (though winning a world championship today with poor technique is all but impossible, due the high levels of strength and technique possessed by most top competitors today). But there has not ever been, nor will there ever be, a world weightlifting champion who is not incredibly strong, and the strongest man generally wins. How do weightlifters get so strong? It is the mission of this chapter to answer that question.
It is important to remember that while many who are involved in weightlifting are overly concerned with strength or technique, both are inextricably interrelated. Lack of strength makes the execution of proper technique all but impossible. If you are not properly conditioned, you cannot assume the correct positions during the execution of the lifts. For instance, if the lower back is not strong enough, an athlete will tend not to position his or her shoulders properly in front of the bar during the second phase of the pull and will tend to prematurely straighten the torso, a serious technical mistake.
Similarly, using proper technique assures that functional strength (strength that can be applied to the competitive lifts) will be developed. It will also assure that the lifter can execute maximum efforts with the lowest possible risk of injury (as we shall see, a key to developing maximal strength). So there is no choice between strength and technique. The athlete must have strength and technique, not only because they are each important in and of themselves, but also because they are important to one another.
What Is Strength?
Strength can be defined as the maximal force or torque a muscle can generate at a specific velocity and in a specific position. The velocity and positions are important because the same muscle will have a very different ability to generate force at different angles and different speeds. For an explanation of why muscle strength varies with the speed and position of contraction, see Appendix II. In this chapter we will say only that a muscle can generally generate greater force at slower speeds (the greatest force being delivered during an isometric contraction). We will also say that muscles can generate greater force at longer lengths. (However, when muscles are at their full natural length, the levers (bones) that they move are generally in a mechanically disadvantageous position in terms of translating the force they develop into functional force that can be supplied to external objects.)
What Is the Difference Between Strength and Power?
While the terms power and strength are often used interchangeably, the two are fundamentally different (although there is an area in which the two concepts can virtually overlap). Strength is simply the ability to generate force. It is a measure of that one capacity. The rate at which force can be applied is not a primary issue in measuring strength; nor is the amount of work that can be accomplished by that strength. In contrast, power is a measure of the ability to accomplish units of work within a defined period (e.g., the ability to move an object of a given weight through a specific distance within a given interval of time). It is a measure of the rate at which work can be done, not the force needed to perform that work (although it is clear that a certain amount of force is required to move an object of a given weight at a certain speed).
Since force is required to move any object, there is an element of strength involved when any animal generates power. However, both a given object’s resistance to movement (i.e., the force required to move it) and the rate of the object’s movement have an equal effect on the amount of power that is generated during a particular motion. An equation for calculating power is: weight x distance / time utilized in performing the work = power). Therefore, an athlete who moves 10 lb. at a rate of 10 feet per second (10 x 10 / 1 = 100 units of power) is just as “powerful” as the athlete who moves 100 lb. at a rate of 1 foot per second (100 x 1 / 1). However, the maximum strength and speed of these two athletes may be very different. Not surprisingly, both sprinters and weightlifters are among the athletes who generate the greatest power outputs in all of sport, sprinters because of the rate at which they move a relatively light object (the body) and weightlifters because they move heavy objects relatively quickly.
Ironically, powerlifters, who move heavier objects more slowly than weightlifters, do not generate anywhere near as much power as do weightlifters when they are performing their competitive lifts. Because of this, there are those who have argued that powerlifting should be called strength lifting instead of powerlifting, because the main function of that sport is to test strength and not power. Power is less important than strength in powerlifting. However, these are differences of a very limited degree. Both sports test and rely very much on strength.
Speed Strength and Its Importance in Weightlifting Success
In Eastern European sports circles a great deal of discussion has occurred in recent years over the characteristic of “speed strength.” Some have argued that “speed strength” is almost a separate characteristic of human ability derived completely from (neither speed nor strength) and that it may be more closely related to speed than to strength. Much of this discussion has taken place with respect to the sport of weightlifting. Weightlifters, some argue, require not just strength but also the ability to move heavy objects quickly. Therefore, the argument goes, activities that concentrate on the development of speed, not just pure strength, are critical for the training of weightlifters. As a consequence of this reasoning, some coaches have their lifters sprinting and jumping at a level that rivals track and field athletes.
Clearly the sport of weightlifting requires speed. In weightlifting an athlete needs to move the bar that is being lifted fast enough for the lifter to enjoy a split-second respite from exerting force against the bar while it continues to travel upward. This enables the lifter to get into a split or squat position under the bar and to be ready to “catch” the weight at arm’s length or on the shoulders. If a vertical bar velocity is insufficient to continue the upward movement of the bar while the lifter moves under it (and is unable to exert upward force), the bar will begin to fall as soon as the athlete stops exerting force against it, and the lifter will not be able to get into position to catch the bar.
However, a certain amount of speed is utilized in executing virtually all exercises with free weights, even when performing very simple weight training exercise, such as the ubiquitous bar curl. Yet few would argue that the bodybuilder who does curls needs to develop his of her speed strength in order to improve his or her curl. How does speed play a role in the performance of the curl? When a lifter executes a curl at a relatively slow and constant speed, he or she experiences a point at which the lift is the most difficult (referred to in the weightlifting vernacular as the “sticking point”). The lifter experiences a varying amount of difficulty at different points in the lifts because of a combination of factors: a) the joint angle; b) the direction of the resistance; and c) the length of the muscles being contracted relative to their resting length. Even the novice weight trainer discovers early on that by thinking of contracting the muscles forcefully, even explosively (as compared with contracting the muscles with just enough effort to keep the bar moving), performance in virtually every exercise, including the curl, is improved (in terms of the amount of weight lifted). This is because a certain amount of speed is built up as a result of the lifter’s greater than required effort at the early stages of the lift. This speed permits the bar to pass through the sticking point to a more favorable position in the lift before maximal difficulty is experienced.
Therefore, all things being equal, the greater the velocity of the bar when it reaches the most unfavorable mechanical point in the movement, the further away from that point will be the point at which the athlete experiences the greatest difficulty in completing the exercise. Unfortunately, all things are never equal, and the there is a point of diminishing returns in terms of generating bar velocity to get through the most difficult point in the movement.
For example, the effort required to get the bar moving at maximum speed before it reaches the worst mechanical position can be so great as to tire the muscles somewhat. In such a case, the bar is moving faster than it would have done if a little less effort had been expended at the outset of the lift, but the ability of the athlete to generate maximal force mechanically at the worst point in the movement has been compromised by the onset of fatigue. Another possibility is that the athlete has gotten the bar moving so quickly at a certain point that the muscles are unable to keep up with it and to exert their greatest force when it is most appropriate. (It is well accepted by sports scientists that it is harder to apply force to a faster moving object than to a slower moving one.) Still another problem arises if an athlete sacrifices technique when he or she tries to move the bar too fast at a point where the body is in an unfavorable biomechanical position. In such a case, greater speed may sometimes be achieved at the expense of altering the body’s position in an unfavorable manner (e.g., allowing the back to round in order to get the bar moving quickly between the floor and the height of the knees during the pull and placing the back in a less efficient position for moving the bar quickly later on in the lift) or generating an improper bar trajectory.
This discussion suggests that for every lift there is an optimal timing of the application of force to the bar. This concept of optimal timing helps to explain why there is generally a limited degree of carryover in performance from the training on one form of resistance training to another (e.g., isometric strength training does not have a complete carryover to regular weight training). Isometrics may train the muscles to contract with great force at a certain point in the movement, but the exact lines of force required during the isometric may not be the same as the lines of force required to move the bar. Moreover, the successful completion of the bar lift requires optimal timing in the application of force on the bar and the contraction of muscle groups in the proper sequence, a combination of factors that are not significant during an isometric contraction. Because of the differences in the relative import of factors that determine performance in isokinetic, isometric, variable resistance and eccentric contraction exercises, their effectiveness in enhancing the ability of an athlete to perform an exercise concentrically (i.e., lifting a bar up as a muscle contracts) is limited.
When training to improve performance in a given exercise, you must train the correct muscles through the correct range of motion, against the appropriate lines of resistance, in the right sequence and at the right tempo to get the desired effect. Generally, there is no better way to accomplish this than to perform the lift you want to improve with weights that are relatively close to what you will lift in an all out effort. The principle that muscles get better at doing exactly what they practice to do is known as “specificity of training.” Specificity of training is one of the keys to success in strength training, as it is to the training for any sport.
As was indicated earlier, weightlifting requires the athlete to get a bar moving fast enough to move under the bar before it falls very far. But faster is not necessarily better, except in terms of the body’s speed in moving under the bar ; naturally, the faster you go under the bar, the less time you spend in the unsupported phase. If a bar moves faster, it will go further before it begins to fall. Therefore, you do not need to go as low and/or to have more time to descend to get the bar. However, once an optimal speed for raising the bar has been discovered, the object is to achieve that speed, and no more, with heavier and heavier weights. It is true that increasing the speed of contraction is one important way to maintain the same bar velocity with heavier weights; in order to increase the speed of contraction, the athlete must think of attaining maximum speed, but in terms of actual bar movement, once speed in excess of that needed to get the bar to the necessary height at the necessary velocity is achieved, the athlete will simply add more weight to the bar (enough weight so that only the required speed is achieved). Since weightlifting involves the moving of heavy objects, the ability to generate force is more critical than the ability to generate velocity (though both are important).
In moving heavy objects, the speed that is achieved is more a function of strength than speed. If an object is light to a given athlete, then that athlete can move the object faster. If it is heavy, no matter how fast or springy, etc., the athlete may be, he or she will be unable to move the object, or at least unable to move it quickly over time. What a weightlifter needs is strength enough to move a heavy bar quickly enough to catch it in the desired position.
There are weightlifting analysts who argue that the proof speed is more important than strength in weightlifting is the existence of athletes who can move very heavy weights slowly but who are often unable to perform the snatch and clean and jerk with any degree of success concomitant with their demonstrated strength level (i.e., these athletes lack that elusive and desirable quality of “speed strength”). However, these arguments miss several important points. First, while it may be true that some athletes with remarkable strength may not be able to perform either the snatch or C&J at a level suggested by their strength, these results can be explained in a number of ways other than a lack of speed strength. The most obvious explanation is that such athletes lack the skill (i.e., technique) to convert their strength into outstanding performances in the competitive exercises. Another reason might be a lack of flexibility, which would preclude an athlete from employing efficient technique. Still another reason for a lack of carryover in strength is that the exercise which is regarded as an indicator of strength actually demonstrates enormous strength in muscle groups and at joint angles that do not approximate those used in the competitive lifts. Finally, there is an element of courage involved in weightlifting. While there is little real danger to a skilled lifter who misses a heavy snatch or C&J (actually far less danger than when an athlete misses a squat or bench press), many athletes are fearful of missing a snatch or C&J, because they perceive a danger. Naturally, this significantly hinders performance.
Unfortunately the 1956 Olympic weightlifting champion Paul Anderson is often cited as an example of an athlete who is classified as lacking in “speed strength.” This conclusion was reached because it has been reliably reported that Anderson performed a squat with more than 900 lb. and perhaps as much as 1200 lb. (without any of the supportive devices used by powerlifters today) and his best official C&J was “only” 440 lb.. (Today most athletes who C&J 440 lb. can only squat with between 550 lb. and 600 lb.)
The example of Paul Anderson (and that of similar athletes) is unfortunate because the “evidence” on which it is based, the logic used in the argument and the conclusion are all incorrect. Paul Anderson never squatted with anything like 1100 lb. or 1200 lb. during his competitive weightlifting career. Reports made during the period when Anderson clean and jerked 440 lb. indicate that his squat was probably somewhere in the area of 800 lb. to 900 lb. (the higher squats came later in his professional career). He never really got a chance to try the strength that he developed later in his life on the competitive platform (although he did claim a 475 lb. to 485 lb. clean in later years despite having little reason to train on the snatch or clean when he was a professional athlete). In addition, Anderson’s technique was not very efficient, even by the standards of his day. He trained by himself during most of his rise to weightlifting prominence, and his competitive career was scarcely long enough for him to develop proper technique skills. Moreover, even if Anderson had employed efficient technique, the technique of his day was far less efficient than it is today and the equipment was not as sophisticated. One of the reasons for Anderson’s not lifting more at his competitive prime in 1956 is that he already held all of the world records and had broken the world record for the total by more than 100 lb. in his brief competitive career. (It is psychologically difficult to keep pushing up the world record when you are so far ahead of the competition and lifting more than anyone ever has.)
Perhaps the most compelling argument against the example of Paul Anderson is that Anderson was exceptional by any standard of “speed strength.” At a body weight of between 320 lb. and 370 lb., Anderson was reportedly capable of broad jumping 11 feet! He raced the world record holder in the 440 yard dash in his day in a short sprint (50 yards) and lost by only two strides (without proper track shoes). His lighter weightlifting teammates, many of whom had outstanding speed in their own right, have verified Paul’s surprising speed. His schoolmates remember him not as the strongest but rather as the fastest athlete on the football team. Therefore, if Anderson’s performance in the weightlifting events was not what some think it should have been, a lack of speed strength was almost certainly not the reason. What made Paul Anderson great, what makes any weightlifting champion of today great, is his or her strength and the ability to generate high power outputs at relatively moderate speeds.
If the preceding discussion is not enough to convince you of the overwhelming importance of strength in weightlifting, then you should be aware that research suggests that speed can only be improved relatively modestly with training. You can improve the speed of your reaction to stimuli and improve on other factors which give the appearance of faster movement, but raw speed is not subject to dramatic improvements over an athlete’s career. Why would an athlete devote a great deal of energy to the development of a quality that has a limited influence on performance and is only moderately trainable?
This should not be interpreted to imply that weightlifters should not always endeavor to move the bar as quickly as possible in keeping with the application of sound technique. In fact, such an effort is critical. Research and practical experience have shown that when an athlete is thinking of moving the bar as quickly as possible, he or she is simultaneously developing strength and power (whereas pushing up a weight with no attempt at speed will build strength more than power). Rather, an athlete should understand that much of the speed he or she possesses is inherited, and the emphasis in weightlifting is on developing strength (and power at relatively low velocities).
If high strength levels and high power outputs at low velocities are appropriate goals of a weightlifter’s training, how do you get strong and powerful? That is the subject of this chapter, perhaps the most important one in this book (along with the next chapter, which deals with mental preparation for weightlifting).
How To Become Strong
There are two fundamental ways to become strong: a) to be born with a hereditary predisposition toward strength and then just let the biological processes unfold as one matures, or b) to train. Just as there are people who seem to have a great deal of natural endurance or superior memories, so there are those who are “naturally” strong. However, the stories about natural abilities, when they pertain to any faculty possessed by human beings, tend to be greatly overblown. Often, when hears of a person with an especially good memory, that person has merely found the proper ways to store information effectively, ways that can be learned by anyone else. Similarly, many naturally strong people have engaged in hard physical work or play of some sort that has developed their strength. They were often complimented on their strength at some point, then began to “test” it or to employ it in a work environment, both of which often had the effect of further improving that strength.
We will not spend any further time on the subject of being born strong for two reasons. First, you are either born strong or you are not. There is nothing you can do about natural strength except to use it. Someone who is “born” strong need not read a book about how to get that way (unless he or she wants to get strong enough to be a weightlifting champion). Second, being born strong does not seem to matter much in terms of your potential for success as a weightlifter. Why not? Born strong or not, there is only one way to become strong enough to win high level weightlifting competitions. That is to train to become strong. No one has ever been born strong enough to defeat the trained athlete (although there have been some remarkable naturally strong men and women)
It may be true that those who were born strong have at least an initial advantage in terms of developing strength. However, the good news for those who were not born strong is that nature seems to have its compensating mechanisms. Those who are naturally the weakest seem to have the greatest capacity for the development of strength. Training appears to be the great equalizer. Those who start strong are often not as highly motivated to use their gifts as those who are not naturally gifted (and motivation is far more important in terms of success in weightlifting than natural strength).
One of the goals of this book is to make strength happen for anyone who wishes to develop it. It has often been said of running that anyone can run a marathon if they are willing to train for it. I will say something similar about weightlifting. Anyone (other than persons with certain serious medical conditions that attack the muscles and/or nerves) can become very strong through proper training. (Even many people with the kinds of medical conditions mentioned above can grow stronger, or at least not lose ground as quickly if they train properly.) Perhaps more importantly, everyone can build character and self-esteem in the process of training, and that is something that, everyone , born strong or not, needs to train to develop. Let us now begin the adventure of getting strong.
The Training Effect: The Key to Developing Strength and Power
Strength is developed through generating what is known as the training effect on skeletal muscles (the muscles used to move the skeleton of the body). The concept of the training effect is better understood if you look at the more general process of biological adaptation (of which the training effect is a class or category).
The human body is constructed in such a way that it is able to expend a certain level of physical effort or be exposed to a certain kind of stimulus (e.g., stress, excitement, irritation, infection) without that effort or stimulus having any lasting material effect on the body. (For example, the body will adapt to the demands of running very slowly for a short period of time by speeding up the heart and breathing rates and by using the body’s energy stores more quickly than it would if the body were at a state of rest; then it returns to its “normal” state when the running stops, with no lasting effect on the body.) However, when the effort the body expends or the stimulus that it encounter is of a sufficient magnitude, the body often reacts by adapting itself in a way that will enable it to perform at a higher level or to withstand the stimulus more effectively with less disruption to the body’s functioning in the future.
Examples of this kind of adaptation process are endless. Let us look at just a few. When aerobic activities (endurance related activities like long distance running or cycling) are performed strenuously enough and for a long enough period, the body will adapt itself in such a way as to use oxygen and certain energy supplies within the body more effectively (e.g., by making changes in the heart muscle and the efficiency with which energy for muscular contractions is delivered). Exercise that involves intermittent muscular effort, like occasionally lifting heavy objects or frequently moving moderate weight objects will cause skeletal muscles to become larger and stronger.
The body’s ability to adapt is not limited to muscles in the heart, arms and legs. The skin adapts. Exposure to the sun (though it may have long term negative effects on the skin) reduces the tendency of the skin to burn (although not necessarily to be damaged). Similarly, many of us have had the experience of developing a callus after performing manual labor of some kind. That callus is the body’s attempt to adapt to the stress it has experienced on the skin as the result of the manual labor performed.
The body’s ability to adapt varies with the organ or function involved. For example, the iris of the eye adjusts to the level of light it encounters relatively quickly. However, it does not appear that the ability of the iris to adjust to light changes significantly upon continual exposure to light. Muscles, in contrast, have a great ability to adapt, growing larger, stronger and/or more enduring as adaptation to the stimulus encountered requires. Sometimes the body’s adaptations are not positive. Cancer is the body’s reaction to certain kinds of stimuli, as are auto-immune diseases. Unfortunately, these are adaptations that can threaten the existence of the organism.
All areas of the body that can and do adapt to a stimulus of some kind seem to have two characteristics in common. First, in order for adaptation to occur, the stimulus must be of sufficient strength. Minor disturbances in the body’s equilibrium do not seem to cause it to change, because, as was indicated earlier, the human body has the capacity for certain ranges of activity built into it. Activities and/or stimuli within those ranges are apparently “ignored” by the body. Second, stimuli beyond those necessary to cause an adaptation can have negative effects (even if a positive adaptation occurs). Working with garden tools for half an hour may stimulate the body to create calluses on ones hands. Working for three hours will also stimulate the body to form calluses, but it may also cause blisters to form on the hands. This blistering may prevent or make difficult further activity, and it may preclude (or at least delay) the formation of calluses. Similarly, the administration of a vaccine to the body (a substance that generally has a weakened form of some kind of infectious agent) will not cause the body to become outwardly ill, but it will cause the immune system of the body to alter itself in such a way that the introduction of the full strength infectious agent at a later time will have little or no negative effect on the organism. In contrast, the exposure of the body to the full strength infectious agent can threaten the body’s very survival (although if it survives, the body may not be subject to the illness again).
From this discussion of the kinds of reactions that the body can have to a stimulus, we can understand one final and crucial aspect of the body’s adaptive mechanisms. In some instances the body adapts as completely as it can (or nearly so) upon a single exposure to a stimuli that is of sufficient strength. In other cases the adaptation is incremental in nature. For example, in the case of the body’s adaptation to an infection like the measles, one exposure seems to be sufficient for the body to adapt itself in a way that prevents a person from contracting the disease for a lifetime. In contrast, retaining resistance to other kinds of diseases may require the reintroduction of the stimulus at certain intervals (e.g., the need for inoculation against tetanus infections every ten years). Further, it seems that in some cases repeated stimuli can lead to increasing levels of adaptation and in other cases adaptation can only take place to a general level (a sort of “all or nothing” kind of adaptation).
The adaptive capabilities of the body present us with the proverbial double-edged sword: the “all or nothing” side of the sword and the incremental side of the sword. The “all or nothing” side of the sword achieves complete adaptation after only one stimulus of sufficient strength. That is positive in that the stress of the stimulus need only be suffered once in order to achieve the full benefit of an adaptation. The negative aspect of the “all or nothing” side of the sword is that there is no hope of achieving a further improvement in the adaptation. The incremental side of the sword presents a dilemma of another kind. It offers the potential for repeated and ever increasing adaptations, with all of the existing potential that such progressive adaptation embodies. On the other hand, there is a need for continued exposure to the stimulus, so that any adaptations already achieved are not lost.
Skeletal muscles fall primarily on the incremental side of the sword. Adaptations to exercise tend to require relatively frequent reintroduction of stimuli in order for those adaptations to be sustained. However, progressively higher levels of adaptation can be achieved through repeated introductions of training stimuli. On a very intuitive level, the need for continual stimulation in order to maintain muscle size and function can be seen in the muscles when a limb is immobilized by a plaster cast (as when a bone has been broken). In such a case, muscles that have been used for a lifetime diminish greatly in size, strength, flexibility and endurance. When the cast is removed and activity is reintroduced, the size and exercise capacity of the muscles that move that limb tend to return to their previous level. Over time the increase in a muscle’s capacity to perform work is seen in the person who suddenly discovers, after undertaking a new kind of strenuous muscular activity, that his or her muscles have grown, stronger, larger and harder (the latter most likely from the increase in muscle size along with a decrease in the amount of body fat). As has been noted, incremental adaptation is a two way street. If stimuli of sufficient strength are not introduced often enough, the adaptations that have already been made by the body will not be maintained. Incremental de-adaptation will occur. It is interesting to note that the body seems to have a sort of internal clock that recognizes the difference between stimuli and/or adaptations that have been shorter and longer lived (this difference has been noted both in the coaching and scientific literature). This training “memory” suggests that if the body has noted repeated stresses of a certain strength, it is more reluctant to reverse its adaptation than if the stimuli has been repeated a smaller number of times.
When activity is undertaken with the express purpose of causing the body to adapt in a way that is favorable for that activity, the process is called training. In following the general principles of adaptation to a stimulus, for any kind of training to be effective, it must provide a stimulus of sufficient strength to cause an adaptation, yet not be so strong as to cause the body harm (which may come in the form of a threat to health and/or an actual barrier to the process of adaptation).
In strength training, the training effect is both measured and achieved through the manipulation of two very fundamental exercise variables: intensity—our way of talking about the strength of the stimulus—and frequency—how often the stimulus is administered. (“Volume” is often cited as the second primary training variable, but volume is only meaningful within the context of a given frequency or time interval.) These variables are in keeping with the general nature of adaptation as discussed above. The level of intensity is what gives the muscle a sufficient stimulus to cause it to adapt. A certain frequency in the application of a training stimulus is required to achieve the training effect. There are at least three reasons for this. First, a certain frequency is needed merely to maintain muscle capacity that already exists. Muscle strength will tend to return to its pre-training level unless the muscle is “reminded” to maintain its existing strength level occasionally. Second, a certain frequency of stimulation is required to catch successive peak levels of adaptation. Third, a certain frequency of stimulus is necessary to maintain the muscle’s work capacity. A training stimulus of sufficient strength to cause a positive adaptation might only be needed or accepted by the body once a week or once a month, but a failure to train at all between the periods when a new stimulus can be accepted and adapted to would be likely to result in a muscle’s losing at least some of its existing work capacity. Such a loss might result in the body being unable to withstand the training necessary to generate further adaptations without breaking down in some way in the process. The ability of the body to perform a given amount of work is related, but not identical, to its maximum capabilities. For example, while two lifters may both have the ability to lift 300 lb., one athlete may be able to lift 285 lb. 10 times with a one-minute rest between each lift while the other lifter might be able to perform the lift five times before fatiguing.
It has been established that the stimulus necessary to maintain a certain level of muscular strength is lower in frequency and/or intensity than the stimulus necessary to cause the muscle to become stronger. (The stimulus to readapt must be at least as strong as, though not necessarily greater than, the stimulus that caused the previous adaptation. Therefore, a training stimulus must be stronger than that which is necessary to maintain a given level of strength if one wishes to improve. However, the training must not so intense and/or frequent that it overcomes the body’s capacity to adapt, thereby preventing a positive adaptation and/or causing actual harm to the organism. In short, if you wish to improve your strength, you must not overtrain or undertrain.
It sounds simple. To get stronger, you must simply exercise intensely enough (i.e., provide a strong enough stimulus) and often enough to stimulate your muscles to make successive adaptations (i.e., to get stronger). Fortunately, in principle it is simple. And you should never forget that simplicity when it seems that the subject of how to design your training seems to be getting overly complex. Unfortunately, there is complexity in the process of training for strength, and it arises out of the difficulty we have in measuring the activity of training and its effects. Frequency is relatively easy to measure simply by dividing any training activities performed by time involved; an exercise session with content X done once a week has half the frequency of exercise session X done twice a week. However, no one has yet come up with a truly complete definition of intensity, and it will undoubtedly be many years before this is accomplished (despite the claims made by many experts that they have already completely or even satisfactorily defined and measured intensity).
Contributing further to the complexity of the training process is the fact that frequency and intensity interact. If intensity could be perfectly measured, the effects of exercise sessions conducted at different intensity levels but with identical frequency would be easy to compare. But how do we compare the training effects of two exercise session per week at intensity X with three session at intensity Y?
Why is the issue of intensity such a difficult one? The human body is an extremely complex organism. It operates through the interaction of many systems (e.g., nervous, endocrine), all of which operate in a somewhat different fashion, all of which possess different potentials for adaptation and all of which affect and are affected by the actions of the other systems. Moreover, no two human bodies are precisely the same. They share certain characteristics and basic methods of functioning, but they all possess inherent biological individuality. And as if these differences weren’t complicated enough, each body has already adapted to its environment in innumerable ways, so that even if two organisms started out on an identical biological basis (e.g., as identical twins), varying interactions with the environment would cause certain qualities of these organisms to diverge over time.
In my view, the failure to focus fully on the individual and that individual’s unique nature ( not ignoring his or her success) limited the development of weightlifting and other sports in the heralded sports science institutes of many former Eastern bloc countries. (Their approach rested to a certain extent on a moral and political philosophy that downplayed the role and very existence of the individual.) As great as many Eastern European countries are in weightlifting, their results in a number of areas of sports science are relatively disappointing when compared with the resources they expended. In many cases sports science contributed relatively little to the success of those sports programs. More often than not, it was the individual coaches working in local areas, generally without highly sophisticated scientific equipment, who attained the best results and pointed the sports scientists in the direction of fruitful areas of study. It appears that many of the sports research institutes concentrated on merely collecting and disseminating such results (an important function but not often one that requires any significant level of scientific sophistication).
This is not to say that such studies have no value. On the contrary, carefully performed and interpreted studies can provide us with invaluable information about the human body’s responses to training. Good coaches follow and apply research as soon as results become available. However, research cannot substitute for more basic scientific study or for judgment, creativity and experience.
Returning to the issue of intensity, while the measurable intensity may be the same from athlete to athlete and year to year, the training effect of that intensity may be different from individual to individual, within the same individual over time, and on mental and physical levels (via the differing strengths of the effect that one stimulus may have on different systems of the body). Therefore, it can be said that there is an external (and measurable) intensity, but there is also an internal component of intensity. It is this latter intensity that is so difficult to measure. There are certain objective indicators of “internal” intensity, but we are surely far from being able to know and to measure it fully.
For example, doing a certain number of snatches with a certain weight may have a training effect on several bodily mechanisms. Such training may stimulate the muscles of the legs and back to become stronger and may cause an adaptation of the connective tissues of the knees (e.g., cartilage, ligaments and tendons) to the stresses they receive. At age fifteen, the muscles and connective tissues might recuperate at the same rate from that heavy snatch. At age thirty-five, the muscles may recuperate at a rate that is 25% slower than at age fifteen. The soft tissues, on the other hand, might now require 50% longer to recuperate (or simply be stressed more than the muscles by the same workout). Therefore, when the muscles are demanding another snatch workout in order to stimulate them to further improvement or even to prevent a return to lower level of development, the soft tissues may require three more days of rest.
This difference may exist with respect to athletes of the same age for a variety of reasons. One athlete might employ a technique that creates more stress on certain tissues. Even with identical techniques and connective- tissue characteristics, one athlete, upon hitting a certain position in the lift, might experience a greater stress on the joints because of anatomical differences, resulting in different rates of stress and recuperation.
Biological differences between lifters can be equally confounding within muscles. Different blends of white and red fibers (muscle fiber “types” are explained in Appendix II) may react differently to the same training stimuli (when those stimuli are quantitatively at the same level). Different patterns of rest and levels of nutrition (and absorption of nutritional elements introduced into the body) affect lifters differently. Some lifters just seem to recuperate faster than others, and still others seem to require a lesser stimulus to respond.
Compounding the complexity presented by the various biological mechanisms that are at work when training is undertaken are psychological and emotional factors. One lifter may require a great deal of mental preparation and/or effort to perform a maximal lift, while another is able to prepare almost instantly. Similarly, one lifter may have a tendency to relax immediately after a workout while another may be “up” for hours. Therefore, one lifter may be emotionally drained for several days or even weeks after a heavy workout. Other lifters take their heavy workouts in stride. Even within the same athlete, a different approach to a workout will have different effects. I have gotten stronger going up to an absolute physical maximum more than once a week, as long as I did not become emotionally involved in the workout (i.e., I was exerting force maximally against the bar, but I could have exerted even more force if I had gotten more emotionally aroused). On the other hand, I have gotten stronger going heavy less frequently but getting emotionally worked up when I did (and of course lifting more).
One final issue that makes it difficult to track the true training effect of a given stimulus is the lag between the application of a training stimulus and the adaptation of the body to that stress. There is always some interval that separates the moment when a training effect is generated and the time when the body adapts to that stimulus. Moreover, the length of this lag is different for different bodily capacities. While this may seem like an obvious point to some trainers, it is often overlooked entirely, or the full implications of this issue are not fully considered when an athlete or coach is analyzing a response to training.
For example, the practice of a certain exercise may teach the athlete to exert his or her muscles in a particular way (i.e., sequence, force and angle) and train those muscles to become stronger as well. The learned ability to exert high levels of force through your muscles in a particular way may be fairly rapid, but the adaptation that is taking place in the muscles in response to that stimulus may take from several days to several weeks or even longer to occur. Therefore, that athlete may be able to repeat the exercise the following day with equal or greater success because of the learned ability to exert force more effectively, even though the full capacity of the muscles has not been restored.
The conclusion from the experience described above might then be “that exercise made me stronger right away, therefore I’ll do it the night before my next competition.” The magic exercise is thus performed and the athlete is not able to perform well at the competition. What has happened is that the neurological effect of the exercise is not as profound as it once was, while the effect of the bout of exercise in terms of reducing the short term capacity of the muscle is now greater. As a result, what the athlete feels on the day of the event is a temporary loss of muscle capacity but only a minor offsetting benefit in terms of neurological improvement: hence the poor performance (though the stress placed on the muscle before the competition might lead to a positive adaptation at a later date).
A similar case would be one of changing the exercises, sets and reps performed in a series of workouts, enjoying an immediate improvement and then concluding that it was the new training program that had a positive effect on performance. Instead, the muscles may still be adapting to the stresses imposed by the prior routine, with the dividend not appearing until the athlete is some weeks into the new routine. Another possibility is that the combination of the residual effects of the old routine and the effects of the new routine are causing the improvement and that one or the other of the routines alone (or in a different sequence) would not achieve the same effect.
Still another case would be an athlete concluding that his Saturday workout is going poorly because he or she has not fully recuperated from the workout done on Thursday. In fact, the body may not have had much of an opportunity to react to Thursday’s workout because it is still trying to adapt to the stimulus imposed by the workout done on the previous Saturday (an adaptation which would have been fully accomplished had the workout done on Thursday not been so severe).
The general point being made here is that the effects of lag must always be considered and must never underestimated. Calculating the lag in an athlete’s responses to specific regimens is one of the most significant steps that the coach or athlete can make in terms of learning to design effective exercise prescriptions for that athlete.
Does all of this complexity make planning a workout impossible? Of course not. What it does mean is that the same workout (measured by existing external means, such as the weight on the bar) will almost provide exactly the same benefit to two different lifters, or even to the same lifter at different times if conditions within that lifter change over time (e.g., the degree of psyche used in the workout, the age of the athlete). While the same training program or “routine” may work for a number of athletes, you should not be lulled into thinking that even similar rates of improvement mean that athletes are reacting to the workout over time in the same way in all respects (e.g., it may take a long time for differences in the effects of training to manifest themselves in terms of observable reactions or symptoms of trauma).
The purpose of this discussion is not to confuse or discourage the coach or lifter with the complexity of it all. Rather, its purpose is to alert athlete and coach to the fact that training needs to be monitored individual athlete by individual athlete. The effects of that training need to be analyzed on as many levels as possible. Adjustments must then be made as necessary in order to adapt the routine to that particular lifter at that point in time. In effect, the development of an optimal training method for each athlete is based on viewing each athlete as a unique laboratory in which experiments will be performed over time. The results of those experiments will be monitored carefully and then analyzed at length. Through this effort the most effective training methods for that particular athlete can be formulated. This is why slavishly following “cookbook workouts” (generalized workouts that prescribe a certain set of exercises, frequencies and intensities for all athletes) or computerized training plans precludes optimization of training for a particular athlete (though such approaches may produce as least some improvement in most athletes and can expand the knowledge of how to apply training principles to athletes under practical conditions by providing examples).
The need for individualization and adjustment does not diminish the importance of planning your workouts. But that planning must be done carefully and must always be the product of the best information that is available based on previous adaptive reactions to training experienced by that athlete. Therefore, the effects of any planned training on the athlete must be carefully monitored, both because such monitoring facilitates adjustments during the training session (if this is necessary) and because monitoring makes possible the development of even better training plans in the future.
A great deal has been learned about strength training over the last century. While precise individual prescriptions for optimal training cannot be made on the basis of the general knowledge thus far accumulated, our ability to make individual prescriptions has improved as general knowledge of strength training has grown. Sufficient information is now available to enable the athlete to narrow the range of his or her search for effective training methods, to begin at a point where optimal training techniques for him or her can be discovered in a relatively short time. In addition, the likelihood of making major errors while the search is on has been reduced. Consequently, substantial progress can be made while movement toward true optimization of the training process continues. Let us now turn to what is known about measuring frequency and intensity.
Three Key Variables Generate the Training Effect: Frequency, Intensity and Specificity
Three key variables act in concert to generate a training effect—frequency, intensity and specificity. Frequency is the measure of how often the training stimulus is administered and intensity is the level of the stimulus. A certain threshold intensity is required in order to generate a training stimulus and a certain level of frequency in the administration of the training stimulus is necessary in order to maintain and build on any prior training stimulus. These two concepts are very much interrelated in that within certain ranges of training frequency and intensity, the two variables complement on another. In general, as the intensity of a stimulus increases it needs to administered less frequently in order for it to achieve the same training effect. Similarly, as the frequency of the administration of the stimulus increases a lower intensity is required to generate the same training effect. However, the effects of intensity and frequency are not fully interchangeable. For example, the training effect of a maximal effort made every few days will not be identical to the effect of a lesser level of intensity repeated every day. But the effects are similar enough within certain ranges that one can often be exchanged for another.
Frequency and intensity control the level of the training stimulus but specificity controls the direction (i.e., what qualities are trained). More will be said regarding specificity in a later section of this chapter in the section the discusses the “SAID” principle. Now, let’s turn to a discussion of frequency and intensity.
Frequency
Frequency of resistance training is measured in several kinds of units. The first and most fundamental unit is the repetition. A repetition can be defined as a single completed effort at a particular exercise (although a single “repetition” sounds like a contradiction in terms). With free weights (the tools of weightlifting training and competition), there is normally a concentric and an eccentric contraction of the muscles being exercised in each repetition. The concentric contraction occurs when the resistance (weight) is being lifted, and the eccentric contraction of the exercise occurs when the resistance is being lowered. It may seem contradictory to call the lowering of the resistance an eccentric “contraction” since the muscle is not actually shortening in length (contracting) during that process. Nevertheless, the muscles are working to control the weight during the lowering process; hence the convention of calling such a process a contraction. It should be noted that there has been a relatively recent movement in the scientific community to change the convention from “muscle contraction” to “muscle action” for this very reason. (Under this system, concentric and eccentric actions would replace the terms concentric and eccentric contractions.)
When they exercise, weightlifters sometimes do what are known as “partial movements or lifts” because these exercises represent only a portion of the range of motion that is achieved by doing the full exercise. In such a situation, a repetition consists of moving the weight through the entire partial movement that was intended.
Putting aside the technical rules of competition, a lift is considered completed when a weight has been raised in the desired way. (Most exercises involve lowering the weight as well, whether in preparation for raising it, as in a bench press or squat, or by lowering the bar after raising it to prepare for another repetition, to replace the weight on the floor, or to replace it on a supportive device that holds the weight in preparation for lifting it.) A repetition in other kinds of resistance training (e.g., isometric, isokinetic) is defined somewhat differently. (Those kinds of training are described in a later section of this chapter.)
As noted earlier, calling a single effort a repetition may seem incongruous, but resistance training often involves repeating an exercises two or more times, so the nomenclature of “repetitions” has simply become part of worldwide weightlifting language. Almost everyone in the weightlifting culture uses the abbreviation rep(s) for repetition(s). Often one lift is referred to as a “single.,” two reps as a “double” and three reps as a “triple.” Beyond three reps, the lifter usually refers to a series of repetitions by the actual number of reps performed, e.g., “five reps” or “a set of five,”
However, repetitions have a broader meaning than just how many times a lift was performed. They imply that a relatively short period time has elapsed between the performance of each repetition. For example, if a lifter raised and lowered a bar from the shoulders to arm’s length overhead using only arm strength (in an exercise called the press), that would be considered a repetition. If he or she repeated the lift instantaneously or within a few seconds of lowering the bar to the chest, everyone would agree that two reps had been performed. Even if the lifter waited as long as ten or twenty seconds, with the bar on his or her shoulders between repetitions, the lifter would generally be credited with two repetitions. In contrast, if the lifter performed the lift once, placed the bar on a holder (usually referred to as a “rack”) and then returned some minutes later to repeat the lift, that lifter could not claim to have performed two repetitions with the weight in question in lifting circles. Rather, the lifter would be regarded as having performed two “singles” or two “sets” of one repetition each.
What is the distinction between a set and a rep? When a lifter talks about having performed a certain number of reps, the lifter is referring to a series of lifts done with little or no rest in between. “I did four reps with 300 lb.” is shorthand for “I lifted 300 lb. four times without giving my muscles any significant time to rest in between those lifts.” A series of repetitions performed without significant rest is called a “set..” For example, while training, a lifter might perform four lifts with a given weight. Those lifts could be performed in one series of four repetitions, two sets of two repetitions, a combination of a single rep and one set of three reps or four sets of single repetitions. Why is the distinction important?
There are at least two reasons. One reason is that performances are judged partially by whether an athlete has lifted a weight a certain number of times in one as opposed to several sets. The second reason is that different physiological effects arise from lifting the same weight for several repetitions as compared to several sets with one repetition each. The muscles become fatigued during exercise that exceeds a certain level of difficulty, thereby temporarily losing their ability to function to some extent. After a maximum effort at lifting a weight, a significant percentage of muscle function can be recovered within thirty seconds and nearly all of muscle function in two to three minutes. If a lifter says that he has lifted 300 lb. for five singles in a row without a miss, it suggests that the lifter has mastered that particular amount of weight to the point that it can be repeated without missing. The ability to perform singles with a given weight suggests that this weight may be somewhat below the lifter’s maximum, in that it is difficult to perform an all out effort five times in succession with or without a miss. On the other hand, many lifters have achieved such technical proficiency and superior conditioning that they are able to handle weights that are in the range of 97% to 99% of their maximum in such a way. In contrast, in order for a lifter to perform an exercise with a particular weight for five repetitions (i.e., without a rest between lifts), the weight in question can be no more than 85% to 90% of that lifter’s all out maximum single lift. If the percentage were any higher, the fatigue of each rep would build to a point where no more repetitions would be possible before five repetitions were achieved. Consequently, it is generally far more meritorious for a lifter to perform five reps with a weight than five single lifts.
Naturally, the longer the rest a lifter takes between repetitions, the more chance there is for the lifter to recuperate fully unless the lifter is supporting the weight between repetitions. If the lifter takes very long between repetitions, and particularly if the lifter is in a state of rest between repetitions (e.g., the weight has been returned to a resting position on the floor or a rack in between repetitions), the repetitions become more like sets. Where is the dividing line between sets and reps? There is no formal definition, but most lifters perform their repetitions with only one to a few seconds in between. When the rest period gets any longer than seven to ten seconds, the nomenclature “repetition” becomes suspect. By thirty seconds, virtually everyone would agree that repetition is no longer the proper term, or that the nature of such a repetition is so different from the ordinary definition of the term as to render it unrecognizable as a rep. In other words, any lifts done would be classified as part of different set.
The intervals between sets generally fall between two to five minutes, but the interval can be shorter if the weights being lifted are sub-maximal (or the lifter is warming up or training primarily to build muscle size, as in bodybuilding) and/or if the number of repetitions in each set are low (usually one or two). The time span between sets can also be longer than five minutes when exercise is particularly intense and if the repetitions in each set are relatively high (ten or more, but more often twenty or more). Also, the purpose of training governs the rest periods to a certain extent. Those athletes whose ambition is to achieve maximum muscular size find that shorter rests between sets seem to facilitate acquisition of muscular size, while longer rests seem to develop more strength without size. In short, bodybuilders tend to seek the aching and swollen feeling (the now famous “pumped” feeling) that comes from more repetitions in a set and shorter rest intervals in between the sets performed. Weightlifters and powerlifters tend to avoid feeling “pumped” because pumping a muscle has at least he immediate effect of compromising that muscle’s ability to lift maximum weights. Moreover, while there also appears to be some correlation between the pumped feeling during a workout and the muscle growth that a workout stimulates, there appears to be little or no such relationship between the pump and the development of strength.
When sets are punctuated by rests of more than five or ten minutes, there tends to be a subjective feeling (that appears to be supported to an extent by research) of no longer being warmed-up (more will be said about warming up later in this chapter). Therefore, lifters rarely rest more than five minutes between sets. When some unusual situation necessitates a longer rest, the lifter will often take a set with a lighter weight than was previously being used, in order to prepare for a heavy exertion once again.
One way to increase the intensity of a workout with the same weight is to decrease the rest taken between sets and reps over time. When an athlete can perform a certain weight with virtually no rest between reps and only one to two minutes between sets, the weight can be increased and the rest between reps and sets increased to permit the lifter to handle the increased load. When this approach is used, it should be carefully recorded so that the lifter will be able to compare training intensities achieved in different periods and under different timing conditions.
When the rest between exercises grows to be in the thirty-to-sixty minute range or longer, most trainees consider the next time a weight is lifted to mark the beginning of a new training session or workout. Many advanced weight trainers have two or more workouts per day. The advantage of such training is not so much that the athlete works out more overall (although this is certainly true in most cases), but rather that by dividing a day’s training in such a way, the lifter can be “fresh” for each session. As a practical matter, it is difficult for an athlete who is exercising intensely to be able to perform with his or her full energy and attention for hours on end. By dividing what would otherwise be a three or four hour workout into two or three sessions of an hour or an hour and a half, the athlete tends to be able to perform at a higher level overall. Some research in Eastern Europe has even suggested that exercise aimed at increasing muscle strength and size is better performed during periods when certain hormones (notably testosterone) are elevated (which, they argue, begins fifteen or twenty minutes into a hard workout but seldom lasts an hour). The existence of this precise pattern of hormone elevation has yet to be confirmed by experiments in the West (where equipment tends to be substantially more accurate); nor has a link between the timing of any hormone elevation and a training effect been demonstrated scientifically. Regardless of the true link between hormone variations and the training effect, this theory may have some merit, because brief and intense workouts seem to be of significant practical value.
It should be noted that repetition, set and workout are far from the only intervals used to measure frequency. You often see frequency measured in terms of days, weeks, months and years. And these intervals do not exhaust the possibilities.
Now that we have defined exercise frequency in terms of the intervals of repetition, set and workout or session, etc., how can we define and measure intensity?
Intensity
While proper training frequency plays a major role with respect to maintaining and improving long term results from training, the intensity of an exercise session is perhaps the most important key to how a particular bout of exercises affects the organism, both in terms of the extent to which it stimulates an adaptation (from not at all to substantially) and the nature of that adaptation.
Consider how the intensity of an exercise effort controls its training effect. If a muscle experiences great resistance in contracting, it may not be able to move the limb to which the muscle is attached. If the effort made to move the limb is great, it cannot be sustained for very long. However, that effort will have a training effect on the muscle that will cause it to become stronger in positions similar to the one in which the limb is placed during the contraction effort. There will no discernible training effect on the endurance capabilities of the muscle (other, perhaps, than its ability to exert considerable effort for a longer period of time than before). There will also tend to be little effect on the size of the muscle.
If, in contrast, a exercise performed by a given muscle is very difficult and is accompanied by movement, the muscle will tend to become stronger as a result of the exercise, but if the effort is such that it cannot be repeated more than one or two times, the primary effect of that exercise on the muscle will be to make it stronger (throughout a greater range of motion than the effort in which the limb could not move). Training accompanied by a full range of limb movement tends to stimulate a greater increase in muscle size than the contractile efforts with the limb fixed.
In terms of exercise performance, differences in the speed with which individual reps are performed can yield different results. Moving a given weight as fast as possible requires a greater volitional effort than moving the same weight at a more “comfortable” speed. Maximizing the speed with which each rep is performed also improves power more effectively then training at more moderate speeds. However, in contrast, moving a weight at slower than normal speed can cause create greater tension in a muscle group than does moving that same weight at a more comfortable speed, thereby affecting intensity. (Developing greater tension in a muscle that is being exercised appears to increase the training effort generated by that training session.)
If the resistance during the contraction is reduced to the point where ten or fifteen repetitions can be performed, the effect on strength, as expressed by one all out effort, will be smaller than when more resistance is used, but the effect of the exercise on the size of the muscle will be more profound. If the resistance is lowered still further, to the point where 100 repetitions are possible, the set of exercises will tend to develop muscular endurance more than size or strength. Finally, if the resistance is lowered enough to perform thousands of repetitions, the effect of the training, if it is strenuous enough, is essentially aerobic (the ability of the heart and lungs to withstand sustained exercise will be enhanced, as will muscular endurance). Of course if the body is not required to perform at a certain threshold of effort (e.g., if the athlete lifts a weight that could be lifted fifty repetitions for one or two reps), no training effect on any of the body’s capacities will occur. So it is intensity, as much as or more than any other element of exercise, that determines its training effect. How are the combined efforts of frequency and intensity measured?
In the real world, frequency and intensity cannot be isolated. Every rep of every set contributes both intensity and frequency to an athlete’s training. Moreover, frequency and intensity interact to constitute the overall training stimulus. How is the training stimulus measured?
Measuring the Training Stimulus
Over the years the strength of a given training stimulus has been measured in a number of ways. Early strongmen tended not to attempt to measure the strength of the training stimulus in a very scientific way. They simply learned that in order to get stronger, you must continually attempt to lift more. These pioneers realized that by attempting to lift a certain weight over and over again, you could eventually overcome weights that seemed entirely intractable at an earlier point. Depending on their philosophical premises, some of these men interpreted ultimate success purely as a triumph of the will and others as an adaptation of the body, while still others (the ones who were closer to the truth) saw improvements as a combination of both of these elements. Some of these early strongmen tried to develop “routines” or patterns of exercise that were repeated at specific intervals (e.g., certain exercises might be performed every day). Others trained less systematically, performing the exercises that they felt like doing on a given day.
Regardless of their approach to training, early strongmen also recognized that you could not be at your best every day, nor should you try. Some took off long periods from their training from time to time. Others merely had easy periods of training. Still others made a practice of changing their training regimens periodically to avoid stagnation. During the 1930s and 1940s, perhaps earlier, the weight training literature began to talk with regularity about the need for lighter and heavier days in training. However, more often than not, workouts were varied by focusing on different repetition schemes and/or exercises. For example, a lifter might lift bars on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and dumbbells on Tuesdays and Saturdays. In addition, the athlete might work on sets of ten repetitions on Monday, five repetitions on Wednesday and try heavy single efforts on Fridays. In this way, both the nature and strength of the training stimulus were varied in some way from workout to workout.
Early weight trainers also recognized the need to avoid working on the basis of “nerve.” It was recognized that by exciting the nervous system you could lift more on a given day and that such all out efforts might have a beneficial effect on the development of strength. Yet it was also recognized that if an athlete trained that way during every workout, he or she would eventually become exhausted, and progress would cease (or the athlete might even regress).
When the Eastern Europeans began to take a more “scientific” approach to analyzing training in the postwar years, they began to focus on measuring more effectively the strength of the training stimulus. Unfortunately, as with so much “science” of the time, the focus on measurement led to an assumption that if it could not be measured, it was not real or important. This fallacy became common in the social sciences and in business during the same period, hurting development in these areas at least as much as it helped.
The Soviets (the overall leaders in studying the sport of weightlifting in Eastern Europe) began by measuring what they called the “volume” of training. This was done simply by adding up the total amount of weight that was lifted during a given period. The Soviets hypothesized that the amount of total work done would correlate with the training effect and that, eventually, patterns of successful training volumes would emerge and could then be duplicated. It took a number of years for them to conclude that the total tonnage lifted in training had a very limited relation to improvements in an athlete’s performance (something less quantitatively oriented analysts had concluded many years before). After all, a man who loads a truck with fifty-pound sacks of sand all day lifts far more in terms of total tonnage than the hardest training weightlifter, yet he is not nearly as capable of lifting heavy objects (technique aside).
The next method that became popular in measuring the strength of the training stimulus was calculating the average weight on the bar, referred to as the absolute intensity. It was felt that there was a correlation between the average weight lifted and the performance of the athlete. This average weight was later used to measure the intensity of the training of Olympic lifters by comparing the average weight on the bar to the biathlon result of the lifter (the result was called a K value). It was believed that if one lifter was training with an average weight that was equal to 40% of his biathlon result while another was training with an average of 35%, the former was training more intensely (i.e., at a greater level of training stimulus) than the other.
Subsequently, some analysts began to realize that even average and relative intensities were of limited value as a measure of the training stimulus because the exercises that athletes performed varied so much. For example, in Olympic lift training, the average weight on the bar could be very high if an athlete happened to perform many exercises in which there was a potential to lift more than in the snatch and clean and jerk (e.g., squats and pulls, exercises that are described fully in Chapter 5). To overcome this problem, analysts began to measure the percentages of the workouts that were devoted to various exercises. It was assumed that if two athletes were performing similar exercises for similar percentages of their workouts, the intensities of their workouts could be validly and reliably compared.
Over time, the weaknesses of those “average” (whether in terms of average weight on the bar or relative to some other value) measures of intensity began to be understood. Even if averages were adjusted in some way to recognize the blend of exercises that was done, the problems with using averages could not be fully overcome. For example, a lifter could attain the same average training loads by handling only the average weight, by performing equal numbers of lifts with a weight that was 10% above and 10% below the average weight or by performing a nearly infinite number of other combinations that resulted in the same average weight. When it was realized that the distribution of the training load was important, perhaps as important as the average training weight, pure average measures of training intensity began to lose favor. In recent years such averages have come to be regarded as a less important indicator of the training stimulus than was previously thought.
It is interesting to note that a relatively recent major publication by a very well known coach from the Soviet Union suggests that the average weight lifted is a measure of training quality that is inappropriately overlooked. The argument made by the author is that there is perhaps no measure that correlates more closely with a lifter’s progress than the increase in the average weight on the bar during training. The limitations of the “average weight on the bar” measure of training intensity have already been discussed, but this coach’s argument is fallacious for still another reason. While there is no doubt that there is a correlation between the average weight on the bar that a lifter uses in training and his or her maximal performances, the reasoning that the author has used is a classic non-sequitur (an argument that does not follow from the facts). His argument is analogous to saying that there is a correlation between the amount of money made by a Wall Street investor and the increase in the amount that he or she invests. The end prescription would then be: “to make more, simply invest more.” Instead, the real question is what is increasing the amount that the investor has to invest? It is more likely to be the judgment of the investor than the mere quantity of the money invested, both because the investor has more money to invest as a result of previous gains and because he or she has attracted new investors on the basis of his or her previous record of success. Similarly, to lift more, a lifter does not necessarily try to increase the average weight on the bar during training. Rather, the athlete focuses on improving functional capacity, and this results in the lifter’s capabilities improving sufficiently to enable him or her to train with a higher average weight on the bar.
The mainstream Soviet response to the deficiencies in the “average weight on the bar” method of measuring intensity was to begin to measure workouts in terms of “zones of intensity.” Zones of intensity generally involve the counting of the number of repetitions performed at 90% or more of the athlete’s maximum in that exercise, 80% to 89%, 70% to 79%, 60% to 69% and 50% to 59%. (Weights below 50% of maximum are not considered to be worth measuring because they seem to be unable to stimulate strength gains and because comparatively little overall training time is spent with them today ; in fact, weights below as much as 80% of maximum are excluded from consideration by some coaches.). The coaches count the number of reps in each zone and compare workouts in terms of the number of lifts done with weights in each zone. (Zones based on an athlete’s best performance in that exercise are set up for each classical exercise.)
While the use of zones is clearly an advance in training measurement, such a measurement system still leaves much to be desired. One problem with such a system is that there is no distinction between lifts that are performed with substantial rest in between and those that are performed in immediate succession (e.g., five singles versus five reps with the same weight). This difference in performance method has a great influence on both the degree of stimulus provided by exercise in a given zone and the specific adaptive mechanisms in the muscles influenced. A second limitation of the zone method of measurement is that is does permit us to draw conclusions about the overall training process of all exercises combined (e.g., ten squats performed in zone 1 will not affect the body in the same way as ten cleans performed in the same zone). While the zone method does enable us to compare the workouts of two athletes more effectively than many other methods, for reasons mentioned earlier, the same pattern of relative intensity will have different effects on the organisms of different lifters (and even on the same lifter over time).
A further difficulty in quantifying the training stimulus is that no intensity measure has yet been devised which can quantify the effect of a given training session on technique. A lifter could be performing a certain number of lifts in a given zone, but due to improper technique, the training session could be stimulating the muscles to perform in a sequence and a direction that will never be useful while the lifter is performing a correct lift. Therefore, the training effect will be virtually useless in terms of advancing competitive performance (which is one reason why two lifters can appear to train at the same intensity and one will improve while the other does not). Finally, no measure that currently exists and no method is likely to be developed for a long time to come to quantify the mental effort that goes into a given lift.
In recent years the Bulgarians have made what they consider to be an advance in terms of measuring and planning the amount of stimulus to apply in a given training session. They reportedly no longer measure percentages or plan workouts using percentages or zones (at least in the traditional sense). Instead, they plan each workout session as it unfolds by having the athlete work up to a maximum for that day. When it is clear to the coach just what that maximum is (the lifter may be allowed to miss several times in attempting to establish that day’s maximum), the coach then prescribes a series of sets and reps (usually doubles and singles) that involves working within 5 kg. to 20 kg. of the maximum and working up to it again once or twice. In this way the athlete is always working with a weight that is near his or her maximum for that day. The Bulgarians then simply look at the total number of reps performed in a session, a day, a week, a month or a year in comparing workouts. Since workouts are always similar in content (the Bulgarians only use a few exercises in their training and generally use only one or two reps), they feel that comparisons of this type are sufficient.
We are probably at least some years away from being able to measure accurately the training effect of different exercises on the body. We are also some time away from being able to compare precisely the training of two different athletes because of the different effect that the same program of exercises, frequencies and intensities will have on two different athletes. Breakthroughs in these areas will probably not occur until we are able to measure accurately the response of the entire organism (or at least most of it) to a particular training effort. It will be a much longer time before we are able to quantify the training effect of a particular routine when the technique employed in that routine is not precisely the same as the technique used in the competitive exercises when they are perfectly performed. However, I believe that some improvements can be made in the measurement of training intensity without any sophisticated technological improvements.
First, instead of using zones as they are today, these zones could be further refined by subdividing them in accordance with the number of reps performed in a given exercise. Today, an athlete who performed a set of 5 in the squat with 87% of his or her best single would be credited with having performed 5 lifts with 87% of his or her maximum. If the same athlete were to perform 5 singles in the squat with the same weight, he or she would get the same “credit” under the zone system. Clearly, the merit and the training effect of the two exercise sessions would be completely different. Five singles with 87% of the lifter’s best would at best maintain his or her present condition. A set of 5 with 87% would constitute something close to an all out effort, which might well stimulate the body to improve. Here is why. When a lifter is performing a set of 5 repetitions, each rep gets progressively more difficult because the body is becoming more and more fatigued from the previous reps done in that set. Therefore, the first rep in a set of 5 with 87% would indeed require the same effort as a single with that weight. However, the second rep, because of the fatigue caused by the first rep, might have a perceived effort (and perhaps a concomitant training effect) equivalent to performing a single with 88.5%; the third rep might be like a single with 90.5%, the fourth rep like a single with 95% and the last rep like a single with 100%. Is it reasonable to treat such a set like five singles with 87%? In addition, is it reasonable to consider five singles and five reps synonymous when the degree of mental preparation for a set tends to be greater than the amount of preparation that takes place between reps?
There are those who will argue that comparing different patterns of reps is pointless because doing five reps with 87.5 kg. does not prove that a person can do one rep with 100 kg, and they have a point. The technique used with the 87.5 kg. (at least on some of the reps) might be such that if any weight had been added to the bar, the lifter would have failed. In addition, some lifters are either very efficient at doing reps (learning to rest just the right amount between reps to maximize their performance, etc.) or are very poor at doing singles (being intimidated by heavier weights, having trouble concentrating prior to the lift, etc.).
Critics of comparing reps with singles also argue that while the perceived effort on the last rep of a set of five might be 100%, the training effect on the muscles and/or the exact fibers used is not the same as that which would be used to do a single with 100%. Again, these critics have a point. However, I would argue that any inaccuracy that exists in comparing performances done with reps and singles is substantially smaller than the inaccuracy that exists in ignoring the differences altogether.
Moreover, most of the shortcomings of comparing sets with different numbers of reps can be controlled once you know a particular athlete reasonably well. For example, most athletes have relationships between reps and singles that fall within the following ranges: 5 reps with 85% to 90% of best single; 4 reps with 86% to 91%; 3 reps with 89% to 92%; and 2 reps with 94% to 97%. There is a tendency for these relationships to remain constant for the same athlete over time, at least with respect to the same exercises. An exception to this tendency occurs when the athlete specializes in one pattern of reps to the exclusion of most others (in which case he or she will tend to become relatively more efficient at the practiced rep pattern). The argument that the training effect of reps vs. singles is not identical is simply a further reason for measuring the two kinds of exercise separately, instead of aggregating them all into a zone. This does not preclude aggregating all lifts (whether singles or reps) into all sets in order to gain some overall measure of the work done. Rather, it suggests that separate records should be kept for purposes of analysis of the content of a lifter’s training.
In order to perform the proper analysis, records should be kept of the full range of zones for each pattern of repetitions from 1 to 6, with perhaps one additional zone assigned to the unusual instances in which repetitions in excess of 6 were employed. If an athlete did a single with a weight that was equal to 90% of his or her best single, the lift would be assigned to the 90% zone of the “singles” set of zones. If that same athlete did a triple with 90% of his or her best triple, the lift would be assigned to the 90% zone of the triples set of zones.
As long as separate reps are tracked, the coach can evaluate workouts on the basis of “equivalent” reps and actual reps. That is, the coach can convert an actual set of 5 reps to five equivalent singles. This is done by dividing by the percentage of that lifter’s one-rep maximum in that exercise being lifted in by a decimal representing the percentage of a single rep maximum that can typically be performed by that athlete in that exercise for that number of reps.
As an example, consider an athlete who has the relationship of reps to singles in the squat described earlier (i.e., the athlete can generally perform 87% of his or her single rep maximum for 5 reps, 88.5% for 4 reps, 90.5% for 3 reps and 95% for 2 reps). In such a case, the fifth rep in a set of 5 is divided by .87, the fourth rep by .885, the third rep by .905 and the second rep by .95. (The first rep is equivalent to a straight single, so it is divided by 1.0, i.e., it remains the same). Therefore, if this athlete performed a set of 5 reps with a weight equal to 87% of his or her best single, it would convert to the equivalent of 5 singles, one each with 87% (the first rep), 88.5% (the second rep), 90.5 % (the third rep), 95% (the fourth rep) and 100% (the fifth rep). Similarly, a set of 5 reps performed by this athlete with a weight that was 80% of his or her maximum would convert to equivalent singles of 80%, 84.2%, 88.9%, 90.4% and 92%, for the first through fifth reps, respectively.
Another important area in which current methods of workout intensity measurement are very poor is in comparing different exercises. While perfect comparisons cannot be made at present (due to our inability to measure the effect of a given exercise on all of the bodily systems), we can do a much better job than we are currently doing. For example, it is clear that a squat clean has several components to it. One is the pull (the first four stages of the lift), another is the squat under and finally there is standing up from the position. In order to simulate (though not duplicate) the training effect with other exercises, you would need to do a clean pull, a front squat with a bounce at the bottom and some kind of technique exercise (such as a dead hang clean or “going under” exercise from the standing position); these exercises are explained in Chapter 5. While most lifters and coaches recognize that a set of high pulls and a set of cleans are not the same, few take the time to analyze the differences and to plan their training so that the correct blend of pulling, moving under, catching and front squatting up is substituted for cleans. It may well be true that the coach prescribes a certain exercise because he or she feels that the lifter requires more work in one element of the clean than another, but often the full implications of changing exercises are not thought through, and something is overlooked in the transition. (For example, the coach may prescribe pulls and front squats instead of cleans to save the lifter a respite from catching cleans in the squat position but fail to prescribe an exercise to preserve practice in moving under the bar, even though the coach would agree that the lifter needs the practice.) In planning and analyzing training, the athlete and coach must therefore carefully break down all of the components of an exercise in order to understand better its effects on the organism of the athlete.
Different Responses to Training in Different Muscle Groups
One final area of training stimulus and response that deserves attention is that of the different responses of different muscle groups to the same kind on training. Muscle groups vary in terms of their ability to return to maximal performance levels after a given bout of exercise. It is not clear whether this is true because some muscle groups are less easily torn down than others or because there are differences in the speed of recovery from a stimulus, or because both of these factors are at work. It is also not clear whether the degree of rest that each muscle group enjoys in the natural course of events between workouts is a factor in recovery time. We do not know all of the answers, but it clear is that there are differences and that some guidelines regarding those differences do exist.
As a rule, smaller muscle groups recover more quickly from a workout session than larger muscle groups. Muscle groups that are activated more frequently in daily life appear to recuperate more rapidly from a training session than those that work less often. For instance, the calves and forearms appear to recuperate more quickly than the thighs. There is some evidence that white muscle fibers recover from a bout of exercise more slowly than red muscle fibers. In addition, the body appears to recover more rapidly from high and low rep sets than from sets in the middle range of reps (a maximum single or set of twenty will not impair an athlete’s strength level for as long as a maximum set of five reps). Partial movements appear to require less recovery time than full movements. Finally, the muscles of the lower back and thighs appear to be among the muscle groups that are the slowest to recover from a training session.
The degree to which these differences exist will vary from lifter to lifter, but it is unlikely that lifters recover at an equal rate in all areas of the body. Therefore, a pattern of frequency and intensity that works well for the arms may have limited value for training the shoulders, and if both muscle groups were exercised solely with a lift that used both muscle groups equally, one group would might not be trained hard enough and another might be trained too hard. Similarly, a pattern of sets and repetitions that worked well for training the press of a particular lifter might have no positive effect on that lifter’s squat. As a result, training sessions for each muscle group need to be planned individually if the optimal training effect for the entire body is to be achieved.
In addition, the overall intensity presented by a given training session needs to be evaluated for each muscle group, because different exercises may affect the same muscle group (albeit in different ways). To say that an athlete has performed a given load in the squat with varied degrees of success does not address the issue of whether the athlete has been exposed on these different occasions to varying loads on the leg muscles because of the presence of other exercises that worked the legs (e.g., on one occasion the athlete was doing a large load in the squat clean and on another the athlete was not). If the lifter repeated the same loading scheme in the squat without performing the same workload in the squat clean, perhaps the results would not be as good. Alternatively, if more deadlifts were added to the routine, the lifter’s lower back might be so fatigued as to cause an injury (a phenomenon which was not previously encountered with the use of the same squat routine in the past).
Another reason for differences in the response of different muscles to the same exercise is that different physical qualities are trained with different exercises. For example, the full squat is training the concentric capacity of the quadriceps muscles through a full range of motion and the eccentric capacity of those same muscles at a lower level of effort. (You can descend in the squat with more in the squat than you can stand up with). In addition, the lower back muscles are being isometrically contracted, generally at a sub-maximal level during both the concentric and eccentric portions of the squat.
The snatch is training the concentric contractile power of the quadriceps (but generally through a different range of motion and with maximal stress of the quadriceps muscles at a different joint angle than in the squat). It is also training the spinal extensors in a sub-maximal isometric fashion; when the bar moves from the floor to knee level, the position of the back remains essentially the same, and there is a partial concentric contraction of those muscles as the bar passes the knees. There are then a partial concentric contraction of the quadriceps and partial and isometric contractions of the trapezius muscles).
Many muscle groups and types of work are left out of the preceding analysis but the point should be clear. Different muscle groups are stressed in different ways by these exercises (not to mention the fact that different speeds of motion and motor skill complexity are involved). Therefore, it should not be surprising that identical set, rep and intensity patterns may yield different results on these different exercises. Once a coach or athlete is aware that differences exist, he or she can begin to search for the training stimuli that are optimal for each exercise and area of the body instead of searching for the universal training program that is optimal for all forms of weight training.
The Overall Challenge of the Training Stimulus
Measuring the training stimulus is perhaps the most difficult challenge for the coach and athlete. And the task cannot be accomplished without the participation of both parties. In many cases it is only the coach who is skilled at analyzing quantitative indicators of the training stimulus. However, only the athlete is in a position to report perceived effort (although the experienced coach will be able to estimate an athlete’s perceived effort over time by observation of that athlete). The athlete and coach must always consider as many factors as possible in analyzing and planning training. Factors which cannot be measured easily precisely may exist nonetheless. The fallacy of ignoring what cannot presently be measured (or measured precisely) puts an athlete at peril in terms of his or her chances for success. The athlete and coach must work together as a team to optimize the training process.
The “SAID” Or Specificity of Training Principle
Next to understanding how intensity and frequency work together to create the training effect, SAID is perhaps the most fundamental and powerful concept of training. SAID stands for “specific adaptation to imposed demands.” What does SAID mean? It means that the body’s adaptation to the training stress is very specific to that stress.
At least some of the reasons for the specificity of the body’s response to training are now understood on a scientific level, and Appendix II presents the science behind the principle. At this point it is sufficient to say that when a demand is placed on a muscle, that muscle reacts in a very specific way.
It is clear that the body responds to the speed of the movement; the direction of the movement; the direction of the force offered by the resistance encountered by the muscles during the movement; the actions of surrounding muscles; the level of the resistance it encounters; and to the frequency and type of the muscle action that occurs during the training session. For instance, if an athlete performs partial squat for sets of twenty repetitions in a slow manner, he or she will improve performance in partial squat in the range of twenty repetitions. There will also be an improvement in the athlete’s ability to perform a single repetition in the partial squat, but the improvement is not likely to be as great as it will be in the partial squat for ten reps and even less in relation to the athlete’s increased ability in the partial squat for twenty reps. Perhaps more importantly, the athlete’s ability in the full squat may improve little, if at all, by mere training on the partial squat. The carryover in the training effect from a more limited range of motion to a fuller range of motion is incomplete (although the carryover from a full range of motion to a partial one is far more complete).
The SAID principle implies that if you want to become strong in a certain exercise, you must practice either that exercise or some other exercise that approximates it in the most important areas. In addition, you must practice the exercise at the same speed that you will when you perform and for the same number of repetitions. Naturally, the SAID principle suggests that you should perform the classical lifts in single repetitions with maximum weights; anything else is sub-optimal! Unfortunately, it appears that training is not that simple because of one final and powerful training concept: variability.
SAID Versus the Benefits of Training Variety
Despite the powerful and all encompassing influence of specificity in training, there is considerable evidence to suggest that variety in the training stimulus can contribute significantly toward an athlete’s progress in training. The reasons for this phenomenon are not well understood. It has been speculated that the body’s adaptive mechanisms react more dramatically to what they perceive as a “new” stimulus than to a form of stimulation that they have experienced before. While increased intensity is clearly a new stimulus in one respect, it appears that other changes in the training stimulus are significant as well. Psychological reasons have also been given for the usefulness of variety (i.e., variety is needed to keep that athlete interested in the training sessions). Finally, variety in training appears to help athletes avoid injuries that can result from continuous movement in the exact same “groove.”
Variety can and does come in many forms in strength training. Athletes vary the speed with which they perform a given exercise. They vary the way in which they perform the exercise. For example, in doing a snatch, the width of the grip might be changed from workout to workout; the athlete might snatch the bar from the floor in one workout, from a “box” in another. (A “box” is a training device designed to raise the bar from the floor so that the athlete is concentrating only on a partial aspect of the pull.) Or the athlete might stand on a small platform that elevates the lifter and leaves the bar in its position on the floor (thus making the athlete lift the bar a greater distance than is normally the case). Set and rep patterns can be varied, as can the intensity of various workouts within the training day, week or month. The potential for variety is virtually as limitless as the imagination of the lifter and the coach.
There can be little doubt that variations in the training stimulus (at least in some training dimensions) facilitate the training effect, but different trainers define and apply the principle of varying the training stimulus in different ways. At one extreme there are those trainers who will argue that variety is almost unavoidable in the training process and that it need not be planned. For example, if an athlete three days a week (e.g., Monday, Wednesday and Friday), some degree of variation is built into the workout because there are two days of rest between two of the sessions (Friday and Monday) but only one day between two of the sessions (Monday to Wednesday and Wednesday to Friday). Moreover, the athlete will not feel capable of performing at exactly the same level at every workout; therefore, the weights lifted will vary naturally, and there is no need for introducing variety beyond this level. Finally, it is argued that even if the athlete tried to perform identical training sessions, the body would vary in its capabilities from session to session. Consequently, training variety is unavoidable and need not be planned.
Trainers at the opposite end of the spectrum believe that no two workouts should be the same. They feel that a given exercise should never be performed in quite the same way in any two consecutive workouts (i.e., at least one of the variables of tempo, range of motion of the bar, grip width, etc., should change every workout). They of course feel that the weight on the bar should vary, as should sets and reps.
There are some very influential trainers at both ends of the spectrum. Sigmund Klein, an outstanding athlete in both bodybuilding and weightlifting in the earlier part of this century and a trainer for more than fifty years, is reported to have followed a similar weekly workout program for nearly fifty years. The Bulgarian coach Abadjiev, acknowledged by many in the sport of weightlifting to be one of the most outstanding coaches of all time, has dramatically reduced the variability of exercises in the workouts of the Bulgarian team over the last twenty years, to the point that the Bulgarian team was reportedly performing only six exercises in their training (snatch, C&J, power snatch and power clean, and front and back squats) by the late 1980s). In addition, the Bulgarians of that period limited their reps almost exclusively to singles, with some occasional doubles. Weights varied in accordance with what the athletes were capable of on a given day and training session (of which there were typically several per day), with between two and three exercises. But in every exercise and training session the athlete attempted to lift as much as possible. (There were differences in the overall loads lifted by the athletes in different parts of the year and a light or, “unloading,” week was scheduled every fourth week of training.)
Trainers on the other side of the debate about variability also have a long history. Bob Hoffman, one of the founding fathers of American weightlifting and the greatest promoter it has had thus far, advocated variety in training more than fifty years ago. He recommended heavy and light days, varying reps within the workout and across the week, varying the number of days of training per week and changing the exercises performed (sometimes using bars, other times using dumbbells, etc.). In more recent years, Vorobyev and Mevedyev of the former Soviet Union, both former World Champions in weightlifting and successful coaches of USSR World Championship teams, have advocated a great deal of variability in the training process. Variations in exercises, tempo, the intensity of workouts within the week, within weeks of the month and within months of the year are all recommended. Closer to home, Curt White, one of America’s most outstanding lifters in the 1980s, told me that when he was at his peak in lifting, he never did two workouts in the same way (grip width and the height of the bar were just two of the variables he preferred to manipulate).
Who is correct? Apparently both systems have merit. How could this be? For one thing, as was indicated above, no matter how much you try to avoid it, there is variability in all training unless you refuse to add weight to the bar when you can and train every day on the same exercises at the same pace, etc.. In addition, there will always be some variety in an athlete’s training because the athlete will not be able to handle the same weights every day (although this could be avoided by lifting sub-maximal weights every day). However, if you do not vary the training at all, training loses its distinction from work. A manual worker who works on an assembly line assembling the same amount of items every day is the quintessential example of the person who has the same workout every day (except that even these workers have days off and vacations during the year). What occurs is an adaptation to the work early in the worker’s career and then stagnation due to a lack of change in the stimulus for the rest of his or her career. It is believed that this stagnation in the work process plays a role in the development of overuse injuries, like lower-back pain and carpal tunnel syndrome. This is probably because the work load is not varied with the body’s needs and because not making an effort to develop the muscles beyond the level required by the work precludes overcompensation (which might lead to a point where the work actually presents less of a stress to the body). Only by exercising like a worker can a trainee fail to progress, and such training would certainly be the exception to the rule.
The advocates of extreme variability no doubt have the advantage of fostering psychological interest among their lifters through the constant variety in the training. In addition, stimulating the body in a constantly changing way may well elicit a degree of adaptation that is greater overall than the one that would be achieved by a lesser variety in the training. However, there are disadvantages to a great deal of variety as well. Consider what the concept of specificity of training tells us. It says that the closer the training is to the requirements of competition, the more effective it will be in terms of the carryover effect. Therefore, while the organism of the athlete who trains with great variety may be more broadly adapted to a greater number of stimuli than the trainee who utilizes less variety, it may also be true that much of that adaptation is wasted (i.e., it cannot be applied to the athlete’s sport).
Another concern is that a great variety in training can expose the lifter to injury because he or she has not adapted to the rigors presented by a variation in exercise style or a particular workload. Another issue is one of the inability to measure and understand the effects of all of the variations that are being applied. For example, when a lifter makes a sudden improvement, is it due to a change in the workload or to the change in the pattern of exercises or to a combination of both elements? It will be difficult, if not impossible, to assess this when the variety of the workouts is extreme because there will be no discernible patterns in training. Therefore, one of the great benefits of training (the learning that it can provide about a particular lifter’s response to various training stimuli) is lost or at least compromised.
Much of the confusion and controversy with respect to the issue of variability may stem from a failure to appreciate the concept of variability on psychological vs. a physical level. The human mind is capable of seeing patterns within very complex and only subtly interacting events. An athlete or trainer can see a given exercise within the context of a workout, a training week, a month, a year or even a series of years. The ability to conceptualize is man’s greatest distinguishing characteristic as a species, but our bodies and their sense organs are not unlike those of many other animals. What the mind may not see as a great deal of variety, the body may well experience as a radical change.
The body does not know that Monday is a medium day, Wednesday a light day and Friday a heavy day. It only travels along its path of making an adaptation to previous stimuli or to maintaining its equilibrium until it bumps into a change in the degree of stimulus that it encounters. If that change involves a lower level of stimulus than the body has previously encountered, it may merely ignore that stimulus, because it is still responding the a prior one of greater strength. If the body simply maintaining its current level of adaptation, a lower level stimulus may simply be added to the muscle’s “memory banks” in a way that says to the muscle, “there continues to appear to be no reason to maintain your current level of adaptation, because no stimuli of sufficient strength to justify it have been encountered recently.” Therefore, any change in the level of stimulus is registered as such by a body that cannot see that what it is encountering is all part of a pattern. Therefore, a variety that may not seem as rich as what the mind can conceive may be more than sufficient to keep the body moving along the way to progress toward maximal strength.
In summary, it is obvious that some degree of variability in the training stimulus is required if the body is to engage in the process of adaptation. However, some degree of variation is almost unavoidable in the training process. Moreover, if the training is planned carefully on the micro level, there will always be variability because the coach and athlete will always be attempting to maintain a balance in developing in athlete’s technique, strength and power. That balance can only be maintained by regularly adjusting the workout plan to fit the needs of the athlete at that point in time, since relative needs nearly always shift over time. In addition, the good coach will always be endeavoring to stimulate the body to progress, while keeping the risk of trauma to the athlete’s body at a minimum. This generally entails substituting exercises like pulls and squats for the competitive lifts, at least occasionally. Finally, if the athlete is varying the reps and sets done in his or her workouts as well as the weight on the bar, considerable variability is taking place in this area as well. Therefore, variety in training will arise out of good workout planning as an effect rather than a cause. As long as the variety used in the training process can be understood to form a specific pattern of some kind, the trainer will be able to compare that pattern to the ones that have already been attempted with that athlete and thereby continue to better understand what kinds of training will benefit that athlete.
It should be remembered that the need for variability will itself vary with the athlete. Some athletes need more variety for mental as well as physical reasons. A trade-off exists between specificity and variability. The immediate applicability of any training effect sustained through practice that preserves a high degree of specificity is a powerful advantage. The extra stimulus of the training effect which results from variability may outweigh more specific training in some cases. Generally, if satisfactory improvements can be made with training that is highly specific, this is preferable. But an athlete who thrives on change may find too much regularity in a routine a prescription for stagnation. Such an athlete may find the more circuitous route of variety a more direct route to success.
Choosing Exercises for Weightlifting Training
The principle of specificity of training is never more important than in the choice of the exercises that an athlete employs in his or her training. In order for an exercise to be of assistance in the development of the special qualities that an athlete requires in order to perform a given event, that exercise must resemble the dynamic properties of the event to as great an extent as possible. All things being equal, training on the snatch and C&J will generate greater improvements in these lifts than training on any other exercises. Unfortunately, all things are not always equal. There is a wide variety of reasons why exclusive training on the classical lifts may not be optimal for a particular lifter, and this is where the rich array of “assistance” exercises which have been developed for weightlifting training can be very beneficial.
There are several areas in which specificity is of particular importance in terms of exercise selection. These areas include: the relative amount of resistance that is encountered in executing the event; the speed with which the exercise is conducted; the tempo (cyclic nature);, the angles of the joints as they encounter resistance; the direction of the resistance; the muscles being used; the sequence in which they are used; and the positions in which the maximum force is applied. All of these characteristics must be considered in the selection and application of exercises for improving performance.
One overreaching rule in exercise choice is to avoid exercises which involve a technique that is in conflict with the technique of the classical lifts (e.g., a lifter would not want to employ an exercise that required a different order of muscle group contractions than those used in the classical lifts). Chapter 5 discusses the common exercise choices that the athlete and coach have at their disposal.
There are those in the weight training community who are strong believers in the notion that exercises which involve a smaller range of motion than a full lift (often called “partials”) are more effective than those which involve a fuller range of motion. For instance, there are those who argue that training on partial squats will make an athlete stronger more quickly than training on full squats. While there can be no doubt that partial movements make a muscle stronger, there is also considerable evidence to suggest that partial movements tend to strengthen a muscle to a far greater extent in the partial range of motion than in the full. In contrast, training in the full range of motion makes the muscles stronger throughout the full range of motion (i.e., in the partial range as well). Therefore, full movements are generally preferred for building strength. If strength is especially required in a limited range of motion that is replicated by a partial movement, then training on that partial movement will have a positive effect on performance of the full movement. The particular mechanics of a given movement must be carefully analyzed before such a conclusion can be drawn. However, long practice has shown that partial movements can never substitute fully for full movements. They are only useful as an adjunct to full movements.
The Major Methods Of Exercise
One very important aspect of training specificity is the action of the muscles during an exercise. Are the muscles shortening, lengthening or remaining the same length (or some combination thereof) during the exercise? Is the muscle action rapid or slow? If an exercise involves more than one kind of muscle action, is the transition from one kind of action to another rapid or gradual? In the section that follows, we will discuss the common methods of resistance exercise performance and some of the benefits and limitations of each.
Concentric Contractions Or Actions
Concentric contractions or actions, more than any other type of muscle action, are the basis for weightlifting performance. They are the primary focus of this chapter. It is the concentric action of the hip, leg and back muscles that lifts the bar during the pull. Concentric contractions involve shortening the muscles to move some kind of resistance. It is clear, both empirically and experimentally, that an athlete can improve strength dramatically and speed substantially by training concentrically. It is also clear that flexibility is generally helped and certainly not hindered by training concentrically through a full range of motion. While concentric muscle actions are of the greatest import for weightlifters, several other kinds of resistance exercise are important as well.
Eccentric Contractions Or Actions
Eccentric contractions or actions occur when a muscle generates tension by resisting a force and lengthens during this process. When a bar is lowered after being lifted overhead, the muscles of arms, shoulders, legs, hips and back are acting eccentrically. A contraction during the lengthening of the muscle may sound like a contradiction in terms, and that is why many scientists prefer to use the term “action” to describe muscular activity (muscles that are lengthening cannot literally be contracting). During an eccentric action a muscle is not relaxing as it is lengthening. In fact, the tension in a muscle that is lowering a weight can be greater than the tension that occurs while a weight is being raised. The muscles are working and working hard during an eccentric action. One phenomenon that suggests the intensity of the muscular effort taking place during an eccentric action is that such actions generate more muscle soreness than any other kind of muscle actions, although the reasons for this are not entirely clear.
Eccentric contractions have been found by some researchers to be as effective as concentric contractions for developing a muscle’s strength and size. More and more research is suggesting that the combination of concentric and eccentric training is more effective in eliciting strengthened size improvements than either type of training alone. For many years trainers have suggested that lowering a weight slowly will give the trainee as much benefit as raising it, and the research seems to support this notion. Fortunately, it is possible to perform both styles of training while performing most exercises since most exercises with weights involve both forms of contraction (at least when repetitions are done). The classical lifts of weightlifting and related exercises cannot be fully performed eccentrically, although the lifts themselves do involve some very powerful eccentric muscle actions (e.g., catching the weight in the squat or partial squat position of a snatch or clean). Therefore, some eccentric exercise is critical for the conditioning of the weightlifter. But lifters who practice the classic lifts and many of the associated exercises that will be explained later in this book will probably find that the eccentric contractions that normally take place during the performance of these exercises are adequate for their overall eccentric training needs.
There are trainers who recommend doing some sets of exercise in a totally eccentric fashion. Since an athlete can normally lower considerably more weight than he or she can lift, advocates of the system recommend using some number of pounds or some percentage over the athlete’s best lift (e.g., 120%) and performing several reps, lowering the bar as slowly as possible in good exercise form. Naturally, the lifter should be sure to have good spotters to help him or her get the bar back up between reps and to catch the bar if any unforeseen event should occur. (There is more danger in exclusively eccentric training than in concentric-eccentric training because the lifter is handling more weight than he or she could possibly lift. There is also some risk to the spotters in that they are helping the lifter to lift some heavy weights and often find themselves in awkward mechanical positions (e.g., leaning over a bench or standing behind a lifter in a squat position, often not directly over the bar).
Some lifters love eccentric contractions (or negatives, as they are sometimes called) because they build their confidence with heavier weights. However, there is no evidence that concentric contractions are superior in terms of building strength, and there are no weightlifting or powerlifting champions who have trained primarily by eccentric muscle actions. Therefore, training exclusively, or even primarily, by eccentric contractions appears to be a poor idea.
The reduced safety associated with maximum eccentric training diminishes its appeal, and the lifter who uses such training extensively may find that his or her popularity declines as an army of assistants must be recruited for each training (though this problem, in itself, is surely not a reason to abstain from such training). Another negative aspect of eccentric contraction is that it is difficult to measure (e.g., Did you really lower the bar as slowly as you did last time?). Still another problem is injury from the trauma of eccentric contractions. Finally, the angles of force and the tempo of its application are so important in lifts like the snatch and C&J that it seems doubtful that eccentric contraction would have a great deal of carryover into their performance (even if a lifter could emulate eccentrically the motions involved in the classic lifts).
Given all of these issues, the practice of lowering the bar slowly after performing concentric contractions (at least of some reps or sets) makes eminent sense. The lifter need not handle as much weight in the eccentric contraction as in pure eccentric training because the muscle will already be fatigued from the concentric portion of the contraction. There will be economy in terms of training time when an athlete mixes eccentric with concentric training. Outside of such training, there seems to be little need for most weightlifters to perform specific training with eccentric contractions.
Isometric Contractions
Isometric exercise consists of exerting force against an immovable object. More force can be developed during an isometric action than through any other kind of muscle action because the object against which the force is being exerted does not move (i.e., zero velocity is developed). Scientists have discovered an inverse relationship between the force that a muscle can generate and the velocity of the object against which the force is applied ; the lower the velocity of the object, the greater the force that can be generated against it.
Isometrics became very popular in the 1950s and 1960s, when it was widely accepted that one six-second contraction a day could yield significant strength gains under certain circumstances. This was appealing to the general public in that it suggested that in only a few minutes day, with limited equipment, a person could remain “fit.” (In those days the notion of aerobic fitness had not been introduced, and the concept of specificity of fitness was not widely understood.).
Subsequent research has provided much illumination with regard to the subject of isometrics. It is now understood that one contraction a day may have little or no training effect (particularly if it is not a maximum contraction). The greater the contraction time during a workout (whether from sustaining contractions longer or doing repeated contractions) the greater the correlation with the degree of strength increase. (However, the muscles will become overtrained if too many contractions are performed.) Total contraction times of 15 seconds to 120 seconds have resulted in good strength improvements, although total contraction time of more than 30 seconds does not seem to have any additional benefit. Training every day has generally been found to be more beneficial than training less frequently. However, most of the research done in this area has been done with one exercise at one joint angle. Perhaps the subjects in such studies would have had quite different results if other exercises and/or joint angles had been included. For instance, if the athletes with longer duration of contraction had done more exercise for the same muscle in other positions, perhaps their results would have fallen off more than athletes using 30 seconds in a specific exercise. (Of course it is possible that athletes training longer would have had better results.)
Another major finding in the area of isometric training is that such training is very specific to the joint angle at which it occurs. There will be some strengthening at angles somewhat greater or smaller than the angle at which the exercise occurs (perhaps 15o or 20o), but not nearly as much at angles further away (although there is some evidence to suggest that more contraction time in training will increase the likelihood of carryover into other joint angles). Most of the research with respect to training isometrically at one joint angle indicates that little or no improvement in speed of muscle contraction occurs as a result of isometric training. It is nevertheless possible that had the training occurred at more than one joint angle, the results in speed might have been better. As is the unfortunate case with so many exercise fads, once isometric exercise lost some of its luster, it was totally abandoned by many trainers. Such trainers ignore certain fundamental facts. First, isometric exercise may be the most effective means of improving strength at a particular angle. Since there is a point in virtually all exercises at which the perceived effort required to move the weight is greater than at other points, concentrated exercise at these “sticking points” or slightly earlier in the movement can improve performance. Second, there is a point in most exercises (particularly in the snatch, clean and jerk) at which the athlete wishes to exert maximum force. If the athlete’s strength in those areas is trained in a specific manner, special improvements can be expected to occur. Third, isometrics can be practiced outside the gym with little equipment, which makes them ideal for an athlete who needs to travel a great deal or who has difficulty in getting to the gym and wishes nonetheless to continue his or her strength training.
It should be noted that a number of competitive lifters who have applied isometrics diligently in their training have had excellent success. During the 1960s Lou Riecke and Bill March both established world records in weightlifting (Lou in the snatch and Bill in the press), and Peter Rawluk broke a number American records in the snatch. All three men employed isometric contractions extensively (although not by any means exclusively) in their training. There are those who today argue that other factors accounted for the success of these men; these other factors were often available to their competitors, yet they still made records with their methods. One of the major differentiating characteristics in the training of these men was their use of isometric contractions. Does this mean that these same lifters would have not had greater success using other training methods? Certainly not. (In fact, Lou Riecke relied on standard pulls more than isometric pulls to achieve his world record snatch.) On the other hand, it is not appropriate to dismiss the success that they enjoyed through the use of isometric training.
How were isometrics applied by those who had success with them? In very general terms, they all practiced isometrics several times a week. They all trained at two or more angles in each exercise. To my knowledge, none did repeated sets in any one position in one training session, but all exerted maximum force in each of the positions and on each of the days when they did train. In addition, all of these men did exercise with the weights quite strenuously one day a week (occasionally more often).
It is my belief that isometrics can be practiced to good effect at positions such as the one where the bar is just below the knees in the pull and when it is at the point of beginning the final explosion in the pull and the jerk. In general I believe that isometrics are more effective for training the pull and the muscles that hold the bar overhead than they are for training the muscles involved in performing the squat. This should not be surprising when you consider that isometric contractions of certain large muscle groups are a key factor in maintaining correct body positioning during the pull, and in holding the bar overhead.
Isokinetic Exercise
Isokinetic exercise involves the performance of exercise at a constant speed. The exercise devices upon which it is performed are designed to maintain a constant speed, regardless of how much effort the athlete expends. The end result is supposed to be a training effect over a range of motion greater than with other forms of exercise.
Strength gains have been reported using a wide range of isokinetic exercise repetitions, speeds and resistances. Intermediate speeds (approximately one second to complete a full range-of-motion exercise) seem to have the greatest carryover to other speeds. In general slower speed training improved performance at slower speeds and faster speed training at faster speeds (specificity at work), although faster speeds tended to have more carryover into slower speed training than the reverse (specificity at work again). Overall, isokinetic exercise has not been found to be any better or worse than other forms of training in terms of increasing strength or muscle size.
One of the problems with isokinetic training with respect to competitive lifters is its limited carryover. Because the velocities and patterns of motion achievable when exercising isokinetically are not the same as those which are encountered while performing the classical lifts, it is doubtful whether isokinetic training would ever be of significant value in training for these lifts (at least not with today’s equipment). In exercises like squats and deadlifts, the potential for successfully utilizing isokinetics is greater.
In the past, the inability to measure the degree of effort that an athlete was applying in exercising isokinetically made programming difficult and motivation hard to maintain. (Visible results are a key motivator for athletes engaged in resistance training.) Today many isokinetic devices have gauges that measure effort in various ways, so these machines have overcome these problems to a degree.
Variable Resistance Exercise
During the 1970s and 1980s variable resistance training was greatly ballyhooed. Remarkable gains in strength and muscle size were reported early in the use of this kind of exercise, but most of the “evidence” was generated by the promoters of the equipment on which the experiments were conducted.
Variable-resistance training devices use various mechanical means to alter the resistance that a trainee encounters when he or she exercises. These machines supposedly make an exercise equally difficult throughout the range of movement of each exercise. While this is their objective, careful evaluations of variable resistance machinery have revealed that most, if not all, do not accomplish their intended purpose.
Independent research has been unable to confirm that variable-resistance training confers any special benefits on its practitioners, although it seems to be just as effective as any other means of progressive resistance in terms of generating gains in muscle size and strength. The problem with variable-resistance exercise from the standpoint of the serious powerlifter or weightlifter is that the carryover of any strength gained on a machine to the execution of competitive lifts is likely to be very limited. Resistance does indeed vary when an athlete is performing the actual competitive lifts. It is important to an athlete’s performance that these changes in perceived effort be encountered regularly, if not exclusively, in the athletes training.
Compensatory Acceleration
Dr. Fred (“Dr. Squat”) Hatfield, World Champion powerlifter, world record breaker, highly respected weight training theorist and author of many excellent publications on bodybuilding and powerlifting, has coined the phrase “compensatory acceleration” to describe an approach to exercise in which the lifter moves the weight as quickly as possible throughout the range of motion (slowing it up a little at the end of the movement to avoid a jolt to the joints involved). Fred’s contention is that by exerting as much force as possible throughout the lift, the athlete will incur a training effect at a wider range of joint angles than if he or she merely fought hard at the most difficult point of the lift and did just enough to complete the lift after that.
This concept is akin to isokinetics in that there is an effort to stress the muscles equally throughout the range of motion. In isokinetics the effect is achieved by maintaining the tempo of the movement throughout. With compensatory acceleration there is an effort to maintain the level of tension in the muscles by pushing harder and faster as the perceived effort of the exercise declines. Maintenance of this tension is not strictly possible because an athlete cannot exert as much force against an object that is moving quickly as he or she can against an object that is moving slowly. However, the effort to exert more force will surely increase the tension in the muscle to a higher level than would have been achieved otherwise. The result should be a more profound training effect from the same exercise. Moreover, what is lost in terms of uniform muscle tension relative to isokinetics is probably more than made up for in the more natural pattern and tempo of the movement relative to an isokinetic one.
At least one recent study which compared isokinetic and fixed-mass training in the leg extension showed that the fixed-mass training regimen (which essentially used the concept of compensatory acceleration) was more effective than isokinetic training. In the study each subject trained one leg isokinetically and the other using compensatory acceleration. The leg using the latter method not only had a higher one-rep maximum, but it also developed more strength throughout the range of motion than the isokinetically trained leg.
For purposes of weightlifting, compensatory acceleration was practiced by competitive weightlifters long before the term was used. Many lifters lift the bars as quickly as possible throughout most or all of the range of motion whenever they are pulling or jerking. However, some weightlifters do not apply the concept of compensatory acceleration to advantage when they are training or performing assistance exercises such as the squat. For example, many lifters do not attempt to explode out of the bottom position in the squat and very few move quickly near the finish of the squat. If a lifter were to drive through to nearly the top of the squat with as much speed as possible, he or she would be training the explosive power of the legs in the 1/4 to 1/8 squat position, as well as strength in the deep to perhaps the 1/3 squat positions (where the greatest effort in doing full squats is normally expended).
Again, the major caution that must be applied when using compensatory acceleration is to stop exerting maximum force at maximum speed at the very end of the movement, where such force could cause: a) the joints to hyperextend; or b) the bar to jump off the body and then crash back down and/or the body and bar to come off the floor and return with a violent impact.
Plyometrics
Plyometrics, or “shock training” (as it was referred to in the former Soviet Union), involves an eccentric contraction immediately followed by a concentric one. There are many examples of plyometric activities in sport. Running, for example, is essentially plyometric, as muscle groups are repeatedly eccentrically contracted and then immediately explode into a concentric effort. When a weightlifter performs dip and drive in the jerk, a plyometric movement is taking place. Perhaps the most strenuous example of plyometric training is the depth jump. In this exercise an athlete jumps down from a height, generally ranging from .5 m to 1 m, and then immediately rebounds up into a maximum height vertical jump.
Plyometric training is believed by some to increase or at least to utilize better the reactive capabilities of the muscles (both the use of the stretch reflex, which acts to contract a muscle more forcefully after it has been stretched, and the “elastic” properties of the muscle, which store some of the downward force exerted on the muscles before they contract concentrically).
Plyometrics have gained significant popularity in strength coaching circles in recent years. The practice is not as widespread in the weightlifting community. This may in part be due to the tendency for plyometrics to lead to injuries of the muscle-tendon units that are involved and because so much of ordinary training on the classic lifts involves a plyometric component.
Some lifters have reported improvements from using plyometrics, but many champions have never used them at all. It is probably too early in the existence of this kind of training for us to draw any conclusions regarding the effectiveness of plyometrics for weightlifters. However, in my view, great caution must be employed because of their potential for injuring an athlete.
Very Slow Training
There are some coaches of weight training who advocate the performance of very slow repetitions when a lifter is doing resistance training. The theory behind this method of exercise performance is that slow movement increases the degree and duration of muscle tension during an exercise so performed. Very slow performance (several seconds to perform a single rep) also minimizes or eliminates use of elastic capacities in the muscle and the reliance of velocity generated during a certain part of an exercise’s range of motion to assist continued motion during a subsequent stage in the motion. On occasion this style of exercise performance may stimulate strength gains. However, such a training method precludes the development of power and strength at the same time in the way that explosive lifting and exercise styles such as compensatory acceleration do. Therefore, the lifter would be well advised to use the very slow exercise style only on occasion and in combination with more traditional methods of training. However, used in this way, such methods can be effective.
Electrostimulation
Up until now, this chapter has been devoted to training methods which involve the use of voluntary muscular contractions. This focus has been intentional. All sports involve such contractions, and one of the key challenges for the athlete is to learn how to control his or her muscles in the most effective way.
The scientific literature does contain references to the use of external muscle stimulation for the development of muscle strength. Some reports indicate that the use of muscle stimulation has been effective in terms of increasing muscle strength. However, there is little to suggest that such means are more effective that voluntary stimulation. Even if it were established that electrostimulation was a more effective means of developing strength than the use of voluntary contractions, it would be unlikely that such strength would be fully transferable in terms of weightlifting performance. Other research and empirical evidence suggest overwhelmingly that joint angles, velocity, direction, and motor control all play such a vital role in the effective use of strength that it seems highly unlikely that external stimulus could be as effective. Moreover, so many muscles are involved in weightlifting in so many ways that an electrostimulation workout might take as long as a regular one in order to reach all of the affected muscles.
It should be noted that some athletes that I have known who experimented with electrostimulation have developed tendinitis. Their belief was that the tension that was created by the electrostimulus was so great that it overran the body’s ability to adapt.
The method of electrostimulation shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand, however. Some elite athletes have reported success with it. For example, Derrick Crass, 1990 National Champion in the 90 kg. class, associated a significant increase in his leg with the use of electrostimulation. Nevertheless, when the overwhelming theoretical evidence does not support an approach, when the approach has injured some athletes and not much is known about its application, the athlete and coach would be well advised to proceed with caution if they choose to experiment with electrostimulation.
Comparing the Effectiveness of the Major Methods of Exercise
All of the forms of resistance training discussed above stimulate an adaptation in the muscles and nervous system such that greater and greater resistance can be overcome in the style of training being employed. The evidence is that there will also be a carryover from the strength developed through one form of resistance training into the ability to perform other types of resistance exercise. That carryover is enhanced by at least some practice at the other form of exercise. It is also clear that the principle of specificity of training applies very heavily in the area of resistance training. For example, those trained isometrically show a great increase in strength measured isometrically and a far smaller increase in strength measured concentrically. Similarly, those trained concentrically show a great increase in strength measured concentrically but a lesser change in strength measured isometrically. To develop the greatest possible amount of all around strength, the most sensible way to train would be to mix the methods. The principle of variability in training also points toward the use of different kinds of training, at least occasionally.
There is significant empirical evidence and some experimental evidence to suggest that the carryover from concentric, and especially free-weight, training to other forms of strength expression is greater than from other kinds of training to concentric strength expression. There is also a greater likelihood that a lifter who trains with free weights will develop the muscles that stabilize the prime movers during a given exercise more extensively than with other forms of resistance exercise. So much more research, both scientific and empirical, has been done in the area of concentric training that it is far easier for the trainee to move toward the optimization of the training process using concentric contraction training than it is if the athlete is training in other ways. Finally, in the sport of competitive weightlifting, strength is measured almost exclusively by concentric means (although some eccentric and isometric contractions occur during both lifts). Therefore it is obviously sensible for the trainee to spend the majority of his or her time training the muscles concentrically (with the eccentric training that is associated with concentric training because the lifter lowers the bar in addition to raising it). This does not mean that the other forms of training should necessarily be ignored. It simply means that these methods of training should be used only as an adjunct to more conventional free-weight training. These other methods of training may be especially useful when it is clear that a particular deficiency in the lifter’s strength warrants special attention, or when some variety in the training is desired.
Other Important Training Variables
Guidelines Regarding Repetitions
Practical experience and some scientific research tell us that to achieve maximum strength, one to five repetitions per set are the most effective. A lifter can surely get stronger with repetitions in the six to twenty range. Bodybuilders who train at such repetition level can and do become strong. However, such high levels of repetitions do not seem to be the most effective way to gain strength. Moreover, with repetitions in the six to twenty range, considerable growth in observable muscular size tends to accompany any growth in strength. This is desirable for a bodybuilder, but it is not as desirable for most weightlifters and powerlifters. This is because the majority of the latter two types of athletes compete in weight classes, where strength accompanied by unnecessary muscle size is a disadvantage. Higher repetitions seem to develop the other factors that relate to muscle size in addition to muscle fiber diameter and strength. (The factors referred to earlier in the fallacies section of this book are explained in greater detail in Appendix II.) For athletes interested in increasing muscle size and strength to maximal levels, a combination of repetitions in the higher and lower ranges (but rarely more than six and almost never more than ten) seems to work best. It should be noted that, for reasons similar to those discussed above, careful selection of exercises is important if the only the muscles used in the events being trained are to be isolated. It makes no sense for a lifter who is concerned with competing in the snatch and C&J to add five pounds of muscle to his or her chest when such added size and any accompanying strength are of no functional use in performing those lifts.
Lower repetitions are not only the most effective means of developing maximum strength with minimum gains in muscle size; they also tend to be safer. Muscle fatigue, ligament stress and neurological fatigue (which lead to errors in technique) all seem to be minimized with lower repetitions. In addition, when performing exercises that involve considerable skill and explosiveness as well as strength, muscle fatigue tends to set in more rapidly and is accompanied by a deterioration in motor skills. Therefore, when training on the competitive lifts, there is a tendency to keep the repetitions low (one to three) and to virtually never exceed five reps.
In general, the fallacy of assuming that observable muscle size is related to strength has led most trainees to overvalue muscle size. The public tends to be far more impressed with an athlete whose muscles look large than with the athlete whose muscles are simply strong. Just as people tend to look at the trappings of “success” as being synonymous with success itself, they look at muscles as being synonymous with strength. Some people are devastated when they discover that fancy cars and clothes do not make them feel any happier than more functional or modest expressions of financial success. Similarly, the person who is really seeking strength can be disappointed to find that dramatic strength gains have not been made despite a large increase in muscle size. In effect, he or she is carrying around a lot of extra muscle, without a concomitant increase in muscular ability. To the most serious strength devotee, looking strong can be pleasurable, but being strong is sublime. Your rep patterns will to a great extent determine which road you take in this area; because of individual differences some athletes may experience substantial muscular growth doing only singles, and others may experience greater gains in strength than in size even when performing relatively high reps.
Performance of Reps
The snatch and clean, at least when they are performed in competition style, begin from a dead-stop position. While there are a number of ways to have the body move in preparation for lifting the bar from a dead-stop position (as discussed in the section on technique), there is really no way for the resistance of the bar to cause a pre-stretch or rebound effect in terms of muscle contraction.
In contrast, exercises like squats, which require an eccentric contraction before the lift actually commences, permit the athlete to enjoy certain “rebound” effects that can assist in the lifting of the bar. When the athlete is performing reps in exercises that begin from a dead stop, a rebound effect can be generated when the bar is being returned to the platform just prior to the commencement of the second or later reps. For example, the bar normally rests on the platform between reps in the clean or snatch, but when using the rebound method the athlete merely touches the floor or rebounds slightly from it and goes into the next rep. Advocates of this method feel that it develops a more explosive and natural rhythm for the exercise. They argue that the elastic energy of the muscles is being utilized along with voluntary effort when using this method. Skeptics argue that since any muscular rebound is precluded in competition, learning to use it and improving its function will have no carryover effect to the classical lifts.
There is some truth to each position, so the best advice is to use the rebound technique intermittently, interspersing it between some reps, some sets or different workouts.
It is important to distinguish between muscular, connective tissue and mechanical rebounds and the positions in which the rebounds take place. Virtually all of the tissues in the human body have a certain degree of elasticity (the ability of matter to be deformed and then to automatically resume its original shape). Skin, muscles and connective tissue are particularly capable in this area. Muscle tissue has a second form of elastic quality which arises from the ability of muscle to contract more forcefully after having been stretched. This characteristic arises out of the neurological and contractile properties of muscles acting in concert. Finally, to objects which the body may apply force (such as a bar) can have significant elastic properties as well (as was discussed in Chapter 1). The thinking athlete uses all of the elastic properties in concert in order to maximize his or her performance.
In achieving a muscular rebound, the lifter activates the muscles with a conscious effort to explode after the eccentric portion of the lift has ended. If the athlete makes no such effort and passively relaxes the muscles before making an upward effort, it is likely that more of the rebound effect is derived from connective tissue. This happens both because the volitional contraction of the muscle is reduced or eliminated and because such a lifter is likely to reach a more extreme position during the eccentric movement than he or she otherwise would, thereby placing more stress on the tendons and ligaments of the joint.
As a general rule, weightlifters should attempt to move the bar as quickly as possible without giving up good technique (especially avoiding premature contraction of any muscle group). Exerting maximal effort throughout the full range of upward lifting motion in the classical lifts (and all but the very end of the movement in such exercises as the squat) will yield the greatest gains in strength and power.
Before leaving the subject of repetition performance, we will touch upon a few of the commonly used methods for increasing the intensity of a given set or rep of exercise. Bodybuilders in particular, use a variety of training methods that has the objective of delivering additional stress to a muscle after it has reached the point of being unable to execute a full rep with a given weight. The theory behind these methods is that the extra stress of continuing to exercise after the muscle has failed will stimulate the muscle to new levels of adaptation. One of the most popular of these techniques is known as “forced reps.” As was mentioned earlier in this chapter, forced reps involve the execution of an exercise until a lifter fails (or knows he or she has reached the last rep he or she can possibly perform) and then performs one or more additional reps, with a training partner providing just enough assistance to let the athlete finish the extra reps.
There are serious questions about the forced reps technique of training. The first question is whether stimulating a muscle after it has already failed will indeed cause that muscle to improve faster than it otherwise would. Surely squeezing out extra reps will make the muscle feel more “pumped,” but there is a real question as to whether that pumped feeling is associated with the stimulation of extra growth. No scientific studies in this area have proven the efficacy of forced reps. Of course, trainers are often far ahead of research scientists in terms of pointing the way toward better means of training. Many of the top bodybuilders in the world today believe in the intermittent use of forced reps as a means of generating an unusual training stimulus.
Although forced reps may have proven to be effective for at least some trainers who are seeking maximum muscular size, the value of forced reps in strength development is far more questionable. To my knowledge no evidence that forced reps speed the development of strength exists, and a pump is surely not a prerequisite for strength gains. Moreover, there are several negative aspects of forced reps for strength trainers. One negative aspect of forced reps is that they can endanger the health of the athlete by pushing the muscle past the point where a properly executed rep is possible. Such a level of fatigue can easily lead the body to a state in which an injury may occur. In addition, the assistance of the helper can come at an angle that keeps the weight from moving in its normal direction, which will necessarily preclude any significant strength building effect.
Finally, from what I have observed, most training partners find it difficult to assess the amount of assistance a lifter needs in order to complete the lift. Helpers tend to get excited when assisting with the forced reps, compounding their tendency to offer more help than is truly needed. Too much help obviates any benefit that can be derived from the forced rep. Too little help will allow the weight to travel downward. If this happens quickly, the lifter and/or helper can be injured. Even if it happens slowly, when the helper sees the problem and applies some assistance, the weight is nearly always out of its normal groove, thereby virtually negating any value from the forced rep. The mere presence of the helper causes many athletes to put out less because they know that the helper will make up the deficit. When the lifter knows that no assistance is available, there is a tendency for that lifter to dig down deeper into his or her reserves in order to avoid a miss. “Assisted reps” are a variation on the forced rep concept that has become popular with many.
Cheating is another variation on the forced reps theme in the sense that the athlete is going on to do more reps than are normally possible. Instead of using a training partner to perform additional reps, the lifter relies on some form of cheating motion to compete a rep that would otherwise be impossible to perform. The cheating principle avoids the drawbacks that a helper can present (as pointed out above in the discussion of forced reps), but there are still problems with the method.
One problem is that the cheating method can become a habit to the point where it becomes the lifter’s predominant method of performing the exercise. Another drawback is that the use of a cheating motion may actually prevent the training of strength in a needed range of motion because the cheating muscles can take over the primary effort of that portion of the lift. Occasionally the lifter will cheat regardless of how hard he or she tries not to. This is difficult to avoid completely when a lifter is pushing to the maximum in certain exercises. However, planning to cheat and having an occasional rep on which it occurs are completely different, and the former is to be avoided for the reasons mentioned.
“Burns” are still another method of making the body work a little longer and harder than it does normally. It consists of doing partial reps, either by lifting the bar as far as possible from the starting position or not letting it return all the way from the finished position and doing some partial reps.
The “multipoundage” system consists of doing as many reps as possible with a given weight and then stripping some weight off the bar so that a few more reps can be done (sometimes this bar stripping is repeated one or more times).
In short, forced reps, cheating, burns, the multipoundage system and similar methods are all based on the premise that extra stress after the point of normal failure has value. The value of these methods for building muscle size may be very real. Their value for lower rep training and for strength building in general is subject to considerable doubt. When the risks are balanced against the possible gain, it cannot be recommended that a lifter employ any of these methods on a widespread basis for building maximum strength. For that purpose, maximum and sub-maximum unassisted lifts in strict form are king.
Optimal Rest Between Reps
The earlier discussion of sets and reps outlined the means of distinguishing between them. As with so many things in weightlifting, there is disagreement among trainers about the optimal rest intervals. With regard to reps, some trainers advocate the immediate succession of reps, doing them in a rhythmic fashion so that there is virtually no line between the completion of one rep and the start of another. Other trainers advocate that the repetitions be performed with as little rest as possible between them (i.e., just enough to maintain concentration) but in a relatively deliberate fashion. These trainers feel that such an approach preserves the essential pattern of exercise (i.e., why use a virtual rebound if that is not a part of what one will experience in the competitive lift itself?) and properly emphasizes each separate rep (each rep performs the dual functions of training the muscle and of fatiguing it so that maximal effort will be experienced during the set).
Still another group of trainers feels that reps should each be done even more deliberately, with on each rep being treated as a single unto itself; they believe that at least several seconds of rest should be used between reps so that the athlete never feels a “pump” in the muscles or fatigue sufficient to hinder the technique applied to the exercise. In this kind of training, as with the second method described, the natural movement pattern is preserved. The major difference is that by using a little more rest between reps, the athlete may be able to experience more maximal or near maximal efforts in one set; the athlete may experience a rep that is near maximum, but through an extra few seconds of rest still another rep can be managed; had the other rep been attempted almost immediately, the athlete would have failed. Advocates of this method feel that more maximal efforts can be crammed into fewer sets, making for more intense workouts.
The choice between these approaches should be based on the athlete’s reason for performing the exercise. For a less explosive athlete, the first method might build some speed and fluidity into the athlete’s motion. The chief drawback of this method is that it can get the athlete mentally and physically accustomed to an exercise technique that cannot be used in competition (e.g., a rebound of the bar off the floor). Rebounding that is too wild can also expose the lifter to a higher risk of injury and can lead the lifter to pick up technical flaws.
The second method is the most conventional and should probably be the one used most often as it does preserve the proper exercise technique and the fatiguing purpose of performing repetitions.
For the athlete who seems to lack the ability to really “grind out” a rep (to put an all out effort into an exercise and to fight for the completion of each rep, no matter how great an effort is required), the third means of executing reps might teach such tenacity, rep by rep. This latter method would also be useful on a day in which the athlete was interested in incurring an absolutely maximal training stimulus.
The main drawback of doing reps of any kind is that as the muscles tire after each rep, the athlete can be exposed to a slightly higher risk of injury than with singles; fatigued muscles are more likely to break form, and a tired lifter is more likely to break concentration. Therefore, this method is to be avoided in the snatch and clean and jerk. (Due the deterioration of skills that can occur, most lifters avoid reps higher than two in the C&J and higher than two or three in the snatch, clean or jerk; the Bulgarians do singles almost exclusively in all of their major exercises.) Higher repetitions should also be avoided when doing exercises like the deadlift, not only because the loss of form can result in the body’s falling into a poor mechanical position, but also because the strain of the bar can be transferred from tired muscles to ligaments, further increasing the chance of injury.
Guidelines Regarding Sets
Optimal Rest Between Sets
Researchers and trainers alike generally agree that intervals of two to five minutes or more are needed for a complete recovery between sets of weight training exercises of high intensity. The optimal rest between particular exercises with particular loads is a function of several variables: the intensity of the training effort,, the nature of the exercise being done, the number of repetitions being performed and the purpose of the exercise.
When an exercise is performed at a high level of intensity, it places a greater strain on the energy transport system of the muscles and on other systems of the body than does exercise of lower intensity. Therefore, the rest periods required between sets of such exercise will be greater than the period that is required when exercise of lesser intensity is performed. The ultimate example of this difference is that in cyclic exercises with relatively low intensity (such as rowing) the muscles are able to repeat muscular efforts at the same level for long periods without rest. When an all out effort in a snatch or a C&J is made, two minutes or more will be needed to recuperate between lifts.
The nature of the exercise being done affects recovery time in that exercises done at greater velocity (i.e., exercises in which the duration of the effort is brief) generate less fatigue than exercises done with a slower velocity and longer duration of effort. For example, the athlete will tend to recover more quickly from a set of heavy snatches than a set of heavy squats.
Sets done with low reps, even if the intensity is high, tend to require less rest between them than sets with higher reps. The reason seems to be that one rep, no matter how difficult, does not tax the energy transport system of the muscles very much. In contrast, doing reps fatigues that system further when it has not had time to recuperate from the earlier rep(s). The body then gets into a deeper energy deficit and takes longer to recover from it. Consequently, a single might take only two minutes to recover from, while a set of five might require five minutes.
Finally, the purpose of the training will determine the amount of rest that is taken between exercises. Weightlifters, whose usual objective is to build the maximum possible strength and the power to move heavy loads as quickly as possible, will generally want to rest between sets until breathing and the heart rate return to a relatively normal level (these measures will always be elevated somewhat during a workout) and any sensation of fatigue in the muscles disappears. Bodybuilders seek a sense of muscle fatigue (“the pump”) and they will attempt to do their sets with enough rest to recover a good share of muscle capacity but not so much as to lose the pumped feeling altogether. For athletes who are required to perform while their bodies are in a fatigued state (e.g., wrestlers), performing their sets at small intervals so that the weight training session resembles the competitive session will probably be of benefit. Similarly, the competitive weightlifter will, at least occasionally, want to take shorter than optimal rest between exercises in order to prepare for the possibility that in competition he or she may be called upon to perform with little rest between lifts.
It should be noted that while the guidelines provided above are appropriate for most “mainstream” training methods (in terms of the intensity of the training) there are some approaches to training that challenge these rules. For instance, powerlifting coach, Louie Simmons, relies on a training method for the competitive powerlifts (bench press, squat and deadlift) that employs low intensity (60%), a high number of sets per workout session with the highest intensity load of the day (8), low reps per set (2) and little rest between sets (45 seconds). Louie indicates that most of his top lifters (and he has many) follow such a program with great success and are able to handle maximums in a competition without any heavy attempts in training whatsoever (although his athletes do go heavier and train more conventionally in their assistance exercises—the use of assistance exercises is discussed further in Chapter 5). Obviously, Louie’s approach relies on brief rest periods to deliver the training effect (as compared with high intensity per set or rep).
In summary, the amount of rest taken between sets can follow some general rules, but the specifics of the type and purpose of the training being performed are as important as the general rules for determining the method to be applied for a specific athlete and situation.
Are Multiple Sets Better Than One For Weightlifting Training?
Performing multiple sets with the heaviest weight that is lifted in a particular exercise during a given training session is a very common training practice. In contrast, many athletes warm up to a maximum weight for the day and either end their training on that exercise for the day, or reduce the weight to perform a final “warm down” set or sets. Surprisingly, in today’s weight training circles, there is a rather heated debate going on between the advocates of performing one heavy set of each exercise in a particular workout and those who believe in performing multiple sets with ones top weight of the day (and performing lots of sets per exercise overall). Naturally, there are many trainers who take a position somewhere in between these extreme positions. Examining this issue in some detail can help to clear up much of the confusion that exists regarding this issue, because much of the debate takes place because the theorists in each school are arguing from different contexts. They would have far less to disagree about if they agreed on some ground rules for their discussions.
At one end of the one set versus multiple set spectrum there are a number of influential advocates of what is often termed the “one set to failure” school of training (e.g., Mike Mentzer and Arthur Jones). Under this system, the trainee performs one or two warm-up sets and then attacks the heaviest set of the day. With that weight, the athlete continues to perform repetitions until he or she actually fails to perform a repetition; many advocates of this system recommend doing some “forced” reps (reps that are performed with minimal assistance from a partner once the point of failure has been reached with normal reps) and/or some eccentric contractions after failure occurs with regular reps.
The one set to failure theorists argue that the training stimulus derived from one all out set will be sufficient to foster continuing improvement in a muscle’s strength and/or size and that any additional sets performed, while providing no further stimulus for the body to improve (i.e., it has already been stimulated to the maximum by the first set) will actually have a detrimental effect on the body caused by overwork.
At the other end of the spectrum are those who recommend performing several warm-up sets and then several sets with the heaviest weight to be lifted for the day (some advocate the use of weights that are challenging for the number of reps performed as the athlete warms up—at least after the first set or two, in a “pyramiding” approach—described later in this chapter). These theorists believe that an athlete can only stimulate a maximal training effect with multiple sets.
To the surprise of some, advocates of each approach (and many that are in between the extremes) have had great success in some cases and a lesser degree of success in others. What can explain this apparent contradiction?
To begin with, there are no contradictions. Whenever one encounters what appears to be a contradiction it is appropriate to check the premises that are leading to the apparent contradiction. In those premises, and/or the reasoning from them, one will find a flaw that has lead to the apparent contradiction.
In this case, many of the advocates of each side of the one set/multiple set controversy overlook important differences in their premises. For example, when each side talks about the optimizing the training effect they often fail to recognize that any training effect is multidimensional. You can’t simply train for increased muscle size without influencing other capabilities of the organism, such as its contractile capabilities, its ability to recruit muscle fibers and the strength of its connective tissue. To say that one system has “the” optimal training effect fails to address the questions “Effect on what?” and “With what affect or cost to other capabilities?”
For instance, a one set to failure bout of exercise may create a training stimulus, but several sets performed in such a way may create an ever greater training stimulus. However, if the performance of several sets damages so much muscle tissue that the body will not be able to recover from the effort for an extended period of time, the benefit of the extra training stimulus may be counterbalanced by the lack of an ability to recover from the training session. However, if an athlete needs to have the capability of performing several maximal sets in competition, the performance of one set during training may not generate a sufficient training stimulus for the athlete to be optimally prepared for the demands of a competition.
So how does one address the one set/ multiple set dilemma? One must look at the full expanse of what one is trying to accomplish in training—in our case training for weightlifting competition.
First, there is now scientific evidence that more muscle fibers are activated on a maximum set of five reps than on a maximum single. From this it follows that a maximum set of high reps is more likely to stimulate a maximal training effect than a maximum single. Since weightlifters need to perform relatively low reps in training (and especially in competition) they will typically need to employ more sets to achieve their ends than someone who is performing five, ten or twenty reps in a set.
Second, it is not clear that one set to failure does provide the optimal training stimulus for a give athlete. Repeating sets undoubtedly increases the training stimulus and athletes vary in their ability to recover from a training session. Those differences in recovery rates suggest that some athletes may benefit from a greater training stimulus (or a greater frequency of administering the same stimulus) than other athletes. Obviously, there is a point where more training does not increase the training stimulus (the body is simply as stimulated as it can be by a given bout of exercise).
Third, the mental and emotional effort of performing a truly maximal set may be so much for some athletes that training to failure in every workout is simply wears them down over time. Such athletes may benefit from performing multiple sets with a lesser load (which will provide a training stimulus without subjecting the athlete to too great a mental and emotional strain—another important training concept that I learned primarily from Mark Gilman).
It is clear that performing too many sets, particularly if they are done to absolute failure at every workout, represents a waste of time that will eventually lead to overtraining.
For purposes of weightlifting training, multiple sets can help to develop skill in recruiting muscle fibers for all out efforts, and this skill is an important component of strength development. Just as massed study cannot replace properly spaced study periods for purposes of long term retention of learned material, one set cannot duplicate multiple sets in terms of the learning process that the latter entails. This is particularly true of complex movements like snatches and C&J’s, where skill at the overall movement as well as in exerting force is an important asset to the lifter.
Another consideration in the training of weightlifters is that multiple sets build the endurance needed for an athlete to withstand the rigors of competition. Weightlifting is an anaerobic activity requiring little cardiovascular fitness, but a competitive weightlifter must have the ability to perform maximum efforts over a period of hours (during much of which the athlete may be resting and handling sub-maximum weights). Performing multiple sets in training can help to develop this ability.
Still another consideration is that having both the one set to failure and multiple sub-maximal set approaches in ones training arsenal permits the athlete to go with the flow of the body’s natural wisdom and cycles. There are some days when the lifter simply does not feel up to an all out effort. Nevertheless a lifter can have a very productive workout by handling lighter weights and doing multiple sets.
Finally, the trainee can train several aspects of a muscle’s adaptive capacity by performing several different kinds of sets in the same workout (e.g., performing both high and low reps). This is obviously impossible without multiple sets.
How many sets should be performed for optimal strength gains? At least four variables influence the answer to this question. The first variable is that of intensity. The more intense an effort in a given set, the smaller is the number of sets that can be performed with the same intensity. An absolutely all out effort that results in a personal record may be impossible to duplicate in the same workout (and it is probably unproductive to try to do so).
The second variable is that of the number of reps performed in the set. Single efforts, no matter how intense, can nearly always be duplicated in subsequent sets (except perhaps the effort to attain a personal record that requires an athlete’s complete psychological, emotional and physical reserves). Higher reps exhaust the athlete more completely and make repeated sets at the same intensity almost impossible. An all out set of twenty reps is a hard act to follow.
It should be noted that, as a group, the Bulgarians are at the extreme edge of those who believe that multiple maximum sets are beneficial. One of the reasons is that they train on singles, which permits more sets to be performed than if sets with higher reps are employed.
As a sort of rule of thumb, you often see athletes performing as many as five to ten singles with a weight that is difficult but not an all out maximum in training. Athletes who perform doubles generally perform from five to eight sets. When the reps rise to three, athletes rarely perform more than six sets, and three to five sets is closer to the norm. When reps rise into the four-to-six range, athletes perform as few as one and as many as five or six sets, but three sets is probably the median load handled. Naturally, all of the above are a function of the proximity of the load to the athlete’s maximum. The closer the load to that maximum, the lower the number of sets is likely to be.
The third variable is the muscle groups involved in the effort. Certain muscle groups appear to recover more quickly from set to set than others. It is generally more difficult to perform repeated sets with maximal effort in the squat than in the military press. In addition, multiple maximal sets in the squat will fatigue the body far more overall than multiple sets of presses.
The last issue is the degree and length of muscle tension developed during the repetitions of a set affect the number of sets in which maximal efforts can be performed. Generally, the greater the tension that is developed in the muscle and the longer it is maintained, the more difficult it is to repeat sets at the same level of performance. It is easier, at least on a physical level, to repeat an all out effort in the snatch than in the squat. This is particularly true if the squats are performed in a slow fashion in both the ascent and the descent.
Only by considering all of these factors in combination can an athlete or coach estimate the training stimulus that will be generated by a given bout of exercise. By balancing these factors a athlete can generate improvements with multiple or single heavy sets.
Some Additional Issues With Regard to Intensity and Volume
The Training Workout Versus the Testing Workout
During training the objective should be to cause the appropriate mechanisms of the body to adapt to the stress being imposed by the training, which means that the stimulation applied must be sufficient to generate a training effect. At the same time the training should not be so stressful as to over run the body’s ability to recuperate from and adapt to the training.
A training effect can generally be achieved at a level of training well below one that would over run the body’s ability to adapt to stress. That is, there is normally a significant range of training stimulus between the minimum that can influence the body to change and one that can over run the body’s ability to adapt. The objective of training should be to strike a balance between stimulating the maximum amount of adaptation and endangering the body’s defenses. There should obviously be an attempt to achieve the former while avoiding the latter.
However, while this should be the overall objective of training (and in theory an athlete should be able to progress at the maximum rate by staying at the lower end of the training range), there are times when it is necessary and desirable to put the body and mind to the ultimate test, to push the mind and body toward the upper edge of the training range. It is not always possible to measure an athlete’s progress without pushing him or her to the maximum. This is because an athlete can feel that certain weights are becoming easier to lift yet there has been no improvement in the athlete’s maximum capacity. Why? When the athlete handles sub-maximum weights, they can be made to feel easier by a little extra concentration, a little more emotional excitement or a little different technique. These variables tend to be eliminated as everything is taxed to an absolute limit with maximum weights. It is true that the lifter may fail to be able to marshal maximum concentration, emotional excitement and optimal technique at the time of the maximum effort, but then the athlete usually can recognize this kind of deficiency more easily than he or she can specify the level of effort that he or she is exerting with a sub-maximum weight.
The second reason why testing is important is related to the first. Only a maximum effort can reveal deficiencies in the athlete’s preparation, whether it is psychological, emotional, or physical. Once revealed, these performance deficiencies can then be addressed in planning the next training sequence.
Finally, the ability to perform at a maximum level is a learned ability. It involves a combination of the abilities to recruit the maximum possible number of muscle fibers, to achieve the appropriate level of emotional arousal, to execute a skill on demand and to overcome natural inhibitions so that the body can be pushed ever closer to its limits. These qualities cannot be learned completely at less than maximum performance levels. As a consequence, there is the need to have testing or control workouts.
Perhaps the most important reason for the testing workout is to provide the athlete with the satisfaction that can only be derived from doing his or her personal record (PR). Improvements in an athlete’s PR are the biggest single reason to train. Only the personal satisfaction that comes from making PRs can fuel the athlete’s mind with the drive that is needed to achieve ultimate success. Therefore, maximum efforts in training are an important key to progress.
Although maximum days are important to a lifter’s progress, absolute maximums often involve the athlete’s working on his or her “nerve.” That is, many athletes become very emotionally aroused while performing the maximum efforts. Training too often in such a state can deplete the athlete’s nervous energy and make it harder for the athlete to recuperate from his or her training sessions. As a result, the number of training sessions in which the athlete’s emotional energy is used in order to make the lifts he or she attempts must be carefully managed. Some coaches go so far as to say that an athlete should never use a significant amount of emotional arousal in training.
It is my belief that athletes who are able to lift maximum weights with great frequency in training have learned to lift with little emotional arousal. Such lifters are often able to train at high levels of intensity because they are not taxing their bodies and minds with emotionally draining workouts. This is a desirable ability for an athlete to have as it permits the athlete to work at high levels of intensity more often than an athlete who becomes emotionally charged to lift maximum weights. However, the athlete who becomes very excited while lifting maximum weights must recognize this fact by not going to maximum levels as often.
Limits in Training Versus Competition
There have been many athletes in weightlifting history who have been able to consistently lift more in training than in competition (some as much as 10+ kg. more on each lift). The true training prowess of such lifters has often been exaggerated because of a failure to note advantages that were taken in training relative to competition (e.g., the use of straps or training at a body weight well above the competition limits). At the other end of the spectrum, there have been athletes who have been unable in the gym to approach the lifts they could do in competition. Consider the example of Lou Riecke, the American world record holder in the snatch during the 1960s (147 kg. at 82.5 kg.). He reportedly never snatched more than 125 kg. in training prior to his record breaking performance. Similarly, Tommy Kono reported training alone at times and under such conditions that he was able to do 10% to 15% more in competition.
Having experienced both of the relationships of competition lifts to training lifts mentioned above, I can easily understand both circumstances. It is obvious that progress can be made by lifters with either training situation. The important thing is for the lifter to be aware of the factors that contribute to both kinds of relationships and to understand which ones are at work at which times. Athletes who are not able to do this will experience dramatic fluctuations in the relationships they have between training and competitive lifts, often with disastrous results in terms of predicting their competitive performances.
Perceived Versus Absolute Training Intensity
There is often a substantial difference in perceived versus absolute training intensity. In a given training session, an athlete may feel that he or she is lifting a maximal weight, but that weight may be far less than the lifter’s recent best. Absolute intensity and the perceived intensity of effort required to lift a given weight can even change within one training session (after an athlete has performed an exhausting effort he or she might repeat an all out effort, although the same level of performance might not be achieved. In such a case the athlete’s level of perceived effort is sustained from set to set, but the actual performance in terms of weight lifted or reps performed may decline. Some trainers believe that perceived effort should guide the training process while others believe that absolute intensity is key.
The Bulgarians are great believers in the perceived effort concept and have built much of their training of champion weightlifters around the concept of perceived maximums. The level of actual intensity at which each athlete will work in each training session is determined by that athlete’s level of performance in that workout. Under this approach the athlete works up to a maximum effort during each training session and in each exercise. Once the weight that requires that effort has been identified, the athlete will perform repeated lifts with it. Often singles with the maximum for the session are interspersed with sets that are 5 kg. to 20 kg. lower.
For instance, an athlete might work up to a maximum in the snatch attempting a difficult lift as many as 3 times to establish a maximum for the workout. Then the athlete might reduce the weight by 10 kg. and perform 2 sets of 2 reps with that weight. Then the weight might be increased by 5 kg. and a single might be performed, followed by a single with the established maximum (again allowing as many as 3 attempts to make that maximum weight). Finally, the lifter might lower the weight 20 kg. and perform 2 repetitions, increase by 10 kg. again and perform 2 to 3 sets of 2 reps with that weight and then once again attempt the maximum weight for the day (again permitting as many as 3 attempts in order to make that weight). Alternatively, the lifter might work up to a maximum, then drop down by 5 kg. and perform for 2 singles and then drop down another 5 kg. to perform 3 singles. This pattern of working up to and around a maximum for repeated sets might continue for 2 to 3 weeks, after which the athlete would have an “unloading week” in which he or she would perform lower sets with 10 kg. and 20 kg. less than the maximum instead of 5 kg. and 10 kg. below. This method of training, with or without the in between lower intensity sets, is often referred to as the “method of maximal efforts” because the athlete is always functioning at his or her maximum at the time.
At times the Bulgarians use a method called “the method of utmost efforts.” In this method the athlete works up to a maximum and then makes repeat efforts with that weight until it is not possible to make another single. An athlete might repeat his or her efforts with a maximum for six to ten singles without any reduction in weights between sets. The Bulgarians would regard a weight that could be repeated for more than six to ten sets as one that did not require an all out effort.
Frequency of Training
Frequency of training is one of the biggest areas of disagreement among coaches and athletes. It is interesting to note that many of the proponents of a particular frequency, refuse to see the possibility that some other schedule might be as effective (or even effective at all).
At one end of the scale, we have the Bulgarians. It is well known that today most Bulgarian lifters train six or more days a week and at least two times a day, sometimes three or more times in a day. These two or three daily sessions are not necessarily “split routines” (routines in which the same number of exercises that would have been done in one long workout are spread over several shorter workouts). Instead, at certain times in their training cycle the Bulgarian lifters may well snatch and C&J up to a maximum in the morning and then come back in the afternoon and/or evening to do the same thing. This concept of several maximum workouts a day, performed five or six days a week, is practically inconceivable to many Americans, yet it is well documented.
At the other extreme are the adherents of one day a week. Working out once a week workouts on a particular body part or exercise is still popular in the powerlifting community, and some quite famous and successful weightlifters have exercised in this way in the past. For example, Bob Bednarski, former World Champion and world record holder, did some of his exercises only once a week and often only one exercise a day (although Bob generally did related exercises twice a week, such as military presses on Monday and competition style presses on Saturday). Some of the athletes who have trained a particular exercise only once a week have made remarkable progress and reached the very highest levels of achievement in athletic competition. In fact, there have even been a number of reports on strength athletes who have reached very noteworthy strength levels training less frequently than once a week. Obviously, the human body has an ability to get stronger within a wide variety of frequency in terms of stimulation. The more important factor appears to be that a given bout of exercise provide a stimulus of sufficient strength to cause the body to begin and sustain the adaptive process.
Virtually all trainees find that they are unable to improve their performance in a given exercise unless they perform that exercise, or a related one, at least once in a period of one week to ten days and most require two training sessions across such a period of time. For example, for most trainees, improving squatting strength requires back squatting twice a week. Alternatively, he or she could back squat once and front squat once (i.e., perform related exercises). However, a program of jumping once a week and squatting once, or performing leg extensions once a week and squatting once would be unlikely to lead to a significant increase in the squats of many lifters over time (or at least not as great of an increase as would have occurred had the exercise been practiced twice).
At the other end of the spectrum, it would be difficult to demonstrate that it is necessary to perform a given exercise more that three times a week in order to improve at a maximum rate (although related exercises may be done daily).
There are some good arguments for and against training a given group of muscles more than three times a week. There can be little doubt that from the standpoint of pure skill, more frequent and correct practice aids in the development of better motor skills than less frequent training. More frequent workouts may also present an advantage in terms of the neurological basis for strength.
There does not appear to be a strong basis for the necessity of training every day in order to develop the size of the muscle fibers. Overall, the evidence that daily training is required for maximum strength gains is quite scanty. There have been some studies that suggest more days are better, but such studies generally used the same routine every training session, were of relatively short term duration and involved trainees with limited experience. If the intensity of the training stimulus had been increased for those exercising fewer days, would they have gained just as quickly? Would training every day have led to fatigue over the long haul? It is difficult to know, but the very notion that there is a need for light and heavy training days gives credence to the idea that daily training may not be a requirement. There is little evidence that any significant detraining occurs before forty-eight hours. There is no evidence that the training effect generated from a fairly vigorous workout wears off within forty-eight hours, and the full effects may not be felt for several days or even a week or more. Daily workouts may actually assist in the recuperation process from periodic intense workouts; a moderate workout done on Tuesday might help an athlete to recuperate from a heavy workout on Monday so that a heavy workout can be done again on Wednesday, whereas two days of complete rest might have been necessary had the Tuesday workout not been done. The majority of high level athletes train every day (or at least six days a week).
Even though most top athletes train daily, are there arguments against daily training of the same muscles via the same or similar exercises? Yes. You could argue that training every day fatigues the muscles and connective tissues and that such training will lead to injury over time. The annals of rehabilitation and occupational therapy are filled with stories of workers who “exercised” daily and ended their careers crippled by their jobs. Was insufficient time to recuperate the reason? Another argument against training every day is that such training may simply be a waste of time. It may also be a hindrance to the recuperation from heavy workouts. Once a stimulus is presented to the body, any further stimulus may be ignored, may interfere with the body’s response to the first stimulus or may add momentum to adaptations that have already been initiated by a previous bout of exercise. No one knows the complete story in this area, even on a short term basis (the long term effects of doing too much exercise are not clearly understood). On a practical level, I have known very few people who trained regularly and suffered from underwork. I have known many more who suffered from overtraining and injury; the split is about 20% undertrained to 80% overtrained, if not 10% and 90%.
Arguments for infrequent training include giving the body time to recuperate fully between workouts, and erring on the side of undertraining surely poses less of a threat to the immune system (which can be compromised by overtraining). Of course, infrequent training can be taken to extremes as well. For example, with too much rest the body begins to detrain. The longer the rest the greater the detraining effect. Moreover, the detraining effect is not an even one. In all likelihood, the ability to train (the work capacity of the muscles) will decline before strength does. Therefore, even if one could retain any strength gains stimulated by previous training for three weeks, failure to train for such a period would compromise the body’s ability to perform work. The result would be a great stress on the athlete’s body when the athlete next trained. This stress might preclude the athlete from doing the kind of workout that might be necessary to generate a training effect during the next workout (or the body might spend so much of its adaptive energy rebuilding its ability to train after such a workout that it would have none left over to adapt to the stimulus to further develop its strength). Moreover, a muscle that gets fatigued easily, as a detrained muscles always will, is more susceptible to injury.
There is another category of daily training that can be recommended on a much less qualified basis: training every day but on different exercises and/or different muscle groups. It is common practice for bodybuilders to “split” their routines by body part. For example, a bodybuilder may do many exercises that affect his or her leg muscles one day and exercises that affect the upper body on another day. Or the legs and back may be worked one day, the chest and arms another.
Many bodybuilders use a “double split,” exercising one muscle group per workout, but doing two muscle groups a day. There is some scientific and considerable empirical evidence which suggests that distributing training sessions in this way is beneficial, in that it permits the trainee to focus more concentration and energy on each workout, thereby achieving better results than are available through one longer session.
Similarly, there would doubtless be a benefit if weightlifters could practice in this fashion,. Unfortunately, the “whole body” nature of weightlifting exercises makes it difficult, if not impossible, to work only some muscles at each workout. However, there can be significant differences in the emphasis of a lifter’s training from day to day. For instance, the development of the pull might be emphasized one day and the squat or jerk on another day. In such a case many of the same muscles are being trained each day but to a very different degree and in different ways. That is what I recommend to the athletes I train.
Building Volume Over Time
The need to increase the volume of a lifter’s training over time in order to continue to stimulate a training effect is virtually accepted as axiomatic by many lifting coaches. These coaches believe that it is impossible to achieve the very highest results with anything less than staggering volumes of work. Although I subscribed to such a notion early in my career, I have come to believe that such thinking is simply false. In my experience, absolute intensity needs to increase as the athlete reaches higher and higher levels, but volume may even need to decrease (certainly not increase) once the lifter has reached a high level. A growing number of theorists who seem to share that view. Recent publications by noted Soviet and Hungarian theorists, as well as some recent work by American researchers (such as Costill) point in this direction.
There is no doubt that an increase in volume is one powerful tool in the arsenal of the athlete and coach. In many instances, increased volume itself will lead to an increase in results, but other means for increasing results are often more effective overall than a sheer increase in volume. When volume is increased, it must be done carefully and in an undulating fashion (the volume is increased for a time and then decreased back to a level just above what that lifter was handling during a previous period of low loading). A sharp and unremitting increase in load is almost always a recipe for disaster in the advanced lifter (an might be a lifter who has trained with very small loads and for whom the increased load is still well within that athlete’s recuperative powers).
Whenever volume is increased substantially, there may be some unwanted costs attached to the increase in results that arises out of that increase in volume. First, the lifter may find it difficult to retain strength gained through increased volume should there ever be a need to reduce the volume again. Second, the increase in volume may itself lead to a virtually permanent state of borderline overtraining, in which the lifter rarely improves after the first (or first few) surges in volume. Third, training at a high volume tends to predispose the body to overuse injuries, injuries which can slow progress and even threaten a career. Fourth, high volumes require considerable training periods and rest periods. Such periods are available to athletes who live under the conditions of professional athletes. Unfortunately, these conditions are difficult for weightlifters to achieve, especially by lifters who are striving to reach high performance levels for the first time (and therefore have not been able to secure any special means of financial support that permit a limited work or school schedule). It cannot be emphasized enough that the effect of extra training time on a person’s life is not limited to the time allotted to the training itself. That extra training also generates a greater need for relaxation and recuperation, a need which, if left unsatisfied, will retard progress.
Therefore, while increased volume can be a useful training variable, it should not be overly relied upon to achieve championship results. Fortunately it does not have to be. The history of American weightlifting is made up of stories of athletes who achieved literally world class results while holding regular jobs and/or attending school on a full time basis. Such stories are not limited to American lifters of the 1940s and 1950s (who, some allege, did not have as much competition as the lifters of today). For example, Mark Cameron, Jeff Michels and Cal Shake are all Americans who came within approximately 10 kg. of the world records in the snatch or C&J in their weight classes at the peak of their careers during the 1980s. None of these athletes lived as true professional athletes for any significant period immediately prior to those accomplishments (though they did not generally have what would be considered exhausting work schedules).
What are the limits to training volume? There have been reports of athletes performing as many as 50,000 reps a year in all of their weight training exercises combined (which for weightlifters translates to approximately 20,000 to 25,000 sets, or as many as 2,000 sets a month, 500 a week or more than 80 sets a day with 6 training days a week). Are there lower limits? I know of at least one World Champion who did approximately 1/12 of that workload, or perhaps 2,500 reps a year! Now, probably neither extreme is good for most lifters, and something a lot closer to the lower level than the higher is probably best for most of them. But I would argue that such a determination should be based solely on the lifter’s particular needs, and that attention to counting aggregate reps verges on the inconsequential.
The lifter needs to do enough snatches and related lifts to improve that lift. Similarly, the lifter needs to do enough cleans to improve the clean, enough jerks to improve the jerk and enough squats to improve the squat. However, there may be little relation between the requirements for each, because the reasons and methods being used to develop each lift will tend to be different for different periods in time. Measurement of total volume is certainly important as an indicator of the overall stress that is being placed on the organism. Sudden, significant and persistent increases in volume can surely lead to overtraining and injury. Monitoring volume can serve as an early warning mechanism for overzealous athletes and coaches. But to seek volume for volume’s sake or to rely on volume as the key indicator of the training stimulus is almost always a mistake. The subject of volume will be covered in much greater detail in Chapter 6.
The Tolerance for Error Can Be Both Small and Great in Terms of the Training Effect
As we have seen, there are a wide variety of training variables that can be manipulated and combined to stimulate strength improvements in the weightlifter. Since we do not yet fully understand the mechanisms by which the strength of voluntary muscle contractions is increased, we cannot fully explain why so many methods of strength training succeed while others are less successful. The many available techniques of training tempt some trainers to conclude that “any method works as long an you believe in it,” or “any method works if you get enough rest.” The truth is that there can be a very wide range of techniques that work, but there can also be a very narrow difference between success and failure.
For example, I have seen a lifter who had been stuck at one weight in the squat for several months suddenly improve merely by increasing by 2.5 kg. the weights used during medium workouts. Similarly, I have seen lifters who were failing to progress on a given program . see improvements when they reduce the average weight lifted by 2.5 kg. How can a mere 2.5 kg. (1% to 1.5% of the lifter’s maximums in the cases cited) make such a difference? Apparently, these lifters were just at the threshold of overtraining or undertraining, and the slight change tipped the balance in favor of positive adaptation.
The lesson in this has two parts. First, lifters should never become discouraged by a failure to improve. A lifter can fail to progress for a very long period and suddenly experience a turnaround merely by discovering a training factor that needs to be corrected. Wrong training methods can lead to total stagnation, and even regression, for years at a time. Then suddenly, a change can be introduced, and progress can begin anew. A surprising number of coaches and athletes repeat the same workouts with no signs that the workouts are effective, concluding in the end that the workouts are correct and the lifter unworthy. In point of fact, the standard of a good workout is whether it causes the athlete to improve.
The second lesson to be learned is that because the response to training is so individualized, research on many subjects can never hope to identify the ideal workout. To be sure, large scale studies can point the athlete and coach in a particular direction, but they cannot substitute for individual experimentation (which is the focus of a section on “Mills Methods” later in this chapter).
A Few Closing Remarks on Monitoring the Training Effect
Once a coach or athlete understands the concept of the training effect and how that concept applies to his or her training for strength, power or flexibility, he or she must embark on the path of discovering what training methods work him or her. There are two contrasting paths in that search. One path leads a lifter away from the truth and the other toward it. The path away involves following training methods blindly and without question or being misled by someone’s version of “science.” The path toward discovery involves learning how to differentiate truth from fiction. In this section on the training effect, we will spend some time on each of these areas. First, we will examine methods of logical inference that can be invaluable to the lifter in his or her search for sound training methods. Then we will look at the problem of relying on pseudoscience.
Faulty Interpretations of Practical Experience and Scientific Research
It is a practical dilemma of human life that we are forced to act without complete information on most subjects. Information has a price, as does inaction. In the interest of saving time and other scarce resources we all learn to make inferences about life on the basis of very limited exposure to all of the available data. While this ability has been at the root of an incalculable number of mankind’s advances in knowledge and technology, improper inference has also led to many of the greatest tragedies that mankind has ever known. Prejudice, witch hunts, purges and the slaughter of millions of people have all resulted in the main from man’s propensity toward hasty generalizations. So it has been with respect to uncovering the secrets of strength as well.
Throughout the history of strength, the thinnest shred of evidence for the effectiveness of any method of training has led to mass movements in the direction of some silly notion that was then regarded as “the” training method. There was a movement toward isometrics some years ago, then it was variable resistance and then isokinetics. Each was heralded as the advance that would change the face of training. In recent years there has been a focus on the “secrets” of the coaches and athletes in the former Soviet Union. Exotic food supplements, restoration methods and plyometrics are just some examples of these supposed “secrets.” The results have been indigestion, lighter wallets and sore knees, but only limited advances in the way of a contribution toward safe and effective advances in the realm of training for strength gains. (This is the fault not of the many serious and honest Soviet sports specialists but of the hucksters who seek to make a quick buck out of these “secrets”.) There seems to be an attitude among a small but vocal minority of coaches that can be described as follows: “Here is something new that I can try. It has a wisp of plausibility and will make me appear to be on the leading edge of training technology. Best of all, no one has yet had the time or money to disprove the theory. In the meantime, no will notice my general ineptitude as a coach with all of the commotion that I can create with the application of this new theory.”
It is bad enough that lay people jump to the conclusion that because a great champion drinks a certain brand of cola while competing, or crosses his eyes while concentrating, therein lie the secrets to that athlete’s success. Perhaps some reasonable person can talk the hasty generalizer out of his or her conclusion by pointing out that the champion in question may either present an unusual case or that the behavior observed was not a cause of that athlete’s success. Unfortunately, when a training “insight” has reportedly been developed in the “scientific community,” it is often regarded as sacrosanct (especially among nonscientists, who will then quote the study for the rest of their natural lives). Scientists themselves are trained to be very careful about making hasty generalizations. They realize that for the effectiveness of a given training regimen to be proven (more properly in terms of today’s scientific thinking, for it to avoid being disproved), it must be performed under conditions that eliminate psychological variables on the part of the subjects and those who are performing the test (e.g., in a double blind study). In addition, the experiment must be one that has been repeated by other scientists with similar results. Popularizers of scientific research need not be bound by such constraints; they merely rush the results to press, along with a generous supply of speculation (which they couch in scientific terms and present as scientific fact).
Two examples in this area should suffice. One example is presented in Chapter 6 in the opening discussion of the section on “periodization”. In the case of periodization, some very preliminary data were used to make enormous generalizations about training. The result is a lot of people blindly periodizing their training without even understanding the concept, assuming that it has been “proven” effective by the scientific community and by champion athletes. See Chapter 6 for further information.
A second example can be given with respect to the subject of plyometrics. Some years ago plyometrics (particularly the version known as “depth jumping”) were introduced in the Soviet Union (some argue that they were actually developed in the United States first). Although defined differently by different authors, depth jumping consists of jumping from a height and then rebounding up as soon as possible. Various heights are advised, and some authors suggest that weight should added to the body of the athlete to add to the downward impact. Sources within the Soviet Union, such as noted speed strength expert Yuri Verkhoshansky, are relied on for scientific support of the training method. However, if you go to the source, the support for the theory becomes clear. In Verkhoshansky’s own book Fundamentals Of Special Strength- Training In Sport, published in 1977 (a book devoted to the development of power for sport in general, not to the development of strength or power for the sport of weightlifting in particular), he gives very high marks to what he calls the “shock method” of developing strength (which is essentially depth jumping). When he discusses depth jumping, he states that the effect of such jumps on explosive strength is “exceptionally high” and that “they have no equal in comparison to the other means of strength training.” He then goes on to mention a number of studies performed in the 1970s to support this contention.
However, the one study that he actually describes is a study involving track and field athletes. These athletes reportedly did a series of 475 depth jumps over a twelve week period in comparison with the control group (who did 1,472 general “push-offs,” which he describes as squats, jumping and hopping with a bar loaded to various percentages of maximum). The former group demonstrated greater improvements in “reactive ability.” Did the athletes benefit from the depth jumping? Very probably. But is it possible that they benefited from simply doing less training overall (the author even mentions the benefit of being able to improve results with less effort)? Or because the kind of bar training done was normally ineffective anyway? Or because variety had been introduced into the athlete’s training? Or because the athletes snuck in a little bar training on the side? We certainly cannot tell from the description of the study, and it is probable that given the construction of that study, the answers would not be forthcoming by analyzing it. However, the key point here is not whether further analysis or a greater understanding of the material would support the conclusions reached by the author. The key is that one must know when the data provided is insufficient relative to the conclusion reached. If this is so, the reader should regard the author’s conclusions not as knowledge but rather as educated speculation. Such speculation may be valuable and may indeed prove to be correct, but it has not been scientifically proven, and there is a major difference between speculation and proof.
A reference to using plyometrics in the training of weightlifters was made in the Soviet Union’s 1982 Weightlifting Yearbook. In an article called “Speed-Strength Preparation in the Pre-Competition Stage,” Deniskin, Verkhoshansky and Medvedyev explain a study that they performed with respect to “depth jumping with a rebound.” They indicate that the purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of such “shock training” with the traditional methods of training highly qualified weightlifters in the pre-competition stage. The fact that such a study made the Yearbook and that no similar studies are mentioned in the article suggest that this may have been the first study of its type on weightlifters.
The study involved only fifteen lifters, ranging in ability from Class I to Master of Sport. All of the lifters followed what was considered to be a conventional kind of program. However, the control group did an average of 929 lifts and lifted an average of 114 tons, while the experimental group did 786 lifts and lifted 90 tons. The reduction in the number of lifts and total tonnage lifted was accomplished by reducing the number of squats performed by the experimental group. The experimental group did 310 depth jumps in addition to their lifting. The experimental group performed far better on the competitive lifts than the control group, and they did far better with respect to speed strength tests as well. The article concludes that depth jumps are useful in preparing for competition; that they are superior to traditional preparation with a bar; that the optimal dosage of jumps in a workout is four sets of ten reps and that the optimal number of jumps overall is 310; that the training volume can be decreased when jumps are used; and that such jumps should be done three times a week for four weeks before a competition. It is hard to believe that statements about the optimality of sets and reps, as well as total jumps, would be made on the basis of one study that did not even compare different set, rep and total jump configurations. Perhaps there were earlier studies that pinpointed the correct number of total reps, or perhaps this is just an example of hasty generalization. In either case, there is no way for the reader to tell. Could such scanty evidence have spawned a trend here in the United States? It appears so. Again the value of plyometrics may be as great as is claimed, or even greater, but this has yet to be proven scientifically.
It is interesting to note that in A System Of Multi-Year Training In Weightlifting, a major work about training weightlifters published in 1986, Medvedyev references one previously unlisted article that supposedly “corroborated” the effectiveness of “shock” methods. There is no mention of any studies that verify the research presented in the study that appeared in the 1982 Weightlifting Yearbook In addition, Medvedyev issues repeated warnings that such jumping should only be utilized up to three times a year, that squats should be reduced to compensate for the addition of the jumping, that depth jumping is only an adjunct to overall training and that caution must be used in its application. This suggests to me that at least some injuries may have occurred after the 1982 article was published. I have certainly seen them in the United States.
It is interesting to note that some more recent Western research suggests that there may be some real value to plyometric training. The benefit may lie in the stimulation and refinement of the body’s stretch-shortening cycle (which is discussed in Appendix II). However, this does not mean that there is only one way to improve the performance of that cycle, that similar exercises weightlifters already perform (e.g., the dip for the jerk) don’t elicit the same or similar training effects, or that it would be worth the risk for weightlifters to incorporate plyometrics into their training.
The lesson to be learned is not to accept the word of the experts without question, to read the original research and to realize that we are far from having arrived at “the” answer to it all in the realm of training human beings for athletic competition. Moreover, biological individuality strongly suggests that there never will be one “best” method of training for us all. Rather, each athlete, aided by the experience of other athletes, coaches and sports scientists, will have to discover (through the process of careful experimentation) what works best for him or her.
The Lifter’s Best Friend: Mill’s Method of Difference
Scientists have come to rely almost exclusively on highly sophisticated statistical methods in their research. Athletes and coaches are often precluded from using such techniques in evaluating training approaches because they lack a knowledge of statistics, the necessary computational equipment for statistical analysis or an adequate “sample” from which to draw conclusions from their experiments. This does not mean that a scientific method cannot be used to evaluate training methods. It merely means that a non-statistical method must be used instead of a statistical one. One such approach is Mill’s method of difference.
Mill’s method of difference was developed by the nineteenth century philosopher John Stuart Mill. Although he is probably best known for his theories in the area of ethics (i.e., utilitarianism), Mill was also regarded as one of history’s great logicians. While some of Mill’s logical methods were rightfully criticized by later philosophers, he did formally identify several key methods of reasoning that are as essential today as they were when he first worked them out. These are: the method of agreement, the method of difference and the methods of concomitant variation and residues. The employment of these methods to analyze and plan training is one of the best ways ever discovered to improve performance.
When we use the method of agreement, we look for a common factor that is present in all cases in which an effect occurs. If your squat improved appreciably at several points in your training relative to other times, it is appropriate to see whether a single factor was present during all of the periods during which outstanding improvements were made (e.g., an extra day of training or, more likely, an extra day of rest)). If such a factor is uncovered, it suggests that this specific factor is capable of causing extra improvements. It may not be the only factor that can cause improvements (there may be many others that you have not even tried yet), but it is one that apparently works for you. Such a factor is said to be sufficient but not necessary (it is sufficient to cause an event but it may not be necessary, because changes in other factors might lead to the same result or might compromise the result in some way).
The method of difference is applied by removing a single factor from training while holding everything else constant, then observing the result. If a particular effect disappears each time a specific factor is removed from ones training, it demonstrates the importance of that factor. The effect that disappears may be positive in nature (e.g., improvement) or negative (e.g., an inflammation of the knee). The method of difference tells us only whether a factor is necessary to cause a given result, not whether it is by itself sufficient to cause the outcome (i.e., other factors may be necessary as well in order to generate that outcome). The squat workout on Thursday may be working only because the lifter squats on Tuesday and Saturday as well (i.e., because Thursday is an extra day).
Unfortunately, many training factors cannot be evaluated using only the methods of agreement and difference. This is because matters of degree affect results (e.g., it may be that only an extra heavy day of squatting leads to improvements, not simply an extra day of any level of training intensity). We characterize differences in degree as quantitative not qualitative. The methods of concomitant variation and residues help us to identify quantitative differences.
The method of concomitant variations works by measuring the quantitative change in an effect associated with a difference in a believed cause. The correlation can be either positive or negative, weak or strong. A correlation does not, in itself, prove sufficiency or necessity. It simply demonstrates that given the presence of all of the other factors, variations in A are sufficient to cause variations in B. When the method of concomitant variations is used, it also does not tell one whether a cause is direct or indirect or guarantee the direction of the cause (A may be causing B or B may be causing A). Only if you understand the nature of qualitative relationships can you use the method of concomitant variations to measure the value of a constant in those relationships.
The method of residues can help us to identify an unknown factor or to quantify a known one. For example, if we know that a certain effect is partially a result of factor A and partially a result of factor B, we know that any remaining effect that is unexplained by A and B (the residue) is due to still another factor, factor C. A weightlifting analogy exists in the area of technique. Some years ago, when they were analyzing bar velocities, sport scientists from the Soviet Union realized that the velocity of the bar at the point when the lifter began the squat under in the jerk could not fully explain the ultimate height that the bar reached. This led them to further investigation which led to the discovery that other influences which occurred after the final explosion phase contributed to the upward rise of the bar.
In Mill’s methods only one variable is manipulated and/or studied at a time. This is critical in order for Mill’s powerful methods of reasoning to be effectively applied. Yet it is commonplace in weightlifting training to vary many factors at a time, thereby making it very difficult for the coach or athlete to determine which factor is responsible for which effect. Rather than changing the percentage of one’s maximum, the number of reps in a given set, or the number of sets performed in a given workout, it is commonplace to change them all at once. And as if three changes were not enough, the number and nature of exercises done in a workout and the number of training sessions performed in a week are often changed as well. The problem of identifying effects becomes even more complicated because each change in a factor may have not only its individual effect but also effects which arise out of the interaction of each factor that changes. The result is the virtual assurance that it will be impossible for anything to be learned from experience about that particular lifter’s reaction to a specific training response.
It is hard to imagine anything that would retard long term progress more than the failure to learn from experience. A lifter who does not is condemned to a career characterized by random changes in training variables, leading to a chaotic career marked by random results.
Some lifters, recognizing the difficulties posed by changing factors, respond by never changing anything at all. They suffer the same fate as the random trainer ; they never learn much about their own body’s response to training. In addition, it is likely that even if they are to be wedded to a training method that happens to be successful for them from the start, they will be destined to have a very limited career.
Alternatively, if lifters and their coaches systematically varied only one training factor at a time, learning would take place far more rapidly, and the critical business of discovering the optimal training factors for that lifter would proceed as quickly as possible. It is true that manipulating one variable at a time can be an arduous process. Using such a method can require months and even years to explore certain variables effectively. Judgment and experience will enable the coached athlete to select the variables that are most likely to yield results and to reduce experimental time, so there is no substitute for such judgment. However, even when an experienced eye is not present, systematic variations will ultimately bear fruit. In contrast, the decision to alter many training factors simultaneously may be justified for a variety of reasons, but such a practice will hamper the athlete’s progress in understanding which factors are leading to which effects.
Some Common Training Patterns
There is a virtually unlimited number of possible set, rep and intensity patterns that can be performed in a given workout. However, some popular general patterns have emerged over the history of weight training, and several of them will be examined here.
Multiple Sets With Similar Rep Patterns
The most common approach weightlifters use in their training is to perform the same (or a very similar) number of reps per set on a particular exercise for the duration of the training session. For example, a lifter who plans to perform five repetitions in the squat on his or her heavy sets of the day would perform approximately five reps on each of the warmup sets as well. Alternatively, an athlete who expects to perform heavy singles might warm up with doubles on the early sets and perform singles on the heavy ones, so the reps performed are similar but not identical for the duration of the training session.
Athletes and coaches who believe that a certain number of reps are the most beneficial for a particular workout generally reason that if doubles are what they intend to do at the end of the workout, it is doubles that they should perform most of the way up (or at least on most of the heavier sets of the training session)
There are several other repetition patterns that are also used in the training of weightlifters, though not nearly as often as the multiple sets with similar reps pattern.
Pyramiding
One of the longest lived and most widely used training systems ever developed is the pyramid system. First appearing at least fifty years ago (then often referred to as the “heavy and light system”), this training approach involves the use of medium (six to ten) and low (one to five) reps in the same workout. The most common way in which this is done is (after warming up with lighter weights) to begin with a weight that permits a medium number of reps and then to add weight and reduce reps as necessary to complete additional set. For example, after warming up with a couple of sets of ten repetitions with weights that can be done rather easily, the lifter might begin with a weight that is fairly challenging for ten repetitions, then move up to a weight that is difficult for eight repetitions and perform those eight repetitions. The lifter might then move on to a near maximum effort at six repetitions, followed by a limit set of four reps and then a limit set of two reps. Those interested in developing strength tend to start “higher” in the pyramid (perhaps at five reps with a heavy weight and then drop perhaps one rep per set while increasing the weight until they have worked up to a heavy single). This is sometimes called a half or partial pyramid (because the lifter starts halfway up the pyramid in terms of reps). Those mainly interested in gaining muscle size might only do the bottom half of the pyramid (starting with ten or twelve reps and only working up in weight until they get to five or six reps). Those interested in gaining size and strength would tend to follow a procedure closer to that of the first example.
There are many other variations on the pyramid theme. Some trainees use a “reverse” pyramid. After warming up thoroughly, these lifters first take the set that will have the heaviest weight and the lowest number of reps. Then the weight is reduced and the reps are increased, working down the pyramid. This approach enables the athlete to attempt the heaviest weights when he or she is the “freshest” and then to go for a maximum pump with an all out set to exhaustion. (When the lifter works from the bottom of the pyramid and performs an all out set of high repetitions, the athlete’s ability to perform well with subsequent sets at higher weights and lower reps is generally compromised to a significant extent.)
Still other weight trainers work up the pyramid in the normal way, but they recommend finishing the training on that exercise with one or more sets at either end of the pyramid. For example, those interested in the development of strength rather than size might do extra sets of doubles upon reaching the top of the pyramid, thereby spending more time at the top of the pyramid than anywhere else. Bodybuilders might go back down the pyramid for one or more maximum sets with lighter weights and higher reps. Even some trainees who are primarily interested in strength feel that a final pumping or flushing set (one that permits perhaps eight to twelve reps all out) is beneficial, although I cannot recommend this procedure unless this last set is performed with a resistance that requires less than an all out effort on the last reps.
The primary advantage of the regular pyramid is that the athlete is able to warm up and to train different rep patterns at the same time. The primary disadvantage arises out of the balance between weight and reps with the lighter weights in the pyramid. If the athlete really goes all out on the medium weight, high rep sets, it is unlikely that there will be much left for the heavier sets (the athlete will be too pumped or fatigued to handle really heavy weights on the low rep sets). If the athlete takes it too easy on the higher rep sets, there will be little training effect from those rep patterns. Therefore, virtually no high level weightlifter’s train using the traditional pyramid system (even for their pure strength exercises, like squats high reps are never performed on the classic lifts because of the deterioration in technique that performing such exercises for high repetition sets causes).
The reverse pyramid has the advantage of enabling the athlete to attempt the heaviest sets while still fresh and to do justice to those sets. Then the athlete can move down and push relatively hard on the higher rep sets. As a rule the higher rep sets will take more out of the muscles than lower rep sets in terms of the athlete’s ability to perform further sets at a high level. Therefore, overall, the advantages of the reverse pyramid outweigh the advantages of the regular pyramid (with the main drawback of the reverse pyramid being the extra time required to warm up for weights at the top of the pyramid). Nevertheless, few (if any) champion weightlifters utilize reverse pyramiding in their training.
The half pyramiding schemes make the choice between the regular and the reverse pyramid less of an issue because there is less difference in the fatiguing effects of six as opposed to ten reps, or two as opposed to five reps, than there is in rep patterns at the top and bottom pyramid. Bodybuilders are more likely to perform pyramids at the bottom (higher rep portions) of the pyramid, while weightlifters remain at the high end of the pyramid if they pyramid at all (which they rarely do).
Regardless of the variations on the pyramiding theme, its chief feature is the belief of the trainee that performing multiple rep themes in the same workout will develop multiple muscle qualities (strength, endurance and size) at the same time. There is considerable merit in this notion, in the sense that training is very specific to the quality being trained, and detraining occurs very quickly. If the athlete is training to develop several muscle capacities at once, all of them can be addressed in the same workout by using the pyramid. However, there appears to be a limit to the body’s adaptation energy at any one point in time. It is unlikely that the body can adapt simultaneously to its maximum potential in terms of developing size, strength and endurance. Therefore, the trainee who is interested in maximal development in a particular area needs to recognize that lesser results in another area will need to be accepted. However, for many trainees, mixing high and low reps in the same workout will provide a nice balance of muscle qualities. For the serious competitive weightlifter, working reps near the top half of the pyramid (i.e., one to five reps) will be more fruitful (with sets of four and five reps reserved for pure strength exercises such as squats and reps in the classical lifts limited to three, and performed primarily for singles and doubles). Pyramiding can also be useful when a lifter needs a change in pace.
It must be remembered that reps above two or three in the classic lifts can have a negative influence on technique. In addition, one heavy, high rep set during a warm up period can so fatigue the muscles that performance on later sets and reps is compromised. Finally, the weightlifter is interested in developing the greatest possible strength and power capability available from a given muscle. There is no value in increasing a muscle’s size if the increase is due to the development of tissue that does not directly contribute to the generation of strength and power (which occurs when high repetitions are used in training).
Pyramiding Over a Series of Workouts
Some trainers recommend a different kind or pyramiding: working up the pyramid over a series of weeks. The underlying principle is that a foundation of muscular endurance and size is formed with medium reps and then that base is converted into strength and power by training with lower reps in ensuing weeks. Some trainers refer to this as a kind of “periodization” (a concept that is discussed at length in Chapter 6.
For example, the trainee might begin twelve weeks before a competition (or a planned workout in which a personal record was contemplated in a particular exercise). The first two weeks of the cycle might consist of three sets of ten reps with a weight that was fairly comfortable for that number of reps (i.e., more than ten reps— perhaps twelve or even fifteen—could have been done on each set in an all out effort). The following week the tens might be continued, but with a weight that would only allow eleven or twelve reps if the lifter really pushed. In the third and fourth weeks, the weights would be pushed up still further, and the athlete might perform three sets of eight reps (with a weight that would permit the athlete to do ten reps on an all out basis in week three and only nine reps in week four). By weeks five and six the reps would drop to six, and the athlete would be working with a weight that might allow an extra rep on the first or second set but that required a nearly all out effort by the third set. In weeks seven and eight the reps might drop to five or four with weights challenging enough such that no further reps would be possible on most sets. In weeks nine and ten the reps would drop again into the two-to-three range, and in the last two weeks the lifter would be performing only doubles or singles with heavy weights. Normally, the heaviest weights would be handled approximately two weeks from the last day of the cycle; some trainers advocate only a week’s rest from a very heavy effort, and some like as many as three or more.
As with the regular pyramid, there are many variations in the long term pyramid scheme. Some lifters like to increase the sets done as the reps decline, so that in the early weeks three sets of ten reps are done; when six reps are adopted, the sets might increase to four or five. At three reps or less, the lifter might do five or six sets. The theory here is that higher reps are more fatiguing and lower reps less, so therefore sets can be done when fewer reps are performed in each set. As a consequence, more sets are possible and desirable with fewer reps.
Still another approach involves a light and heavy day within the pyramiding cycle, with the rep patterns described above used on one (heavy) training day and another rep pattern and/or different weights used on the other (generally lighter) day (e.g., a regular pyramid, or three fixed sets of eight or ten reps with a lighter weight than is being used on the other training day).
Although this kind of pyramiding is often used, particularly in the powerlifting community, it does not appear to be the most effective way to train year round. One reason is that the premise of size and endurance serving as the foundation for strength has really never been proven to be superior to other, more conventional methods of strength development. Clearly, there are many athletes who have gotten very strong never having done higher reps and never having developed great muscle size (in many Eastern European countries high reps are virtually never done). Another consideration is that with the body’s propensity toward specificity of training and rapid detraining, there is little reason to believe much of the capacity developed earlier in the cycle will remain by the end of the cycle if at least some training on the same number of reps is done. Similarly, the ability to perform low reps will be reduced after several weeks of training with higher reps only. Further, if the weights lifted early in the cycle are too light, the body will lose some strength during this light training period. Then its adaptive capacities will tend to be overwhelmed by successive weeks of very heavy training later in the cycle. In addition, if the athlete starts with relatively heavy weights too early in the cycle (even if higher reps are done), he or she will undoubtedly be overtrained before the end of the cycle is reached and will never reach the weights that have been planned.
Therefore, in the main, the lifter is likely to get the maximum benefit from a cycle that has the following characteristics: a) whatever the range of reps included, the lifter never goes more than a couple of weeks without doing at least one set of reps in both the higher and lower ranges (thereby retaining some of the training affect developed at both ends of the range, assuming that maintaining such an ability is important); b) the cycle is relatively short, between two and six weeks; and c) during any cycle, no more than four to six weeks pass between maximum or near maximum all out efforts with reps in the lower range if strength development is a key concern. The only exception to this rule would be when an athlete is coming back after an extended layoff from training or from an injury, in which case a special comeback or rehabilitative cycle should be used. Such a cycle would be tailored to the length of the layoff, the nature of the injury and the athlete’s condition at the time of resuming his or her training.
Super Sets and Pre-exhaustion Systems
Super sets consist of doing two exercises with little or no rest in between. The most popular method is to use opposing muscle groups in the paired exercises (e.g., doing leg curls and leg extensions one after the other). Another version is to work the same overall muscle group from different angles (e.g., doing presses in front of and behind the neck in successive sets). Pre-exhaustion training is similar to the second form of super sets, except that the principle involved is to tire a muscle that is not normally fully taxed during a multiple muscle group exercise, so that it will be stressed more fully while the lifter is performing the multiple-muscle-group exercise. For example, performing leg extensions immediately prior to squats has been advocated as a method of placing more emphasis on the quadriceps muscles than on the back and hip muscles during the squat(because the quadriceps muscles are already fatigued when the squat is begun).
The first method of super setting discussed above has yielded good (though not superior) strength gains for the paired groups of muscles and the use of super sets may save time overall for strength trainers. However, such sets have no demonstrated value when one is performing exercises that involve many muscle groups that overlap between exercises (like snatches and squats). Instead, they are likely to be very detrimental to the technique of a lifter because fatigued muscles cannot perform motor skills as effectively as those which are not.
The latter method of super setting (performing similar exercises in immediate succession) is not dissimilar to cheating and burns, etc., in the sense that it is a means to continue to work a muscle group that has already been fatigued. To the extent that the second exercise resembles the first, the effect is similar to having done one set with more reps and should have a relatively similar training effect. To the extent that it is different, the super set is not fully accomplishing its purpose of introducing extra fatigue into the muscle.
Pre-exhaustion has pros and cons similar to those of the latter form of super setting. In addition, the fatiguing of a single muscle before performing another exercise involving the same muscle as well as others poses a special hazard. If the pre-exhausted muscle causes the second exercise to be performed in an unusual style, an injury can result. Moreover, the action of a pre-fatigued muscle will be different than it would have been if it were fresh. Even if this posed no threat of injury, this difference in the action of the muscles tends to limit the value of the sets performed after pre-exhaustion (because of the principle of specificity of training). Consequently, the second form of supersetting and pre-exhaustion training cannot be recommended for serious strength training and is definitely not recommended for the Olympic lifts (because pre-exhaustion methods can literally destroy an athlete’s technique in those lifts).
Circuit Training
It is generally acknowledged that in order for the body’s cardiovascular system to be trained, the heart rate must be elevated to a certain threshold and then sustained at that level for at least several minutes. (Until recently the rule of thumb was twenty minutes, but new research has suggested that elevating the pulse to the target level for three ten-minute sessions a day may exert just as profound a training effect as one thirty minute session.)
Resistance exercises, such as those done in weightlifting, can surely raise the heart rate, but the rest that weight trainers normally take between sets allows the heart rate to return to a near normal level. However, an elimination or significant reduction of the normal rest between sets can convert weight training to a cardiovascular exercise by sustaining the heart rate at an elevated level over time. Thus far, research suggests that such training is not as effective, in certain respects, as more common forms of aerobic exercise (e.g., running and cycling). The difference seems to be that the use of the same muscles throughout the exercise period has a greater stimulative effect on the heart and lungs than training with varied exercises that activate different muscle groups. Nevertheless, circuit training can be a useful way to train both the anaerobic and aerobic capacities of the body simultaneously. This can be a good time-saver for the busy trainer. However, the result of such training on muscle size and strength and on the body’s aerobic capacity will not be as good as if separate training of these capacities were undertaken. The value of such training for the athlete seeking maximum strength is almost nil (as is any extensive anaerobic training, though some moderate aerobic training may be useful, or at least not harmful, to the progress of the strength seeker). Circuit training while performing the Olympic lifts is clearly unwise, since such training will almost surely undermine the weightlifter’s technique. However, moving from set to set as soon as the lifter has recuperated adequately from the previous set will result in some benefits to the cardiovascular system.
Cycles
The weightlifters and coaches of today generally see each workout as a part of a broader plan or “cycle” in which the athlete will perform a sequence of workouts over a period of time (rather than performing a series of unconnected individual workouts, or workouts in which the same intensity is employed). The underlying premise of this kind of process is that each workout builds upon the prior ones to reach a better outcome than would be achieved by training at the same level each workout or training totally in accordance with ones whims of the day. Much more will be said regarding this longer term view of training in Chapter 6, In this chapter, we will simply try to create a sense of what cycling is about, especially as it applies to training on a particular exercise.
The Diminishing Reps Per Set Strength Cycle
During the 1980s a special kind of strength building cycle became quite popular, particularly in United States powerlifting circles. Proponents of the system have referred to it as “periodization” or “cycling” (among other labels). These terms have very different meanings in the context of training on the Olympic lifts. The basic principle is to vary the repetitions performed in training over time, typically a period of six to twelve weeks. The objective is generally to reach peak performance for a single rep maximum at the end of the cycle.
Several concepts underlie the diminishing rep cycling approach. First, there is the concept of the need for variability in training. A constantly changing rep scheme provides the body with differing kinds of stimulation at all times during the cycle. Second, the varying rep structure of the routine emphasizes the development of different factors in muscle strength at different times. The advocates of the diminishing rep cycle argue that higher reps tend to stimulate hypertrophy, while lower reps tend to develop neural components of strength and power. Third, the sequencing of the repetitions is designed to build the body’s strength factors in a logical fashion. The cross section of muscle fiber that is believed to set the outside limits of a muscle’s ability to generate force is first increased. Later in the cycle the athlete focuses on the expression of the strength potential that lies in newly developed muscle mass.
Although the recommended procedures vary somewhat from author to author, reps performed are normally in the eight-to-ten range at the beginning of the cycle and in the one-to-two rep range at its conclusion (which is generally just before a major competition or all out day in training). It is also common to have one heavy day a week (on which the diminishing rep scheme is scrupulously followed) and one lighter day on which the reps never go below the three-to-five range, and the lifter exercises at a considerably lesser level of effort. In some variations of this method, the lighter day remains at a fixed weight and repetition scheme throughout the cycle. In all of those cycles the amount of weight lifted on the heavy day increases significantly across the cycle as the reps diminish.
The diminishing rep approach is intuitively appealing, and there is at least one study that has suggested that this approach is more effective than a standard fixed rep approach (however, the study was only six weeks long, and it compared the diminishing rep cycle with a relatively ineffective kind of fixed rep workout scheme). Moreover, a very large number of high level powerlifters have used it with considerable success.
There is little doubt that the diminishing rep approach can be more effective than a lifter’s merely coming in the gym to do three sets of five reps to failure two or three times a week. It may be more effective than a cycle in which the lifter maintains fixed reps but increases the amount of weight lifted each week. However, the reasons for its relative effectiveness may not be those cited by many of this method’s advocates.
For instance, it may be true that training variety can serve to stimulate improvement, but it has not been established that variety in repetitions, or at least the variety that is embodied in the broad range of one to eight or ten reps, is an effective form of variety. In fact, that is rather unlikely. Since different repetition schemes are likely to cause very specific and very different adaptations in muscle tissue and function, it is unlikely that there is a great deal of transfer between the effects of training schedules with very different repetition patterns. The smaller the difference, the greater the transfer and the smaller the degree of variability attributable to the difference in reps. If the mere change in the number of reps per set is not responsible for strength gains under the diminishing rep system, one possible reason for the improvements that have been noted is that the total number of reps performed decreases during the cycle, while intensity increases (a popular method of peaking in Eastern Europe but there the reps per set do not vary nearly as much across the cycle).
Serious criticisms can be made of the concept of emphasizing the development of different capacities during different phases of training. For example, it is not at all clear that the kind of extra muscle development that takes place during training that emphasizes hypertrophy can be utilized for strength enhancement; the increase in gross muscular size that is stimulated by higher repetition training may not reflect proportional growth in the muscle’s components that are responsible for increases in absolute strength levels. Moreover, if the extra muscle development that was acquired during the higher repetition phase was applicable to strength generation, it would be likely that the removal of the special hypertrophy development stimulation via higher reps would lead to a detraining effect (a reduction in the extra size previously gained) during the subsequent lower repetition period of the cycle. Therefore, while this kind of cycling shouldn’t necessarily be dismissed, it should not be accepted as “gospel.”
The Diminishing Total Reps Peaking Cycle
The most popular strength development cycle used in weightlifting is the method of diminishing the number of total reps but increasing the average intensity of the reps that are performed during a training “cycle” (a series of training sessions that are viewed in combination to generate a particular training effect). This is typically accomplished in several ways. First, the number of reps per set is decreased. The reduction is less severe than in the diminishing reps per set system (e.g., the cycle might begin with an emphasis on two or three reps per set and end with the emphasis on singles, although some sets with four to five reps and some singles might be performed throughout the cycle). Second, the number of sets is often decreased somewhat as well, especially if the number of reps per set does not change much during the cycle. Finally, the number and variety of exercises are often diminished (the closer the competition, the greater is the emphasis placed on the competitive and closely related lifts).
As with the diminishing reps per set system, this approach has its positive and negative aspects. Variety in terms of reps per set and exercises performed is present during the cycle. Diminishing the overall work load enables the lifter to take advantage of the body’s adaptation capabilities. The body is stimulated to adapt early in the cycle (by a large workload). Such adaptation may indeed be occurring during the period of large workload, but the body is unable to express the adaptation because of the continued stress of the workload itself. When the workload is diminished, the body has an opportunity to complete any unfinished aspect of the adaptation process, and its energy stores are replenished. The result is that the body in able to express its new higher level of adaptation with a higher level of performance.
The negative aspects of the diminishing total reps cycle are several. First, the period of higher workload and the period of diminished workload may each be longer than required to cause an optimal adaptation. If so, time is being wasted during the cycle, and the desired result may not occur when it is planned. Second, the body may be overtrained at certain points in the cycle and undertrained in another. This can unnecessarily expose the lifter to injury, both because of the overtraining and because of the rather large swings in the content of the training over the long term. Finally, a significant change in the exercises themselves can place a significant strain on the body’s adaptational apparatus. If an exercise is beneficial, it is important that it be included, at least to some extent, throughout the training period, lest the positive adaptations that it generates be lost at the later stages of the cycle when its effects are most needed. The exceptions are exercises which teach or emphasize a specific skill (one which is later preserved in the practice of the classical lift itself).
A Better Cycle
It is my belief that the drawbacks of the diminishing total reps cycle can be overcome and most of its advantages retained by employing a fundamentally different form of cycle. This can be done through what I term the “reciprocal mini cycle.” The differences between it and more conventional cycles are numerous and, in my view, quite significant.
The first difference is that the basic exercises in the cycle remain the same, but their frequency and emphasis shifts during the cycle. As was suggested earlier, if a conditioning exercise is worth doing, it is worth doing all of the time, at least to a certain extent. If it is not included with some regularity in the lifter’s training, the lifter is exposed to a conditioning risk when the exercise is added and to detraining risk when it is omitted. The second difference is that all of the reps that are normally performed in a cycle are performed throughout the cycle, though the emphasis may change. Here again, the premise is that if a certain rep pattern is worth doing it is worth doing, at least to some extent, all of the time. The reason is essentially the same as the one given for maintaining exercises. The third difference is that workouts with high volume and lower intensity and workouts with high intensity and lower volume and other variations alternate throughout the cycle. The principle here is to enjoy the benefits of alternating periods of high load with those of high intensity but to keep those periods short enough so that the benefits of both can be enjoyed throughout the year, indeed throughout the training month.
A simple example of how such a cycle can be applied to the squat follows (see Table I). I developed the cycle routine over a period of years, and it proved to be very beneficial in building my leg strength and that of a number of United States lifters who have used it (ranging from the novice to high level lifters). It is a three week cycle with weekly heavy workouts (some have found a two or four week variation, with heavy days spaced anywhere from 5 to 11 days to be more effective). All percentages shown are for the number of reps indicated (e.g., if the athlete’s best set of 5 reps is 100 kg, he or she lifts 85 kg. for 3 sets of 5 reps on Tuesday’s workout). The 101% shown on the third Saturday really symbolizes the lifter’s attempting a new personal record by 2.5 kg. In the table, percentages appear first, reps second and sets third; if there is no third number shown for that day, only one set is performed after the warm-up sets of squats. Warm-ups are not included, but the athlete generally warms up with several sets, the last being approximately 90% of the heaviest weight that will be handled on that day. In this particular variation of the cycle, back squats are performed on Tuesdays and Saturdays, front squats on the Thursday workouts of the first two weeks (front squats are omitted during the third week).
Within each week the above routine achieves variety in terms of volume, intensity and exercises performed. There is also some variation between weeks one and two and considerable variations (in volume, intensity and exercises) between weeks two and three. Nevertheless, the longest intervals between exercises is two weeks (i.e., between front squats in weeks two and one), and both rep schemes (threes and fives) are generally worked once a week. The variations are significant enough to cause adaptations at a consistent rate, yet not so great as to threaten the body with too much change at once or to permit detraining to occur. In my experience, it is possible to perform two to four cycles of this type in succession with considerable success. In between such multiple cycles one or two heavy or light weeks can be placed, depending on the needs and responses of the individual lifter.
There are of course many other variations of this method. Some lifters will require the use of higher percentages than those shown above, and others will require lower ones. Some athletes will benefit from longer rests between heavy workouts, and others will benefit from shorter rests. The same lifter’s needs may change over time. (I found that I needed ten days of rest between heavy workouts when I was in my 40s, where a week had been fine during my teenage years and my 20s.)
The preceding description is merely intended to serve as a starting point from which the athlete and coach can begin to experiment. The foundations of the reciprocal mini cycle are: a) maintaining the exercises throughout the mini cycle by varying their frequency; b) performing more total reps on lighter days and fewer total reps on heavier days; and c) varying the number of reps per set to a certain degree but not in a dramatic way (and always maintaining the number of reps in the strength and power building range).
The Intuitive Trainer, or the Purely Natural Cycle
A number of outstanding strength athletes and/or coaches have advocated training “intuitively.” The definition of intuitive is not widely agreed upon. To some lifters, it means that the athlete works out in accord with what he or she feels like doing on certain day. This “do what you feel” method extends from the exercises selected to the amount of weight lifted to the number of sets that are performed.
The argument made for the intuitive method is that your mind and body know what is best, so set them free to have their unconscious way. Such a system may work for a lifter whose unconscious has been programmed by years of analysis of training methods and the body’s reaction to them, but for the lifter who is not as experienced or whose mind has not been programmed in a positive way, intuition can be a disaster. Moreover, much in the same way that a person walking in the woods without a compass or other external directional guide will tend to walk in a wide circle, the trainer who has not been fortunate enough to have enjoyed steady success may find himself or herself walking in a circle of stagnation or even destruction without a plan (though a flexible one). In my experience, there are few, if any, lifters who will find this method to be truly beneficial. However, there is a modified version of the intuitive method that can be used very successfully. It can be referred to as the “structured natural cycle.”
A Structured Natural Cycle
Many successful athletes and coaches train in accordance with a somewhat structured yet “natural” and somewhat intuitive cycle; they designate the exercises and appropriate number of sets to be performed in a given workout but leave the highest weights to be lifted on a given day as a variable to be determined by the lifter’s condition that day.
A number of very successful United States lifters from the 1950s and 1960s employed this kind of approach in their training. For example, World and Olympic champion Issac Berger would work up in each of the lifts by performing singles and making 5 kg. jumps during each workout. Once he reached his maximum for that day, he would generally move on to the next exercise. Sometimes, after a miss he would lower the weight by 5 kg. and, if successful, would try to work up to a heavier weight again.
As was mentioned earlier, the modern Bulgarians have a more strenuous variation of this procedure. They have the lifter warm up in each exercise and reach a limit or near limit for the day. Then a series of five to six lifts with that weight might be performed. Alternatively, the lifter might do one lift at that weight, then a lift with 5 kg. to 10 kg. less, then go back up to the original high for the day and repeat that process several times. In this way the lifter is assured of making several lifts with the maximum for the day, whatever that maximum happens to be.
Jim Williams, the lengendary bench presser of the 1970s (he succeeded with more than 700 lb. in the gym but narrowly missed it in competition), devised a program that reportedly involved an interesting variation of the natural cycle. He came into the gym approximately five days a week looking for a personal record in the bench press. He would work up over the course of a few sets, with the last being in the area of 90% of his maximum. If that went well, he jumped to a personal record weight and made an attempt. If he was successful, he noted this and resolved to try for more in his next workout. If the attempt failed, he came back to it the next day or at most two days later. By using this method Jim was testing his limits each day (with the 90% weight) but never pushing to the maximum unless a record seemed possible.
These natural cycling methods are clearly not for every athlete, particularly not for those who have a strong tendency to overtrain or undertrain if left to their own designs. However, they are evidently very effective for some athletes and may hold a real promise of training optimization for those athletes who are able to adjust to the routine.
Examples of Classic Strength Training Methods
We have thus far presented the basic building blocks of the training complex. The challenge for the coach and athlete is to apply those concepts in concert and in the real world. It is one thing to select the appropriate number of reps for the lifter’s purposes, to perform those reps in the appropriate manner (e.g., explosively and concentrically), to select the appropriate exercises and to perform those exercises through the appropriate range of motion and at the correct range of intensity. It is quite another thing to develop a program that works. A coach can prepare a program in which, in general terms, everything is well designed. Despite this, the athlete who uses the program may make no progress and may even regress. Coaches and athletes must design programs that not only make sense on a conceptual level, but that also cause particular athletes to improve. That is the true test of coaching ability.
Devising training programs that work is no simple process. As was noted earlier, every athlete is at least somewhat different from every other. It is rare for the same athlete to react to the same program in exactly the same way every time he or she uses it because the athlete’s adaptability and overall conditions of training tend to change over time. Therefore, the wise athlete and coach build upon sound training principles through the process of individualization and do not blindly copy the exact methods of other individual athletes.
However, as a starting point, the coach and athlete may find it useful to examine some specific training routines that have actually been used by athletes and coaches with success. These programs represent only a small sample of the kinds of programs that exist. They are approaches designed to increase strength and power in a specific exercise. They do not represent complete training programs, which are discussed in a later chapter.
Unfortunately, the weightlifting literature of Eastern Europe is relatively sparse when it comes to describing the training programs of individual athletes or exercises. Perhaps this is because the collectivist tendencies that existed for so many years in Eastern Europe worked against the notion of presenting individual results. Another possible reason is that coaches and athletes are not eager to share the precise details of the training methods that they follow in an environment in which weightlifting is essentially a professional sport.
In addition to failing to present the programs of individual athletes, the literature of Eastern Europe rarely presents the specific content of workouts on an exercise-by-exercise, set and rep basis. It may be reported, for example, that an athlete performs a total of 2,000 reps in a given month and that 10% of those reps were accounted for by squats. We may further be told that the average intensity of that month was 100 kg. and that there were so many reps performed in each of several zones of intensity. We may even be told of the rep and exercise distributions across a week or month, but there will be no detail regarding the sets and reps performed in each exercise and intensity. This information has some value, and a significant amount it will be presented in Chapter 6. In this chapter we will discuss some of the exercise routines that have been employed by some of the strongest athletes of the past, primarily those of the Western world. These programs have been selected because of their availability, their effectiveness for a significant number of athletes and their applicability to conditions found in countries in which weightlifting is not a professional sport.
John Davis’s Multiple Set of Low Reps
John Davis’ was one of the greatest lifters ever to touch a bar. The fact that he won eight straight World Championships and two Olympic Games would certainly establish John’s special place in weightlifting history. But when you consider that John’s career was interrupted by World War II, his achievements are truly unbelievable. He won the last World Championship in 1938 and seven more championships after the war, beginning with the first one held in 1946 . How many more championships might John have won in the eight years between championships?
During his workouts John favored and ultimately popularized a training system that was founded on the performance of eight sets of two repetitions with a fixed weight. While the program of eight sets of two was far from the only one John used, he felt the stimulation received from performing many sets with a fixed weight was very beneficial. He attempted to use the same weight for two or more workouts a week and adjusted the intensity by his feelings on a given day and the style of exercise performance. For example, if he were pressing and the weight he normally used felt heavy, he would permit himself to cheat a little in order to perform the required number of sets and reps. When the weights started to feel lighter, John would increase the amount he lifted in that exercise.
John typically lifted well within himself in training (he was generally able to lift from 10% to 15% more in a competition than in training). Therefore, while he was training with more or less the same weight in every workout, that weight represented a sub-maximal load (perhaps in the 85% to 90% range. This kind of program, while very simple, has been highly effective at generating strength gains in many athletes over many years.
The Hepburn Method of Building on Reps
Doug Hepburn of Canada won the Heavyweight (now the Superheavyweight) class of the 1953 World Weightlifting Championship. Doug was not a powerful giant from birth. In fact, he was born with a club foot, which, though surgically repaired early in his life, left him with a partial disability in his leg. Despite his handicap, Doug built himself into one of the strongest men who ever lived, and not always under the best of training conditions.
One of his favorite training concepts was to try to make some progress at every workout, but not necessarily by adding weight to the bar. Instead, Doug felt that he could always add something to his training. He could add weight to one or more of his sets or he could add a rep or a set with one rep, just as long as progress of some kind was made. The Hepburn concept involved consistent but somewhat undulating increases in intensity because for a given series of sets and reps the lifter was always handling his or her best (or nearly so) and was adding to that. Hepburn was gradually modifying the training stimulus, exercise by exercise, in order to assure improvement. For instance, he might be adding to his total tonnage in the squat on a given day by adding a set or rep. However, the following workout he might actually drop a rep or set but increase the weight on one set, thereby decreasing the volume but increasing an element of intensity.
This addition of weight, reps or sets on the heavy sets of the training session not only led to ever increasing stimulation for the muscles but presumably its gradual nature also gave the body time to adapt. In addition, it provided the lifter with three invaluable psychological benefits: a) an enormous sense of confidence that arose out of establishing small goals for each workout and repeatedly achieving those goals; b) the enthusiasm that arises out of making continual progress; and c) the enhanced commitment that arises out of an increased sense of self worth and enthusiasm (which in turn leads to more progress, more confidence, more enthusiasm, more commitment and so on).
One example of the Hepburn program is to begin training with a weight that the lifter is able to lift for five sets of three reps. During each workout (the program assumes that there will be three training sessions a week on the exercise for which it is being used), the lifter adds one rep to one of the sets until after five such increments the lifter is performing five sets of four reps. Then the lifter adds one more rep each week until five sets of five reps are executed. At this point the lifter increases the weight being lifted and returns to performing five sets of three reps. Then the entire cycle is continually repeated with heavier weights as the athlete’s strength progresses.
I have used the Hepburn approach with considerable success on the squat and press. However, it does appear to lead to a state of overtraining after several cycles. This tendency can be mitigated by making a change in the program after a few cycles, by having a lighter workout once a week or by performing the program only twice a week.
Paul Anderson’s Training Programs
Paul Anderson was a true legend of weightlifting, and deservedly so. He rose to championship levels in a phenomenally short period of time (he was exceeding world weightlifting records within three years of commencing serious training for the sport). During the 1950s he established records in the squat, push press and some other exercises, records that arguably still stand today. He was most famous for his prodigious squatting ability.
Paul described his basic squat program in the November, 1964, issue of Muscular Development. He said that he would squat three times a week, using a similar program each day. For each workout he would load the bar to a weight that he could perform fairly easily for three repetitions. Then, across a period of many hours (with very long rests between sets, during which he often drank a quart of milk), he would perform numerous sets with this weight. Although he made tremendous progress on this program, he reported that his progress was so rapid that after a while the weights he was handling felt very heavy on his shoulders. Therefore, he began to perform some quarter squats with weights heavier than those he was able to full squat. Using this approach, he soon became accustomed to supporting very heavy weights on his shoulders quite comfortably.
After a while Paul’s progress on this program ceased. He decided to change his program radically by performing sets of ten reps for a time. This change in his program stimulated new progress for a time.
Another program change involved the concept of progressive movement (gradually increasing the range of motion used in an exercise). In order to implement this idea, Paul dug a hole in the ground that was deep enough to allow him to step in the hole and to have his waist approximately at the level of the ground. He would roll a bar over the hole and proceed to perform quarter squats. He would begin with a weight that was approximately 100 lb. above his best performance in the full squat and would perform twenty to twenty-five reps with this weight for two sets. This program would be performed every day. Approximately 3” of soil would be added to the hole every third day, and the number of repetitions that were performed per set would be reduced by three. After Anderson had gotten to a point at which he was moving the bar as far as possible for two reps, he would rest for two to three days and then try for a maximum squat. He reported a significant improvement in his squat following such a program.
Still another program that Anderson favored involved the extensive use of eccentric training. He recommended sets of three reps in the squat with weights well in excess of the lifter’s best squat. During those sets, the athlete would resist downward force applied to the bar by spotters (who offered extra resistance at the easiest point in the squat and assistance in recovering from the bottom position after each rep).
Sometimes Paul would mix repetitions when he trained, performing early sets in the workout for ten reps, following those sets with a heavy set of three reps and then finishing with a set of ten reps. One of his favorite programs involved performing alternating sets in the full squat and the quarter squat using a pyramid kind of program. He would finish the workout with a three sets of one-legged squats.
Paul suggested linking several very different routines together in succession. For example, he recommended beginning with a program that involved three sets of ten reps in the squat. Then, after several weeks, the lifter should move to a program with a core of three sets of three reps with heavier weights. A third routine called for performing quarter and full squats in alternating sets. A fourth program consisted of alternating sets of full squats, quarter squats, full squats and one-legged squats while standing with the squatting leg on a bench. (This entire sequence would be performed three times in one workout.)
Paul had similar programs for the pull and press. His unique idea for training these latter muscle groups (lower back and arms and shoulders) was to invert the body while exercising (he would perform deadlifts in a decline bench with a pulley and would do handstand presses to build his pressing power). Paul believed that one of the reasons he had progressed more rapidly in the squat than in the pull or press early in his career was that during the squat blood was drawn to the legs, but in the press or pull it was being drained away from the area while the exercises were being performed. By inverting the body, Paul was increasing the blood supply to the area being exercised, and he believed that this improved his rate of progress. (While no scientific evidence has yet been developed to support this theory, Paul apparently achieved better results from his inversion program then when he trained more conventionally.)
Anderson never reported with any degree of precision on the loads he actually lifted, but several things are clear regarding the Anderson approach. One point is that he believed in significant work with sub-maximum loads. Those who saw Paul train always reported that he appeared to be lifting within himself. He was not performing set after set with grinding effort, but he did often perform many sets over the course of a day. Second, he believed in the use of partial movements and eccentric contractions as an adjunct to full movements (but he always cautioned that at least some of a lifter’s training should always be on the full movement). Third, he believed in variety in training and in changing the program regularly. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, he believed in experimenting. Paul never had a real coach. He devised his own programs through trial and error, and most of the time he had no idea what the rest of the world was doing. While he may have wasted time with programs that more experienced lifters and coaches might have told him would never work, he was not burdened by the baggage of slavishly adhering to whatever training program was in fashion at the time. He created programs that worked for him, and the reward was some of the greatest performances in weightlifting and powerlifting history.
Two Soviet Squatting Routines
While reports on exercise specific training programs and exact percentage loads by exercise are rare in the Eastern European literature, both the 1974 and the 1976 USSR Yearbooks (annual publications that for many years presented some of the most interesting research and analysis in the Soviet literature) presented specific programs for improving an athlete’s squatting strength. The 1974 version of the squat routine constitutes a significantly more modest load than the 1976 version. Both claim to have produced excellent results for the athletes who used them, but in my experience the 1974 version is more effective for most athletes.
It should be noted that apart from the differences between the squat routines in terms of the severity of the exercise, the 1974 version of the program appears to be meant as a steady training approach for the athlete, while the 1976 version is intended more as a squat specialization routine that is to be performed when the loading that the athlete is employing in other exercises has been diminished.
The 1974, program, which was reported on by V. Maslaev, employed a three week cycle, with loads being very similar and heavy during the first two weeks and then lighter during the third (“unloading”) week. Under this program the athlete squats three times a week (See Table 2). In the first workout of the week, the weights range from 65% to 75% of maximum for three to four sets of five repetitions. The second workout employs weights that are 75% to 85% of maximum for five to six sets of five reps. The third workout in the week is the lightest, with the weights lifted being 60% to 65% of maximum for three to four sets of three reps. Maslaev suggests that if the athlete accepts the prescribed load comfortably during the first three week cycle, the intensity of the heavier days of the first, or the first and second weeks, can be increased.
In all workouts the athlete performs a warm-up set in the squat with 50% to 55% of that lifter’s maximum. (In the heavier workouts—ones which involve a weight in excess of 80%—an additional warm-up set with 65% of the lifter’s maximum is performed.) The table that follows depicts the pattern of the heavy sets for each training session. Where a slash appears in the table, the load described before the mark is the basic program that Maslaev prescribes, and the load that appears after the slash mark is the one he suggests if the lifter finds that he or she can accept a load greater than that provided by the basic program. This second set of loads would be attempted during the second three week cycle that the lifter performed.
The routine displayed in the table can be modified in a number of other ways. The athlete can perform three heavier weeks in a row and follow that with two unloading weeks. An athlete who has particular trouble with recovering from the clean (even though his or her back squat may be 25% or more in excess of his or her clean, a level of leg strength normally considered to be adequate in relation to the C&J) can substitute front squats for back squats during the unloading week.
Maslaev suggests that the above routine be followed during the competitive period, but he recommends that the reps performed on the heavy sets be reduced to three and the weights lifted during the unloading week be reduced to the 60% to 75% range. During the last squat workout, which he suggests be carried out two to three days before the meet, the athlete should lift 65% to 75% of maximum for two to three sets of three reps.
Maslaev also makes a number of other interesting points. He suggests that while the above routine constitutes a considerable training load for an athlete who performs 1,000 reps a month in all exercises combined, it should be continued until satisfactory results in the squat have been achieved. He also notes that the actual loads lifted depend not on the total load lifted by the athlete but on the athlete’s individual work capacity. Therefore, the selection of the proper loads depends on the athlete’s own individual characteristics. He also suggests that advanced lifters can improve their squats by from 20 kg. to 30 kg. (with the lighter lifters improving more in terms of total kg. and the heavier athletes improving by a larger number of kg).
In the 1976 version of the squat program, the loading pattern is somewhat simpler than in the program that was explained in 1974. Essentially, lighter and heavier loads are alternated (a lighter workout is followed by a heavier one). As in the 1974 program, squats are performed three times a week. But the program runs for six weeks rather than three, and a maximum (105% of the lifter’s previous best squat) is scheduled for the concluding workout in the six week series.
The warm-up sets (at least those that are listed in the program) consist of one set of two reps with 70%, followed by a set of two reps with 75%. After these two sets, the lifter moves on to the heaviest load of the day. As has been indicated, lighter and heavier workouts are alternated, but unlike the 1974 program, the weights lifted on the lighter days of the 1976 program remain the same throughout the program. All odd numbered workouts (the first, third, fifth, etc.) are performed with a weight that constitutes 80% of the lifter’s maximum. That weight is lifted for six sets of two reps. In contrast, the even numbered workouts show an increasing level of intensity throughout the program. (See Table 3.)
As you can see, both the volume and intensity of the heavy day increase in weeks one to three: the volume by virtue of the total number reps performed and the intensity by virtue of the number of reps per set. (The more reps performed, the greater is the intensity, as measured by the effort that is required to perform the lifts.) In the fourth through the sixth weeks, the intensity of the heavy days increases in terms of absolute intensity, but the number of reps performed diminishes.
I know a number of lifters who have tried the 1974 or 1976 squat routines. Several have reported success with the 1974 program, but I have never met a lifter who has completed the 1976 routine as written (i.e., reached a 105% squat at the end of the sixth week). Most lifters using this latter program report improved performance during the early weeks of the routine, but most are overtrained by the second half of the cycle. Lifters who have modified the program by beginning with weights 5% to 10% lighter than are called for under the program have had success with it.
Why this difference in success rates between the programs? Despite their superficial similarities (e.g., both routines have three workouts a week and weeks with differing loads), these programs are structurally quite different. Detecting these differences is simpler if we match the lengths of the programs by simply repeating the 1974 program for a second three week period, so that we have two programs that run for six weeks. Under the 1974 program the athlete is only performing one heavy squat workout a week, while under the 1976 program a heavy workout is performed every four to five days. The 1974 program provides for an unloading week after two heavy weeks (two such weeks in every six week period), whereas the 1976 program has no unloading weeks (although it could be argued that the first two weeks are essentially unloading weeks because no weights above 80% are handled and those sets are performed with no more than five reps).
Perhaps the greatest difference between the programs exists in the number of truly heavy workouts that occur across a six week period. Under the 1974 program there are no workouts that could be considered absolutely all out. Four workouts with 85% of the lifter’s maximum are performed, and both programs require the athlete to lift that 85% load for sets of five reps. Most athletes can perform 85% of their maximums for five repetitions without an all out effort (some athletes can lift as much as 90% of their maximums for five repetitions). However, the athlete is called upon to perform repeated sets with 85% (five to six sets in all), so for most lifters, this workout will be quite strenuous. Looking at this program then, we can say that most athletes would be challenged by the four truly heavy workouts across the six week period (probably to the point at which a training effect would be generated). As result, progress could be expected.
In the 1976 workout plan the athlete handles a comparable load to that of the 1974 program on the first heavy day of the fourth week and then is required to perform 90% for four sets of four reps in the second heavy workout of that week. For some athletes (those who can perform five reps with 90% of their maximum) this will constitute a difficult but manageable workout. For other athletes (those who can normally perform only three reps with 90%), this workout would require a personal record effort on the first set and then would require the athlete to repeat that performance for three more sets. This would constitute a Herculean effort for such athletes, one which might exhaust their reserves for some time. However, there is little time to rest, as four to five days later the athlete must perform three sets of three reps with 95% of the lifter’s maximum. For virtually all lifters this would represent a record breaking effort (since few if any lifters can perform even one set of three reps with 95% of their maximum). Repeated sets with 95% would truly push the athlete to new performance heights but would also probably break down the athlete’s muscles to the point where they might require several weeks to recuperate fully. If the lifter survives such an effort, four to five days later the athlete must cope with a perhaps even more challenging prospect: a workout in which the lifter must lift his or her previous best for two sets of two reps. Such a workout would constitute approximately a 5% performance improvement for most lifters. Four to five days later the athlete must repeat this level of effort with a single 105% of maximum effort.
The most obvious problem with the 105% day is that since the lifters has had so many heavy workouts over such a short period immediately preceding that workout, the lifter is probably exhausted by the time he or she reaches this last workout in the program. The only situation in which this would not be true is one in which the athlete had actually improved his or her abilities to the point at which the load lifted did not constitute as heavy a load as the percentages lifted would imply. (If the athlete’s abilities had actually improved by 5% by the end of the fourth week, the 90% of previous best workout would only amount to 85%, a weight that could be handled comfortably for four sets of four reps. Similarly, the 95% workout performed four to five days would only constitute 90% of load, which could surely be performed (though not easily) for three sets of three reps.
But very few lifters indeed can improve by 5% in a matter of weeks, and certainly such a rate of progress could not be sustained over several six week periods in succession. Therefore, this latter program constitutes an overload for most athletes, and that is why they do not progress as hoped. The athletes who begin their programs at a level 5% lower than is prescribed by the program have had far greater success because they are performing within their capabilities for a greater portion of the cycle.
Ed Coan’s Squat Program
Ed Coan is considered by many to be the greatest powerlifter competing today and one of the greatest of all time. He excels in all three lifts but is particularly well known for his squatting and deadlifting strength. He recently produced a series of three video tapes (one each on the squat, deadlift and bench press) which explain his technique and training methods. ( See the Bibliography for further details.) Ed’s program calls for squatting once a week, working up to one set with the heaviest weight that he will handle that day. He will also perform one set each of leg extensions, leg curls, one-legged leg presses and seated calf raises.
Although Ed does not believe in expressing his workouts in percentages, the following table summarizes the percentages of the maximum weight that Ed hit in training two weeks before a major competition and at the competition itself (the actual weight squatted at the competition was 975 lb.).
These percentages may appear a little hard to understand at first glance (they hover around 80% for the first few weeks, decline and then rise steadily through the rest of the cycle). However, there is a hidden factor: Ed does not use knee wraps or a supportive suit during the first four weeks of the program and only uses wraps for the second four weeks. The supportive suits and wraps worn by powerlifters can increase squatting performance by 15% to 25%. Therefore, the first four weeks of Ed’s routine are rather strenuous. Those weeks are followed by several weeks of gradual build up in intensity. Then intensity remains rather high during the last few weeks (with the weight on the bar and the number of reps decreasing over those weeks).
Ed performs deadlifts and other forms of heavy back work several days later. No other leg work is performed for the balance of the week. Although Ed only squats once a week, his routine has certainly been effective for him. It may not be a suitable program for weightlifters, but it certainly provides food for thought for those who argue that an athlete can get strong only by squatting every day.
A Final Word on Strength Programs
The programs presented above merely scratch the surface of the rich array of approaches that champion lifters have used to gain strength. They are meant to provide concrete examples of the principles that have already been discussed (and to show how some of those principles have been violated and strength gains have come nonetheless). It as not always necessary for all of the training factors to be applied perfectly in order for improvements to be make. Nevertheless, applying the proper principles leads to even faster and more consistent improvements. Unfortunately, the final word on which factors are most significant has yet to be written. In the meantime we can all enjoy the challenge of building strength with our own experience, judgment and ingenuity as our guide.
Special Training Considerations For Developing Power Together With Strength
Generally speaking, the weightlifter who increases his or her strength will also experience an increase in the power that he or she can generate when lifting heavy weights. This is particularly true in the exercises on which the athletes trains regularly. However, if no specific effort is made by the athlete to develop power at the same time he or she is training for strength, improvements in strength will be grossly disproportional in relation to improvements in power. This is not a desirable situation for a weightlifter. Weightlifters need great power as well as great strength. In fact, when they are performing the classic lifts, weightlifters develop the highest power outputs that have ever been measured by sports scientists.
The major factor responsible for the power outputs that weightlifters generate is the strength they possess as a result of their specialized training. (When two athletes are equal in terms of their speed capabilities, the stronger athlete will be able to move a heavy weight faster, thereby generating greater power.) Another important factor which contributes to the strength capabilities of weightlifters is their constant focus on producing large power outputs when they train and compete. It is possible to lift a heavy weight without generating a very high power output if that weight is lifted very slowly. Even when a lifter produces a very large force when lifting, lifting at a slow speed assures that the power values developed by the lifter will be relatively low. In contrast, if the athlete wishes to perform a snatch or C&J, he or she must move the bar fast enough to be able to move under the bar and catch it on the shoulders or at arm’s length. This requires moving a heavy bar with speeds of as great as 2 meters per second. The amount of the weight and the speed of the bar combine to yield a tremendous power output.
Although a strong athlete may have the potential to move heavy weight at a relatively high speed, that athlete will not be able to do so unless he or she has practiced moving the bar as quickly as possible. Merely exerting the effort to move a heavy weight quickly will train the athlete to develop higher power outputs. However, if an athlete never attempts to move the bar as rapidly as possible, he or she will not be able to utilize his or her strength to its maximum potential in terms of generating power outputs.
Weightlifters learn this fact by a process of trial and error, so most of them attempt to move the bar as explosively as possible in most of the exercises that they perform (except for “remedial” exercises that are performed to prevent or rehabilitate injuries or correct strength imbalances). Recent research has confirmed the validity of this approach. What research and experience also suggests is that varying the speed and the load in a lifter’s training increases the rate at which the athlete develops power..
Specifically, if a weightlifter lifts a weight that is lighter than his or her maximum in the snatch, the lifter can lift the bar faster than when lifting a maximum weight. Practicing with lighter weights seems to improve the lifter’s ability to move a heavier weight more rapidly. Similarly, selecting a weight that is somewhat in excess of the athlete’s maximum snatch and attempting to lift the bar as rapidly as possible can enable the athlete to move his or her current maximum weight faster (thereby increasing the lifter’s effective maximum). Therefore, training with both heavier than maximum and lighter than maximum loads can improve a lifter’s performance in the actual lift as long as the athlete attempts to move whatever weight he or she is lifting as rapidly as possible. The application of this approach will become obvious as exercises and programs for developing all of a weightlifter’s capabilities are discussed in later chapters of this book.
The case is similar with respect to actions that involve the sudden reversal of direction. When a lifter performs a jerk, he or she bends the knees and then reverses direction to drive the bar upward. The lifter could slowly bend the legs, even pause when the legs are bent as far as the lifter wishes, and then drive the bar upward. However, the athlete is able to enjoy the benefits of a mechanical and neuromuscular “rebound” if the reversal of direction occurs quickly.
If the athlete practices a rapid reversal of the downward action he or she generates in preparation for driving the bar up, that athlete will become more proficient at reversing direction and at generating upward force after doing so. Consequently, the athlete will be able to make better use of the available mechanical and neuromuscular rebounds and thereby generate a greater upward thrust against the bar (ultimately jerking more). This is the principle underlying the practice of plyometrics, a subject which has already been touched upon in this chapter and which will be developed further later in this book.
As a general rule, the athlete who is strong relative to the amount of power that he or she can generate needs to devote more time to moving lighter weights faster in his or her training and to moving heavy weights ever faster. The athlete who generates as much power as his or her strength permits must work on developing more basic strength. However, once an athlete has exploited his or her inherent ability to generate maximum speed with a heavy weight, only increases in strength (while maintaining the ability to generate the greatest power possible with a heavy weight) will improve the athlete’s performance in weightlifting.
This is a special condition of weightlifting, where only a certain bar speed is required to give the athlete time to move under the bar. Achieving faster speeds with a given weight may make lifting that weight easier, but it will not directly increase the amount an athlete can lift. Only lifting a heavier weight at the required speed will increase the athlete’s competitive result. This is in direct contrast to weight throwing events (e.g., the shot put and discus) in which the weight of the implement remains the same and the objective is to move the weight ever faster so that a greater distance can be covered by the weight when it is released
Before leaving the subject of power development, it is appropriate to mention a second important factor in power generation: proper technique. Technique is important on at least two levels. First, the athlete who employs the proper mechanics when lifting will utilize his or her strength and power capabilities in the most effective way (i.e., the athlete will use most appropriately the levers that his or her body supplies to impart force to the external object of interest, the bar). Second, the athlete who contracts his or her muscles in the most effective sequence will maximize the power that he or she can generate with those muscles (i.e., the athlete will use his or her muscles in a way that will move his or her body levers with the largest possible amount of force and speed that his or her muscles are capable of generating).
Developing Flexibility For Weightlifting
Introduction
In the sport of weightlifting there are two opposite schools of thought with respect to the subject of flexibility. There are those who ignore the subject altogether. They view flexibility as a fixed physical quality, such as adult height or eye color. The range of motion that a person is capable of, they say, is essentially dictated by that person’s “conformation.” The best that an athlete can hope for is to work with what has been given by nature. This is a most unfortunate point of view, both because flexibility is quite amenable to training and because a lack of flexibility can lead to injury and/or to the utilization of faulty technique. Faulty technique can itself cause injury and, perhaps even worse, enormous frustration. (Frustration can be even worse than injury because it has unnecessarily ended far more lifting careers than injuries ever have.)
At the other end of the flexibility spectrum are those who worship flexibility and see it as the answer to all human problems, whether physical or mental. They spend incredible periods of time stretching, often concentrating on areas of the body that are totally unrelated to weightlifting. They take the greatest pleasure in assuming contorted positions and challenging others to duplicate their feats. They ignore the hazards of stretching a joint to the point of doing damage to it, whether directly or indirectly (the latter by enabling the joint to assume a weak mechanical position during the performance of a lift). They ignore the waste of time and energy that their stretching programs lead to.
In reality, weightlifters need to be quite flexible in a number of areas of their bodies. A study done at a recent Olympiad found weightlifters to be among the most flexible of all athletes, second only to gymnasts. Flexibility is necessary for the athlete to be able to assume certain functional positions while imparting force to the bar (or preparing to do so) and to receive the force of the bar (as in the low squat or split position). There is absolutely no substitute for adequate flexibility, and it is virtually pointless for an athlete to embark on the process of learning weightlifting technique if he or she does not possess the requisite flexibility. If an athlete attempts to do this, the result will be the enormous sense of frustration, arising out of a lack of ability to execute a lift properly, as well as exposure to injury. Exposure to injury occurs because weightlifting technique is entirely functional in nature. While good technique is a pleasure to watch, its basis is not aesthetic but mechanical. The positions that are assumed while lifting with proper technique are designed to assist in the application of maximal force to or the receipt of maximal force from the bar. Faulty technique results in assuming less than optimal mechanical positions, which places undue stress on the body and therefore can expose it unnecessarily to injury.
Flexibility training can have one further beneficial effect for the weightlifter, that of preventing and treating injuries. There is considerable evidence that inadequate flexibility increase the likelihood that an athlete will be injured, and many athletes and clinicians have reported the value of stretching in treating tendinitis and low back pain and in rehabilitation from a wide variety of musculoskeletal injuries. Stretching and its relation to injury treatment will be addressed later in this chapter. We will begin with a discussion of the nature of flexibility.
Functional Flexibility for Weightlifting
A limited number of good general texts have been written on the subject of flexibility. Some of these are listed in the Bibliography. Our focus in this chapter will be on the specific areas of the body that require flexibility in order to perform the classical lifts of weightlifting and on how to develop that flexibility to an optimal level. We will begin with a discussion of the general principles of developing flexibility.
Muscles Are the Primary Focus of Proper Flexibility Training
Virtually all of the tissues in the human body have the ability to undergo a certain degree of deformation when force is applied to them (i.e., a change in shape or size) and to be restored to their original condition without suffering any damage. Both the amount of force applied to the body and the size of the area over which it is applied affect the stress that is experienced by the tissue receiving the force. “Elasticity” is the scientific term used to describe the capacity of a tissue to return to its original size or shape after it has been stretched. The relationship of a tissue’s length after stress has been applied to what it was before the stress is called its “strain.” A tissue’s elastic limit is the smallest stress that causes a permanent strain when applied to a tissue (a condition in which the tissue will return to its original length once the stress is removed). This permanently stretched condition is also referred to as “plastic deformation.”
While it is possible to stretch all of the soft tissues of the body (e.g., muscles, tendons and ligaments), muscle tissue has by far the greatest potential for increasing its length. Moreover, muscle is also the tissue most likely to increase in flexibility without being damaged the process. When tendons and ligaments are stretched past a certain point, they actually lose elasticity (the ability to return to normal length) and strength. Stretched ligaments can seriously undermine the stability of a joint and therefore are to be strictly avoided (which is possible through careful stretching). Laxity in joints has been implicated in certain kinds of injuries as well as in the development of arthritic conditions.
Muscles are under tension in their natural state (a muscle removed from the body shortens approximately 10% independent of any contraction), but like tendons and ligaments, they can be overstretched, although this is not as common an occurrence as stretching a tendon or ligament. Muscles have a far greater ability to adapt to flexibility training by developing a permanently greater range of motion without losing the ability to contract to their original length or to contract with maximal force. Muscles are able to do this partly because they are capable of growing longer by adding sacromeres, which are the sub-units of muscle fiber which run in series throughout the length of the fiber. (This characteristic of muscle tissue is explained in more detail in Appendix II, which covers some of the scientific bases of sport performance.) Therefore, the proper focus of flexibility development is on increasing the length and flexibility of the muscles.
Research suggests that the type and duration of a stretch and the temperature of the tissue that is being stretched influence the amount of elongation that results from a stretch and whether a tissue’s elongation is permanent. Higher force and shorter duration stretching relies primarily on elastic deformation while lower force and longer duration stretching leads to a monoplastic deformation. Tissue with a higher temperature will stretch more than tissue with a lower temperature when the same amount of force is applied. The tissue itself will have a lower tensile strength when it has been heated, but the potential for injury that arises out of such weakness is believed to be overcome by an increase in the extensibility of the tissue when it has been warmed. Finally, there is less weakening in the structure of a tissue that is stretched when it is warmer. In addition, when elongation is maintained as the tissue cools, the degree of plastic deformation will be greater than when no force is applied to the tissue during cooling.
A muscle that is stretched rapidly and then held will gradually lose its tension over time. This process is referred to as “stress relaxation.” When a constant force is applied, a muscle will slowly lengthen through a process called “creep.” The tension that develops when a muscle is stretched is known as the muscle’s “stretch response” (a response that results from the properties of the muscle and not from any involvement of the nervous system). This is contrasted with the “stretch reflex,” which is a reaction within the central nervous system to the stretch.
There is a trade-off between the force used to generate a stretch and the degree to which a muscle that has been stretched retains its position. When a low level of force is applied to a muscle, it requires a greater length of time for a muscle to reach a given muscle length than when a greater force is applied. However, when the force applied is removed, the muscle stretched with the lower level of force retains a greater degree of its length than the muscle that was stretched with a greater force. There is a similar relationship with respect to the plastic (i.e., permanent) deformation of muscle, with lower levels of force leading to greater degree of plastic deformation.
When connective tissue is permanently stretched, it loses some if its tensile strength. This occurs to a lesser degree when the tissue has been stretched with lower force at greater duration than with higher forces for shorter durations. When stimulation is applied to muscle, nerves within the muscle discharge at a rapid rate. As the force is maintained, the rate of discharge decreases.
It should be noted that normal growth and maturation can affect flexibility. For instance, during periods of rapid bone growth, such growth can outpace corresponding increases in the range of motion of soft tissues. A common example of this is diminished flexibility in the hamstring muscles of young people whose legs have quickly grown longer during a growth spurt.
The Specificity of Flexibility
As with so many physical qualities, flexibility is specific. There is no correlation between the flexibility of one joint and another. People who are flexible in one area of their body are not necessarily flexible in another. Consequently, while one athlete may be flexible in most joints and another may be inflexible in most joints, most athletes will be somewhere in between these extremes (i.e., flexible in some joints and inflexible in others).
Types of Stretching
There are several methods of stretching. For many years, the most popular method was “ballistic” stretching. This method of stretching involves repeatedly swinging or bouncing through a full range of motion. Rapid toe touches or high kicks are examples of the ballistic approach.
Ballistic Stretching
Ballistic stretching has been criticized because of its supposed potential for causing injury and its allegedly lesser value in improving range of motion relative to other forms of stretching. Few carefully controlled studies comparing the incidence of injury when using ballistic as opposed to other kinds of flexibility training are available.
It seems plausible that if rapid force is applied to stretch muscles beyond their normal range of motion, injuries can result. (Many injuries, after all, occur when the musculotendonous-tendon unit is forced to go through a greater range of motion, or the same range of motion under a greater load, than was previously experienced.) However, this is generally not the precise pattern that occurs when ballistic stretching is performed. Most often, a greater range of motion is achieved only gradually, through successive repetitions of the stretching exercise.
My guess is that injuries that have occurred during ballistic stretching have most often been the result of overdoing the activity or have been due to a predisposition to injury because of prior activities. During a ballistic stretch, momentum can push a muscle through a greater range of motion than is normal, and this can have a positive training effect. However, when the momentum is too great, the overload can cause damage instead of improvement. In addition, an athlete who initiates a workout with ballistic stretching may not notice a slight injury, or predisposition to injury that has developed during or following a previous workout, until it is too late (i.e., until after further damage has been done).
Static Stretching
“Static stretching” is a stretching method that came into vogue in the 1970s. When using this method, the athlete slowly moves toward the full range of motion in a given position but stops short of the point where significant pain is felt. The position is then generally held for twenty to thirty seconds, with the range of motion gradually increased as the muscles relax (some trainers recommend that the stretched position be held for as long as sixty seconds). When an athlete uses this method of stretching he or she often uses some form of externally applied force to reach and hold the stretch position; for example, when sitting on the floor with the legs straight and moving the torso forward to stretch the hamstrings, the athlete may place the hands under the legs and then use the arms to pull the torso toward the legs.
There is no doubt that this form of stretching can increase flexibility substantially. However, many athletes have not been satisfied with the results that they have attained exclusively through static stretching, and some feel that this kind of stretching has overstretched their ligaments and actually aggravated certain injuries. At least one recent study that compared ballistic stretching with static stretching found that muscle soreness and the levels of creatine kinase (an indicator of muscle damage) were higher with static stretching than with ballistic stretching.
PNF Stretching
A third approach, called “fatigue stretching” or “proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation” (PNF), generally involves the use of a partner. While there are a number of varieties of PNF, perhaps the most popular variant is one in which the athlete assumes a starting position for the stretch which is similar to that used in static stretching. While in this position, the athlete pushes (isometrically) in the opposite direction of the stretch, against resistance supplied by the partner, for four to six seconds. Then the athlete stretches further than the original stretched position (which is made relatively easy by the relaxation that takes place in the muscles that were just isometrically contracted). This process is generally repeated two more times in one set. Another example would be a stretch in which the lifter sits on the floor with the legs straight and stretches to touch the toes with the hands. The athlete’s partner places his or her hands in the middle of the athlete’s back, and the athlete pushes back against the partner’s hands (the partner resists so that the athlete is performing an isometric contraction). Then the athlete stretches further toward the feet and when the furthest position had been assumed (without significant discomfort), the athlete holds that position for several seconds and then pushes back against the partner again. This process is repeated one or two more times. Fatigue stretching generally will permit the athlete to assume a stretched position that is more extreme than would have been possible with a simple static stretch.
Still other common approaches to stretching are: passive, passive active, active assisted and active methods. Let us look at how each type would be applied to the same exercise that was used to illustrate the PNF technique. A passive stretch involves a partner pushing the subject’s torso toward his or her legs, with the subject neither resisting nor assisting. In a passive-active stretch the partner pushes the subject’s torso as close to the legs as possible and then removes his or her hands while the subject tries to maintain that position by using the abdominal muscles and other muscles that pull in the opposite direction of the muscles being stretched. In an active-assisted stretch the athlete brings the torso toward the legs as far as he or she can and then relies on a partner to push the torso closer to the legs. In an active stretch the athlete performs the stretch without any externally applied assistance. Most of these varieties of stretching are performed in essentially a static manner (i.e., with the most extreme position reached during the exercise being held in a static fashion).
The selection of a stretching method should be determined by the purposes of the flexibility training that is being undertaken and the capabilities of the subject who is undertaking the training. A person who is weak in the muscles that work opposite the muscles being stretched to achieve a good position for stretching will benefit from passive stretching (which is why this type of stretching is so often used by physical therapists and others who are working with subjects who are ill or injured). The primary drawback of passive stretching is that it tends to increase the subject’s passive range of motion but not necessarily his or her active one. This is troubling because there is some evidence that the larger the difference between a person’s active and passive ranges of motion, the greater the risk of injury. (Interestingly, full-range-of-motion strength training appears to influence a person’s active range of motion.) Consequently, athletes should not be encouraged to rely on passive flexibility training to improve their flexibility for their sport.
A New Method of Stretching: “Active Isolated”
One final method of stretching deserves some attention. Referred to as “active-isolated” (AI), it has gained in popularity among runners in recent years. It shows significant promise for improving flexibility in a manner that avoids the most of the drawbacks of ballistic or static stretching.
When using AI training, the athlete stretches his or her body as far as possible and then assists himself or herself to go further, until a point of mild irritation is achieved. That position is held for two seconds or a little less. The athletes then returns to the starting position, relaxes for two seconds and repeats the exercises. Two sets of eight to twelve repetitions are generally performed in this manner, often at the beginning and end of the workout. Using the exercise that was previously used to illustrate the other kinds of stretching as an example, an athlete doing this seated hamstring stretch would bring the torso toward the legs as much as possible. The athlete might then place the hands underneath the thighs and use the arms to pull the torso closer to the legs (alternatively, the athlete would place a rope at the bottom of the feet and pull against the rope to bring the torso closer to the legs). This stretch would be held for two seconds or a little less, and then the athlete would relax and let the torso return to a relaxed position (even as far back as the floor). After relaxing for two seconds in that position, the athlete would repeat the stretch (for up to eleven more repetitions). Many athletes who have found passive stretching to be painful or ineffective have benefited significantly from AI stretching.
I have found this stretching method to be very useful for increasing a weightlifter’s flexibility in very weightlifting specific areas. For example, an athlete might increase his or her flexibility in the low squat position by squatting down with a fixed pole or railing in front of him or her. The athlete would squat down to a comfortably low position, grasp the railing or pole and use it to push himself or herself into a lower position, which would then be held for two seconds. The athlete would then stand up from the squat, squat down again and repeat the stretch 7 to 11 times.
The Importance of Combining Stretching Methods
In recent years research has begun to suggest that none of the traditional stretching methods may be optimal for athletes. Ballistic stretching may have some risks and may not be especially effective in improving flexibility. Static and fatigue stretching may have limited carryover value to actual athletic events, because these events generally require flexibility under dynamic conditions (i.e., relatively rapid movements into the most extreme positions required by the sport in question). Some studies have shown that the range of motion (ROM) achieved by static stretching may not be achieved when the stretch is performed quickly.
Other studies have shown that a slow, controlled, intermittent force of given intensity develops ROM faster than a static force of similar intensity. In view of the specificity and the limitations of each of the forms of stretching, it appears that a complex (i.e., combination) of flexibility training methods is likely to yield the greatest and most functional improvements in flexibility for the sport of weightlifting (and most other sports). And the complex should always include some dynamic flexibility training.
Training for Increased Flexibility
Like all training that addresses physical qualities related to weightlifting, flexibility training must be carefully designed. Above all, it must not be neglected. While flexibility work requires less time and equipment than other kinds of weightlifting training, there is often a tendency among lifters to perform their weight workouts but to neglect flexibility work. At the beginning of the workout, there is a desire to get to the lifts, and at the end the athlete is anxious to get to the showers and on to the other aspects of life. If the athlete does too little flexibility training, the desired improvements will not occur. But, as with all forms of training, fatigue and injury can result if too much training is performed.
Flexibility will not improve unless a given part of the body is required to move through a range of motion that is greater than usual (i.e., the flexibility training stimulus must reach a certain threshold). A second principle is that the stimulus must be administered frequently enough so that the muscles involved have not lost the training effect that has occurred before the stimulus is applied again. Finally, the duration of the stimulus is an important contributor to the training effect. All things being equal, the longer a stimulus is applied, the more profound will be the training effect.
Any number of combinations of these factors (range of motion, frequency and duration) will achieve results, but some element of all three factors is necessary to generate a training effect. Obviously, the greater the degree to which all three factors are present, the greater the training stimulus, but there is a limit to the amount of stimulus that can be responded to at one time, and any excess stimulus is likely to lead to overstress and injury rather than improvement. Athletes who overdo their flexibility training (particularly when they go from performing little such training to performing a great deal of it) often experience significant soreness in the connective tissues (which sometimes causes those who most need such training to give it up). Therefore, care must be exercised in formulating the program.
The athlete must find the types, intervals and intensities of flexibility training that yield the best results for him or her (in conjunction with other training). He or she must identify the areas of the body and the positions which require the most attention in terms of his or her flexibility training. Once a desired level of flexibility has been attained, the athlete must work to maintain flexibility at an adequate level and must do so regularly. But there is no need to go much beyond the range of motion that is actually required.
An approach to flexibility training that can generally be recommended is to use static stretching or AI stretching to enhance flexibility in key muscle groups. This is particularly true when the athlete is attempting to increase flexibility in the extreme positions required of weightlifting that have already been described. However, after various specialized stretching exercises have been performed, the lifter should always endeavor to achieve the desired range of motion in the exercises related to lifting. For example, after stretching to achieve a good squat position, it is always a good idea to do a few sets of squats with the empty bar or a small amount of weight in order to stress the adoption of a correct position in an exercise that is closely related to the lifting movement itself.
A good general procedure for static stretching is to assume the position for the stretching exercise (after a general warm-up or after a workout) and then to move to a point in that exercise in which mild tension or resistance is felt. That position should then be held for from several to approximately thirty seconds while the athlete concentrates on relaxing the muscles being stretched. During this period the athlete should experience a lessening of tension in those muscles. If this does not occur (or if the athlete experiences sensations of pain, burning or quivering of the muscles being stretched), he or she should ease off the stretch to assume a slightly less extreme position. Once a feeling of relaxation has been achieved, the athlete should attempt to stretch a little further, until a feeling of moderate tension has once again been achieved. This position should be held for ten to sixty seconds while the athlete “fine tunes” the experience. He or she should be striving for relaxation and a slightly greater range of motion. If there is too much tension, the purpose of the exercise will be defeated. Too little effort to stretch to the lower edge of discomfort will result in the training effect not being realized.
The appropriate method for AI stretching has already been discussed. I have generally had better success with this method than the static stretching method, but both methods have their place.
When performing flexibility training, it should always be remembered that in weightlifting the need for flexibility (as opposed to strength or speed) has its limits. Flexibility is required to attain correct lifting positions, but flexibility beyond that can result in the overstitching of joints to the point where ligaments are placed under unnecessary stress. A squat position that is so low that the buttocks touch the floor may be interesting and dramatic, but the lifter may also overstretch the knee joints in such a position and make the recovery to the standing position exceedingly difficult. Consequently, the value of training to assume such a position is highly questionable. (Obviously, the athlete who naturally assumes such a position accepts this and arranges his or her technique so that somewhat less extreme positions are assumed while lifting.)
Similarly, an athlete should generally strive to attain sufficient flexibility in the elbow joint to straighten the arm fully. This enables a lifter to support weights comfortably overhead. But an arm that goes any further than such a position tends to be less stable than one that can only fully straighten. This subjects a lifter to unnecessary risk of injury to the elbow. Therefore, any training to achieve fuller range of motion on the part of a lifter who has achieved adequate flexibility would be wasteful and perhaps risky.
Permanent Versus Short Term Increases in Flexibility
When an athlete performs flexibility exercises prior to a workout, the primary purpose is to generate an acute increase in flexibility that will be utilized during the workout. Post-workout flexibility work is often employed as a means to facilitate the athlete’s cool down process and to reduce the tension that can follow a strenuous workout. While both of these purposes are laudable, flexibility exercise of the kind described may not fully serve the purposes of the athlete with a flexibility problem: to cause a permanent increase in flexibility.
If the flexibility work performed by the athlete pre-workout is of sufficient intensity, duration and frequency, it can lead to some permanent changes in flexibility. However, such a vigorous pre-workout stretching session cannot be recommended for at least two reasons. Such stretching is believed to pose certain risks because muscles and connective tissues that have not been fully warmed up are not as supple and are therefore more prone to stretch related damage, than muscles that are fully “warm.” In addition, some athlete’s report an uncomfortable “overstretched” feeling when they perform very significant pre-workout stretching. Significant post-workout stretching is generally preferable to extensive pre-workout stretching, but athletes often neglect such stretching.
The athlete whose flexibility is inadequate in some area must train for a permanent increase in the range of motion of that area. That training must be consistent and specific and must provide an adequate training stimulus. The athlete’s progress needs to be monitored carefully to determine whether the training is having the desired effect. Generally, for permanent changes in flexibility to be attained, the athlete will need to train at least once a day, preferably twice a day or even more. Less frequent training will generally not produce optimum results. Care needs to be taken with respect to the intensity of the training. Stretching for the purposes of achieving a permanent change in range of motion should not be painful. Pushing far enough to cause an increase in flexibility will generate a certain degree of discomfort, but outright pain must be avoided for two reasons. One reason is that such pain can signal damage to the area being stretched (especially if the pain is felt in the joint itself or in the connective tissues around it). Another reason is that pain can actually hinder the training process by causing tension in the muscles that are being stretched; proper stretching causes tension in the muscle being stretched, but if the tension is not overdone, the muscle will eventually achieve a relaxed state while it is being stretched. Stretching to the point of significant pain can delay or prevent this relaxation process.
Specificity of Training
It should not be surprising to discover that the muscles develop flexibility following principles that are similar to those used when training to develop strength. There is a specific adaptation to imposed demands. This specificity seems to apply to the range, direction and rate of motion. For example, as was suggested earlier, if flexibility is developed through passive stretching (using some external force to move the joint through its range of motion), the athlete will tend to demonstrate substantial improvements in passive stretching, but improvements in active stretching performance will tend to be significantly smaller. The terminology of flexibility recognizes these differences in that the term “static flexibility” refers to the range of motion that a person can achieve without any emphasis on speed, while “dynamic flexibility” is the range of motion that a person has in normal physical activity (i.e., at normal or rapid speed).
The Requirements of Flexibility in Weightlifting
In order to understand the nature of the flexibility required in weightlifting, we need to look at the positions that require the greatest degree of flexibility. These are the positions in which the joints of the body must assume angles that are close to the limits of the normal body’s range of motion. In weightlifting these positions tend to occur at the liftoff position in the pull at the bottom of the dip in the jerk (although flexibility problems here are unusual) and at the position in which the weight is received in the squat or split. As a general rule, if a lifter can assume the proper positions at these points in the lift, then his or her flexibility is adequate to the task of lifting maximum weights. If the athlete’s flexibility is inadequate to assume these positions, the athlete will be inhibited in the performance of the lift in question by a lack of flexibility.
The Starting Position of the Pull
As is discussed in Chapter 1, when the athlete assumes the proper starting position in the pull his or her knees are bent at an angle of between 45o and 90o. The athlete’s shins are inclined well forward over the feet. The arms are straight and the lower back is arched. The chest is expanded outward and the shoulders are back slightly but not up. Many fledgling lifters are not able to assume this position, or if they are, experience significant discomfort in doing so. If that is the case, the lifter needs to practice flexibility exercises that are conducive to achieving the proper starting position.
While each muscle can be stretched separately in hopes of achieving the desired level of overall flexibility, perhaps the most effective way of training to achieve adequate flexibility in the starting position is to have the lifter lower a bar or stick to the lowest possible point at which a proper position can be maintained and then to use static or AI stretching techniques to reach a lower position with the bar without “rounding” the back or sacrificing the correct position in any way. Once the proper position can be assumed comfortably, the lifter should progress to the point where he or she can achieve a proper starting position with the bar at a lower position than is assumed at the point of lift off. This is accomplished either by having the lifter stand on a slightly raised (e.g., 1/4″ to 3/4″) platform or having the lifter use plates that have a slightly smaller than normal diameter. The weight need only be enough to help pull the lifter into the necessary position and allow the lifter to maintain balance (e.g., 20% to 40% of his or her best in that lift). However, the lifter should not support the weight for an extended period during a static stretch of this type. Rather, the weight should be resting on some support (the platform or blocks), and the lifter only applies sufficient force against the bar to maintain the desired position. The lifter can also practice lifting from this stretched position, increasing the weight of the bar until the lifter is deadlifting or pulling more from this stretched position than he or she is able to snatch or C&J. This exercise will serve the dual purpose of maintaining adequate flexibility and building strength for starting the bar off the platform. See Chapter 5 for a more complete description of this exercise.
The Low Position in the Snatch
Perhaps the best way to develop flexibility for the low squat position of the snatch is to practice overhead squats with the empty bar or a very light weight. The lifter can descend smoothly, pause in the bottom to achieve the best possible low position and then return to a standing position.
Squat style lifters begin this exercise with the feet in the same position that is used in the low squat and then the lifter merely descends. Split style lifters begin the exercise with the feet in the forward and aft positions that are assumed in the deep split. The lifter then balances on the ball and toes of the rear foot and the flat foot of the forward foot. Finally, the lifter allows the forward leg to bend and the knee to travel forward as he or she descends into the full split position.
It is important to have the coach correct the lifter’s position in the bottom. This is because any failure to assume a correct position is often due as much to a failure to balance the tension and relaxation of various muscle groups as it is to an actual lack of flexibility. The coach will therefore instruct the lifter to “arch the back” and to “push the knees forward.” If there is no coach, a mirror can serve as a proxy for the coach’s instructions by giving the lifter visual feedback regarding his or her positioning. In cases where the lifter needs to be able to see his or her positioning from the side, two mirrors can be used in combination to provide such a perspective.
For many lifters, several weeks of such practice will be sufficient for the lifter to assume the correct position with some effort (it may take several months or longer for the position to actually become relatively comfortable).
Perhaps the most common difficulties that new lifters experience in learning the squat snatch position are keeping the arms locked (i.e., absolutely straight) while in the low position and keeping the bar just behind or in line with the back of the head while in that position. The coach can help by supporting and/or helping the lifter to balance the bar in the deep position, gradually lessening the degree of assistance as the athlete becomes surer of his or her position. Most lifters perform this exercise much more effectively when they turn the arms, so that the insides, or crook, of the elbows are facing forward and upward rather than just forward.
The Low Position in the Clean
The principles described for the snatch apply to the clean as well. In this lift the bar is placed on the lifter’s shoulders, and the lifter descends into the squat or split position. Here, as in the snatch, the lifter will try to keep the back arched. There will be more of an emphasis or keeping the torso upright in the clean than in the snatch. Perhaps the most common difficulty the athlete will encounter will be that of keeping the elbows up while the hands are grasping the bar lightly. Here again the coach’s hand, and/or the mirror, can provide the lifter with invaluable feedback. It should be noted that many lifters will have difficulty keeping the bar in contact with the shoulders when there is no weight on it, but if the lifter is having trouble keeping the bar on the shoulders with 50 or 60 kg. then some special training will likely be required in this area (the goal should be to support even the empty bar comfortably on the shoulders)
The Low Position in the Jerk
In testing flexibility for the jerk, two positions should be considered: the bar resting on the shoulders in preparation for the jerk and the bar overhead in the lowest position at which the lifter will receive the bar in the jerk (in this latter position the bar should be slightly behind the rear of the head and the arms fully straightened). If the lifter has difficulty with supporting the bar comfortably in either of these positions he or she will need to practice achieving the correct positions daily, at least until the requisite flexibility is attained.
When Practice In the Extreme Positions Is Not Enough
While many lifters will find that the kind of practice described above will be sufficient for them to develop the flexibility required for correct weightlifting technique, a significant number of athletes will require specialized flexibility training in at least one muscle group in order to bring that area up to par with others. It is important to engage in such training at the outset of weightlifting training before the lifter begins to lift heavy (for him or her) weights. As was noted earlier, attempting to lift maximum or near maximum weights before adequate flexibility is achieved is an invitation to learning faulty technique and to injury and frustration. Even light technique work in the full classical lifts should not be performed until at least some flexibility has been attained (athletes may perform partial versions of the classical lifts that do not require them to assume extreme positions, e.g., power snatches from the hang position).
The advantage of specialized flexibility training is that the athlete can focus on the specific area or areas that require particular attention. The disadvantage is that when flexibility training is specialized, it can provide a lesser degree of specificity. Consider a situation in which a lifter is unable to raise his or her elbows high enough in the low position of the clean. Let us assume further that it has been hypothesized by the athlete, after a careful monitoring of muscle tension, that lack of flexibility in the rear deltoid may be the primary reason for trouble. The athlete may perform a number of exercises to stretch the rear deltoid and make considerable progress in those exercises yet experience very little improvement in raising the elbows while actually lifting. How can this happen? It can happen because the lifter has failed to improve his or her flexibility in the specific way that it is used during the performance of the lift. It can also happen because the tension that was felt in the rear deltoid was actually caused by tension occurring elsewhere in the arm and shoulder complex (such as in the biceps).
For optimal performance in weightlifting the lifter needs to be able to raise the elbows high enough and to do so quickly, while the body is moving into and then sitting in a full squat position. In short, the rear deltoid must relax quickly and in concert with contractions and relaxation of other muscle groups, each group having varying degrees of influence on the action of the rear deltoid. Consequently, the relaxation of the rear deltoid must take place under a very specific set of conditions, conditions which may not be simulated when the muscle is stretched separately. Therefore, the closer the athlete comes to emulating the actual positions and conditions required during the activity, the more likely it is that the necessary degree of flexibility will be achieved.
To continue the example, the lifter is likely to develop the desired degree of flexibility if practice is undertaken while the lifter is in a full squat position and he or she attempts both to activate the muscles needed to raise the elbows and to relax the rear deltoid. During such practice it is very helpful if the coach assists the lifter in understanding which muscles need to be relaxed and which need to be contracted. Learning which muscles to tense and which to relax can be as important as the actual flexibility training. The coach can do this by referring to the muscle, pointing to it or touching it to assure that the lifter understands the muscle that is being referred to.
The same principles can be applied to the development of the flexibility required in any of the extreme positions of weightlifting that were referred to earlier in this chapter. The lifter attempts to assume the required position. The inhibiting muscles are identified, and an effort is made to relax those muscles while contracting the antagonists to those muscles (the muscles that move the body in the opposite direction of the muscles that are being stretched). An example would be the lifter’s lowering a bar or stick progressively closer to the starting position in the pull while keeping the chest out and the lower back arched.
The athlete may also benefit from stretching movements which isolate the muscle or group of muscles that inhibit the desired movement, and such exercises can and should be experimented with. However, in most circumstances, the lifter will benefit less from such exercises than from the same amount of effort applied to stretching in positions that simulate the extreme positions assumed when performing the classical exercises.
Common Sites of Flexibility Problems
A lack of flexibility can occur in virtually any area of the body, but there are several areas in which flexibility problems seem to arise most often in the beginning weightlifter. These areas are: pectoralis major and minor, shoulders (both in terms of rotation and in the ability to position the arms to the rear of the head while they are outstretched above the head), elbows in both the most flexed and extended positions, illiosoas muscles, adductors, quadriceps, hamstrings and ankle joints. Special exercises can be used to improve flexibility in each of these areas, but as noted earlier, care must be taken to integrate the flexibility achieved by special exercises into functional flexibility for the weightlifting events.
Supplemental Flexibility Exercises That Can Be of Assistance to Weightlifters
While the exercises that will be of the greatest help to weightlifters in attaining the flexibility to execute the classical lifts properly have already been explained, special assistance exercises can be used as an adjunct to these exercises in order to facilitate the lifter’s progress toward the attainment and maintenance of adequate flexibility in specific areas of the body. These special exercises can help in several ways. First, they can provide additional flexibility training to supplement the training on the lift related stretches that have already been discussed. Second, because they generally require little equipment or utilize equipment that is readily available outside the gym (e.g., walls, ropes and broomsticks), the lifter is able to practice them more often than the exercises that are performed in the gym. Third, these exercises can be used to isolate a specific area that may be especially troublesome for a particular lifter.
It is beyond the scope of this text to present an exhaustive list all of the flexibility exercises that may be of use to the weightlifter. Instead, we will describe a few of the most effective and most often needed flexibility exercises. The reader who does not find these exercises to be appropriate is encouraged to consult one of the books on flexibility listed in the Bibliography. These books contain a myriad of other exercises. Readers should select the exercises that appear to be appropriate and then test the results in terms of functional changes in flexibility in the most extreme positions assumed while performing the Olympic lifts.
The rule that the flexibility trainer must always bear in mind is that any exercises performed must be carefully designed to increase range of motion in movements that are specific to weightlifting. In order to assure the appropriateness of any flexibility exercise and to gain the maximum benefit from using it, it is useful to carry out the following procedure. After doing two to three sets of any flexibility exercise, the lifter should assume the lifting position that the flexibility exercise being performed is intended to improve. If the exercise in question is really of value, the lifter should detect some degree of improved comfort and/or range of motion in the lifting position. If no improvement is noted, the exercise should be practiced again in the same or a subsequent workout. If no improvement (even of a minor nature) is noted at this point, the exercise in question may not be of great value. When the flexibility exercise is useful, the immediate application of the new flexibility assists the lifter in making that improvement functional (i.e., useful in performing the Olympic lifts).
The exception to this rule occurs when an exercise is useful but the newly achieved flexibility created by the exercise cannot yet be expressed in the lifting position in question because of a lack of flexibility in other areas.
The five exercises that I would recommend for those who need added flexibility training are: shoulder dislocates with a stick, Achilles tendon stretches, quadriceps stretches, elbow stretches in the power rack and squatting against the wall.
Fig 15 shows the mid-point in the shoulder dislocate. In this exercise the athlete begins by gripping a stick with a snatch grip, or wider, with the stick held on straight arms above the head. The stick is then lowered behind the lifter, while the lifter maintains straight arms, until it comes in contact with the rear of the body. If the lifter cannot keep the arms straight during the first rep he or she should widen the grip. With a wide enough grip the movement should be reasonably comfortable to perform. The lifter should continually endeavor the perform the exercise with a narrower grip each time it is done (beginning with a wide grip and moving the hands a little closer with each rep). With practice the lifter should be able to perform the exercise with something close to a clean grip (I’ve actually seen some lifters do it with the hands together or crossed over one another—but such extremes are unnecessary). This exercise gives the lifter flexibility to hold a snatch overhead comfortably in the low snatch position.
Achilles tendon stretches are done facing a wall or other fixed surface. The athlete places the toe up against the wall and the heel as close to the wall as possible. Then the knee is bent and pushed forward toward the wall. The higher the toe on the wall and the more the knee moves forward the greater will be the stretch on the Achilles tendon. This exercise helps the lifter to squat more comfortably with the knees forward of the toes (see Figure 16). The Achilles tendon is one of the hardest areas to stretch, so patience is needed here.
Quadriceps stretches enable the lifter to squat more comfortably. There are a number of ways to perform the exercise but the one which probably puts the least pressure on the knee joint and the most on the quadriceps muscle is the version shown in Figure 17. The lifter pulls the ankle up and rearward to develop a stretch on the quadriceps muscle.
Elbow stretches in the rack are performed as shown in Figure 18. The lifter sits in the squat position, with the hands around the bar. An assistant pulls up on the elbows as shown, to stretch them out. PNF stretching is particularly effective in this exercise. The athlete should not be satisfied until he or she can assume the position shown in the photo without undo discomfort. It important for the lifter to learn to relax the biceps during this stretch. Many lifters actually contract the biceps during this exercise (in an effort to bring the lower arm closer to the upper arm). Doing this is counter productive because tension in the biceps makes it harder for the lower arm to fold back against the upper arm. I’ve seen short men with 20” arms get their elbows up very well—its not an issue of arm size but of practice and selective relaxation.
Squatting against the wall is another exercise which helps the athlete to squat with the hips close to the ankles while keeping the back arched (see Figure 19). The key here, as it is in all stretching, is to relax (in this case the legs) completely. Ironically, when athletes are eager to stretch further they will often create tension that prevents the greatest possible range of motion.
These are just a sample of the exercises that athletes may find useful as the work to achieve the flexibility required to perform the classic lifts effectively. It is not necessary for every athlete to perform these exercises or to perform flexibility training at all. That need is dependent on the individual. If your quadriceps are so flexible that you can touch your buttocks to the floor in a full squat there isn’t much point in stretching them further (you may even increase your risk of injury to the quads). You’d be better served by learning the lift with your feet close enough that your buttocks are partially supported by the calves in the bottom position than by engaging in further flexibility training. In contrast, if you lack the requisite flexibility to perform any of the classic lifts, training to improve your flexibility in the areas that are deficient is critical
Summary
The reader who has reached this point in the text has learned the elements of proper technique, how technique can be learned and how to create a training stimulus for improving strength, power and flexibility. Now that we have discussed the methods an athlete and coach can employ to develop technical skills and train the body to improve its strength, power and flexibility, it is time to examine the equipment that is at the weightlifter’s disposal to enhance his or her performance.
