Force = mass x acceleration

[star61]

@kitkat1

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?