The accumulation phase increases my strength quickly, but am I right in thinking just because reps such as 8-10 per set increase strength well, power increases may not be as great due to the conversion of type IIb to type IIa after such a phase; lower reps increasing power best?
If this true then lifter b will have the most power…is this correct?
lifter a. reps of 10 - bench pb = 150
lifter b. reps of 5 - bench pb = 150
Assume they are twins with identical training programmes apart from weights.
Whether it’s GPP or SPP I would imagine that power is going to come mostly from other explosive components like sprinting, med ball throws and plyos. I think the marginal effects on power of low reps versus high reps would be negligible for someone who is already performing these other components. I think the difference is probably more apparent for someone who mainly trains just with weights. In that case, lower reps should contribute more to power. Thoughts?
If in Flash’s post ‘RFD’ is substituted for ‘power’, I agree.
I believe the rep range that is optimal for developing maximum strength to also be optimal in developing power (since Power = Force x Velocity!)
It depends very much on your rep:intensity pyramid. As a general rule, an individual’s upper rep limit on a given exercise is equal to the maximum number of reps he can perform with 80% 1RM.
The losses in power that you experienced are an example of the detraining effect that is synonymous with western (linear) periodization. As Mr Woodhouse stated power=force x velocity. Therefore, two different motor qualities must be developed. By utilizing the conjugate method, of training various motor qualities simultaneously during the same mesocycle, one can experience the simultaneous advances of which ever motor qualities are specific to his or her sport.
Check out texts by Zatsiorsky, Siff and Verkoshansky, and the translated texts by the Sportivny Press, to name a few.
James Smith