I was discussing lifting with a well qualified strength coach recently. He was saying that he gets a lot of athletes who are elite in terms of thier performance level in thier sport (E.g. finals at Commonwealth games/Semis at WCs) but are fairly new to strength training (1-2 years experience). Hence, the weights they can lift in the gym are fairly low compared to what you might expect as is the level of power they can express.
As a result he felt that working them at around 90% of what they were are currently capable of in the weights room does not seem to impact on their track performance because they just are not co-ordinated enough (neurally, muscularly etc) to over stretch themselves.
This is something I had not thought of before and was thinking that this issue needs some debate.
Are you saying that in these cases work at >90% is the only chance of a general impact,thus necessarily limiting the options available for training (and “periodization” ) design?
Sorry Pakewi, I don’t 100% understand your question.
To rephrase…
I think his point is that when athletes start training they don’t know how to produce maximum effort in the gym and that ability will take time. Until they can produce maximum effort their attempts at close to thier maximum arn’t “really” thier maximum so it isn’t that fatiguing. Therefore, you can’t overload the performance characteristics they need to produce improvements on the track.
In a nutshell, until they have been training some time they can’t overload thier nervous system in the gym.
In a nutshell, until they have been training some time they can’t overload thier nervous system in the gym.
well its not only a matter of ONE maximum effort. I can overload my CNS and im weak and untrained by all standarts.
i mean, the effort MUST come out of somewhare and that someware is dependant on volume too, so i would be carefull of CNS overload even in amateur athletes. Thats from my personal experience.
Also i have found that there is a tendency for amateurs to get injured before CNS overtraining kicks in so there are alot of parameters here that limit ones ability to tolarete maximal efforts
Thanks Tc,I understand better now.
My experience is quite the opposite though…The higher the level of the athlete,the higher the recruitment capacity,well beyond the specificity of the motor pattern involved,hence specific training experience,and specific coordination are not really limiting factors,considering the relative lower skill level required for exercises in the gym when compared to sport actions themselves.
Of course I am not talking of the more complex olympic lifts here,as I do not have experience of an athlete’s progression there…
I agree (see my last comments on the homeostasis model thread). This is the risk of more complex skill requirements late in the training day when concentration abilities may be waning.
It also brings up issues about injury rehab. You may, in that case, be required to perform one leg drills etc that you may not be in the mental position to learn at the very time you need them. This is why such drills should be included in the early GPP- you have them in the mental bank for when you might need them.
Would an athlete with 1-2 year’s strength training experience be not able to over stretch themselves? If 90% doesn’t impact their track performance what percentage would? Any new stimilus to any program may negatively impact the performance in the initial stages of adaptation as you have competing stressors?
Variety should be lower to allow them to “learn” the particular exercise, to allow homoeostasis controler to “see” that it is safe to increase output (under the concept of this model) and to decrease “adaptive stiffness”.
For the situation Charlie mentioned, larger number of exercises should/can be used. Again, this is the problem of finding the optimal solution!
Unload should not be so frequent as with advanced lifters.
He specialised in weightlifting and didn’t do bench press so the only major exercises were olympic variations (power cleans), jump squats and regular squats plus assistance exercises (glute ham raises etc).
He explained how he knew the athletes were powerful because they can run elite level times but he didn’t see it in the gym so until he started to see it he would keep the intensity high (90% or more). Part of this he said was because the athletes were not used to being loaded through the back and having a heavy weight hanging off of thier arms so he needed to work on this until they could hold form while performing the exercises with a heavy load.
Note he didn’t believe a 150Kg clean was that impressive for an elite tripple jumper. Does he have too high expectations?
I do not think he does…really! But it is always very individual of course.
And I am on the same line of thinking and experience as your WL Coach in regards to >90% loads use,even not using OL at all.
Regarding strength displayed in whatever compound exercise in the gym and specific sport event,I like to think about it in terms of Tension capacity and Tension Delivery capacity.
The (relative to the individual) heavy lifts teach the body to create and sustain ever increasing tensions,which will have to be delivered in the timeframe and modalities required by the specific event.
Quoting member Kebba Tolbert from a few years ago:
" Bigger Battery,Better Wiring…"
Both sets of skills require a complex learning process.
Do you mean load as weigh lifted? I would say that too much of suddent jumps of weight in both of experienced and beggining athlete will cause DOMS (if they are not accustomed on those jumps - short undulating periodization). Note that I am reffering to 5RM to 15RM jump and not on trying to lift more weight each subsequent training session within proposed limits.
I would say that begginers need slow and continual intensification of training while reducing volume (long linear method - classical periodiyation). I outlined my opinions in “Overview of periodization methods in resistance training” article (aviable at elitefts.com but without pictures). What do you think Charlie?
Pakewi, tc,
Altought begginers may not tax their CNS with >90% load (intensity) and thus don’t develop overtraining (questionable) or CNS fatigue because they are not able to recruit larger number of MU, this may not represent optimal training method for them… Why? Injuries, fear, poor technique, unability to lacote the attention for specific details etc. Lower load, greater volume is great for skill acquisition (note that larger load don’t means larger number of reps in one set, it can mean larger number of total reps per exercise) with begginers. Also, Siff stated in Supertraining that begginers react better to 15RM load in increasing 1RM than doing 3-5RM training…
So, I would rather use less intensity with begginers not matter if they don’t overtraing with >90% intesities, because it is safer and allow for skill acquisition…
What is the purpose of forcing a begginer to do a clean with max weight, if he don’t even know how to front squat properly?
Don’t know exaclty… I don’t have the book near by, but I think I have read simmilar stuff in Kraemer & Fleck altought this book isn’t here too
As soon as I found it I will post… don’t worry I will back-up my thoughts
Although this is true, perhaps it doesn’t apply, isn’t necessary, or won’t have the same effects in the case TC first stated, i.e., “elite in terms of their performance level”.
Others?
As much as I respect your knowledge and effort,I cannot really agree with you here.
The contents implied by your words here (re: overtraining…supposed CNS taxing ability…supposed CNS fatigue) are more complex than it may seem,and need more analysis,afterthought, and discussion.
A few words come to my mind straight away though: strength is always to be considered a skill first and foremost,well beyond any specific choice of exercise and specific sets/reps design,and should be trained accordingly!
This is something I personally believe in a great deal. A display of strength/power is simply a co-ordinated effort by the muscles/brain. Even in somthing like a bicep curl there is a great deal of skill involved (if you are aiming for maximum output).
In the last year in my personal training I have always avoided fatigue and when i couldn’t perform an exercise well (e.g. I started to struggle) I cut it right there and then. Despite not “pushing” myself i am as strong as I have ever been. While I have no objective evidence it seems to me that any movement performed under fatigue is a negative reinforcement of the movement pattern. (I guess this wouldn’t apply so much in sports where you need to perform in a fatigued state but perhaps still comes into the equation?)
Could not be more in line with your experience until your very last sentence in brackets quoted above!
Would you really think it may make a diffrence? A fatigued state is just that…a scenario limited “PER SE”…key here I think it is moving one’s reserve bars further and further (which by definition can be done only in absence of fatigue!),to minimize the limits the onset of fatigue puts on display of performance.
My comment was with respect to relative degree of percieved fatigue. For the 200m man I will only let them run as far as they can do without almost any loss of form. In the gym this is at the point where I see a “struggle” on a rep rather than complete voluntary failure!
Now in the 400m the degree of struggle that is acceptable is perhaps significantly more than in the 200m. Hence, if i stopped the 400m athletes at the same point as the 200m man then it may not be appropriate.
In short, the “cut off” of percieved fatigue is perhaps relative to the amount that you would expect in a “Personal Best” race?
