While I’m in agreement with training with low reps to gain strength and power I do believe that high reps stuff can be useful for these purposes:
Tendon regeneration/strenghtening: very high volume/low load sets are almost the only way to increase blood flow to the tendons in a significant manner. When training for limit strength and power it thus becomes somewhat important to long term success to include high reps regenerative training. Such an approach is detailed quite well in “Science of Sports Training” by Kurz.
I will say that lifting big weights (sometimes supramaximal weights) is a strong stimulant to increase tendon strength, especially in the long run. But without proper blood flow to the tendons the tendons will not get stronger, they may even get weaker.
High reps can increase blood flow to the muscles which can increase the rate of recovery. In all fairness this can be accomplished by different methods.
That having been said, I never include high reps stuff in my main training session. However I do use a 20-25 minutes feeder/restoration workout 6-12 hours after a main workout. During that feeder workout I will do 3-4 sets of 30-40 reps on isolation exercises for the muscles that worked hard in the preceding session, or I will sometimes do one set of 100 reps.
I noticed a MUCH faster rate of recovery training this way and my strength has gone up substancially.
This type of preparatory period effectively causes adaptation in a non specific quality (strength endurance) and detraining in the specific qualities (max strength and power). When the second phase of training begins the athlete must adapt to a very different training stimulus and is exposed to a second conditioning risk. Time must then be spent reattaining the level of performance present before the ‘preparatory’ phase! Constant training and detraining stretches the (limited) adaptation capacity of the athlete and may limit progress in other training components (e.g. track work). Finally any improvement in strength endurance or muscle gain will be quickly lost unless higher repetition work is continued (in which case optimum strength improvements will probably not be possible).
Below is one very simple example of how volume, intensity & density could be manipulated during various phases:
P1 8x3r off 60s @ 75%
P2 8x3r off 90s @ 80%
C1 6x3r off 120s @ 85%
C2 3x3r off 120s @ 82%
If one favors a training model that undulates between periods of accumulation and intensification, wouldn’t it be safe to say that MxS levels will never be too far out of reach? Aren’t younger athletes able to obtain a strength training effect from a broader based range of reps?
Next close and pre-season, I am going to use an approach in my GPP something similar to that outlined by DavidW by using higher sets to develop ‘explosive strength endurance’.
I have been experimenting more with lower reps and higher sets this year and feel it is far more beneficial than higher reps of any sort.
Why not use 8 sets or more?
By using higher sets I’ve noticed, both greater explosive strength, but also surprisingly better strength endurance - now that’s not supposed to happen simulatenously!!!
If you think of the sporting contexts you are invloved in, you’ll see it makes sense.
Corect me if I’m wrong but while ‘Tendon strength’ IS very important and can be developed by including both isometric and eccentric training by maximising time under tension.
Originally posted by David W
[b]Let me just clarify my stance on this topic:
This type of preparatory period effectively causes adaptation in a non specific quality (strength endurance) and detraining in the specific qualities (max strength and power). When the second phase of training begins the athlete must adapt to a very different training stimulus and is exposed to a second conditioning risk. Time must then be spent reattaining the level of performance present before the ‘preparatory’ phase! Constant training and detraining stretches the (limited) adaptation capacity of the athlete and may limit progress in other training components (e.g. track work). Finally any improvement in strength endurance or muscle gain will be quickly lost unless higher repetition work is continued (in which case optimum strength improvements will probably not be possible).
Below is one very simple example of how volume, intensity & density could be manipulated during various phases:
P1 8x3r off 60s @ 75%
P2 8x3r off 90s @ 80%
C1 6x3r off 120s @ 85%
C2 3x3r off 120s @ 82% [/b]
I would still consider 120s a short recovery time. I presume C2 refers to a competition phase - would someone from a OL background not look to bring the Intensity beyond 85%?
Firstly this is not a program I would use for an Olympic lifter. Secondly an individual’s 3 RM will probably be approximately 90% of their 1RM. Training at 85% (of 1RM!) therefore leaves a 5% ‘buffer’. My Buffering thread explains why this is important.
David, won’t the short recoveries affect the athlete’s strength. Everyone has different recovery rates. For some 120 s or 60s may be to short and therefore their technique and speed may suffer.
