Force = mass x acceleration
Well I was wondering if this is the best way to build muscle/strength in general (preforming 3 reps 5 sets whilst creating a physiological response) or 3 reps 8 sets first week, 4 reps 7 sets, 5 reps 6 sets then increasing weight. Or…what???
I’m confused at which I should incorporate.
Thank you very much in advance… :rolleyes:
The main thing to account for would be that any adjustments made to mass or acceleration will impact maximum force (seems obvious when I write that but check with a guru near you for a retarded explanation that attempts to undercut this fact).
You have to adjust the skill/action to reflect those needs (if mass is sub-maximal there must be an increase in acceleration and vice-versa). It’s extremely difficult to load at “maximum” all the time since small adjustments can seriously impact progression. Try to not over think it and always stay focused on making the weights support your primary aim. I use the term complimentary way too often lately but it’s one way to think of how many of the sub-maximal efforts you will make in training go a long way in supporting maximum performance. Charlie has said “the low intensity work supports the high” and while the intensity of many skills varies in how it affects the CNS/organism they all play a definite role in the program.
In general, and with no consideration as to the impact of other concurrent training goals, strength is built using loads of 85% of 1RM and greater using a rep range of 2-5 reps per set for up to 8 sets or so, depending on your training level. Mass is built with lighter loads using a rep range of 6-10, going within a 1-3 reps of failure on each set.
To train both concurrently, you can choose an intermediate load and do something like a 5 x 5 scheme, or you can train each seperately, first doing something like 4-6 x 2 (work up to at least 85% for the last set or two) followed by 3-4 sets x 8-10, to work mass. If you are a sprinter, consider doing these during off season or early GPP. Again, this type of rep scheme works best ‘in general’ and may have to be modified when integrated into your overall training plan.
In termsof a phsiological response, it depends on what response your interested in. CNS stimulus? Hypertrophy? Motor unit recruitment?
I like your explanation.
Most athletes need to improve their power-to-weight ratio. Therefore growing “big” is not as important as lifting “big”.
I used reps/sets very akin to those you’ve posted here, varying them by design and sometimes by necessity (if the athlete was off his/her game when they came to the gym, following track earlier in the same day).
I worked mostly around 2-6 reps as well as sets.
But if we felt the athlete needed “balancing” (read: building up in mass, somewhere) then I would sometimes do what we termed “drop-backs” and do 1-3 sets of reps to 8 - 10 reps, or almost breakdown, depending on how much the load was reduced.
Mostly the load we used varied from 85 to 95% of 1rmax. We actually never attempted 1rmax feeling it was dangerous and of no advantage to really know the absolute 1rm. So nothing in the gym was precise. It was all by feel on the day, but we worked to a general plan with the goal to be strongest in the major taper of the year.
Thank you, I appreciate your feedback. I have had discussions (on this board and others) with athletes who feel that there is too much competition for the CNS pool. I have always thought that this type of training could be integrated without too much interference. Did you notice any decrease in performance, short-term or long-term, with the athletes? Did you limit this type of work to any particular phase of training?