Power vs max strength training - Shaun Pickering

Food for thought about power vs strength training
Backs up my thoughts on training exactly! :slight_smile:


The guy who wrote it is Shaun Pickering, a world class shotputter who made a comeback a few years back while still working full time. It’s not very often that you get to hear about how an elite athlete trains on a working man’s schedule.

"I do remember a similar study being performed by Gideon Ariel on the US throwers if the late '70s/early '80’s, where throwers like Plucknett, Wilkins and Burns were all shown to have Big Max Bench Presses, in excess of 600lbs. What was interesting is that they also tested Oldfield, who only had a Max of around 450lbs, but the speed that he was able to move it at gave him a far greater level of Power than the others.

More recently, there was a German study, published I believe by Schmidtbleicher about 6 years ago, which pointed to a problem amoung many of their top shot putters. They were pointing out that their top male throwers,(Buder I suspect) had a Bench Press max of 280kgs (600lbs or so) but when tested with a load of 15kg, (the equivalent of a shot in each hand) the male shot putters were producing lower power than some of the female throwers. This study led to the advice to concentrate more on lifting for power than max strength, moving lighter weights fast, rather than heavy…and slow…max strength training.

The important factor here is applicable strength, which in this case is the ability to move a 7.26kg ball as fast as possible. I personally believe that the importance placed on Maximum Bench Press levels is misplaced, and my particular focus in my training was to specifically train for power.

I was lucky enough to work with a machime called a MuscleLab, which among other things allowed me to measure my power in my lifts and also to train with biofeedback. By this I mean that I would set the power level that I wanted to achieve for each rep in a set, and I could monitor each attempt by visual or audible signals, while performing the exercise. This allowed me to focus on lifting for power, at whatever weight I was working at.

The other important factor here was that I would work at a level of around 70% 1RM for sets of 5. The peak of the power curve, ie the weight at which you produce the highest power output, is usually around 45% of 1RM, which I am pretty sure that very few top Shot Putters ever work out at. While the peak is at 45%, the power level is very close to this peak level from about 30% 1RM to 70% 1RM. Lifting at the higher end of this range helps to move the “Force/Power” to the right, which means increasing both strength.

From my own experience, I had some very positive results working only in this range. When I started training again in 1995, having not lifted for eight years, and even then was not much of a bench presser, I concentrated on 5x5 reps as fast as I could. I built up over about three months to where I could perform a 5x5 at 125kg, and that remained my basic workout in the Bench Press. When I tried my max for the one and only time, having never lifted any more that 125kg, I was able to lift 180kg. This gave me confidence in that my max was at a reasonable level, and I never tried it again, although I could read my estimated max from the MuscleLab.

With regard to your specific question about a direct comparison between athletes, I only have some anecdotal evidence from my own experience. We used the MuscleLab to test a number of British Athletes at a national squad training get-together a couple of years ago. When testing different athletes it is important to try to keep the methodology as standard as possible, so we would use a Concentric Bench Press, where you would include a one second pause at the bottom of the lift, ie at the chest. This prevents cheating, bouncing and hip thrusts and the like, and tries to keep the exercise to an Arm only exercise as much as possible. Myself and Mark Proctor were both tested in this way, and we both had similar Shot Put PR’s at the time. Mark’s training was more based upon maximum strength and heavier weights, and his estimated 1RM in this concentric Bench was 180kg, compared to my own which was only 150kg. Similarly, Mark’s max power levels were also higher than mine, but not as great a margin. However, when you extrapolate the power levels at 15kg, ie the weight of a shot in each hand, my power level was about 30% greater than Mark’s. That same day we both threw together, with myself throwing 19.80m and mark struggling to reach 18m.

Andy Bloom’s results with this same test gave him an estimated 1RM in the concentric Bench at 165kg, which Andy seemed very dissappointed with, but his power curve was incredibly impressive, showing extremely high speeds and power levels with lighter weights.

For further information on the MuscleLab machine, you can check out www.ergotest.com

One other important piece of information which relates to this, is the benefit that this type of training has on Testosterone production, which of course has a direct effect on power. Carmelo Bosco, and Italian exercise physiologist who is very active in this area has shown that lifting at maximum levels is very beneficial to the Testosterone production in the body. This is why people rely on Max Bench Press to increase speed in Bench Press. However I found it more beneficial to use Olympic Lifts, in my case Hang Snatch, to try to utilise this benefit. This is used very effectively by Jonathon Edwards, the Triple Jumper. During the competitive season he finds that lifting once every 7-10 days is sufficient when the lifting sessions are performed at a very high level. Usually he with perform 3 sets of singles or doubles in the Power Clean or Snatch at near Maximum levels. At 70kg bodyweight, he has power cleaned 150kg…

Unfortunately, I did not test Adam Nelson recently, when he was no longer concentrating on Heavy Bench Press, and I regret this. The information on Adam was from 1998, when he was quite strong in the Bench press, although his power was very impressive. Robert Weir, who we tested at the same time had a much higher Bench Press Max, but much lower power than Adam.

I hope that you find this information useful. I certainly believe that Max Bench Press is over rated as a marker, particularly for spinners (or more accurately efficient spinners) and I would be more concerned with moving reasonable weights fast.

A similar approach to leg work is taken. One important factor that has to be considered is to try to get constant acceleration through the lift, looking for high speed at the top of the lift. This is true for both Bench and Squats.

I would work with usually sets and reps in the 5 x 5 range, at around 70% of 1RM, with only a few variations. The intention was that every rep should be at a minimum of 90% of the maximum POWER at that particular weight. If the power was below that level, you are no longer developing Fast Twitch fibres, but rather increasing Slow Twitch, which is detrimental to the system, at least for a thrower. Singles at this level are not that valuable if you can lift five reps at the same power, without dropping below that 90% max power level. For some people this might be 4 reps or 6 reps, but for me this was 5 reps, as the sixth rep was definitely slower than the fifth.

Another way of looking at this was the heaviest weight with which you can perform 5 reps in six seconds. This gives a good indication of what the appropriate weight would be for a set when working for power.

One important reason for me following this programme was the unnacceptable risk of injury for me peforming heavy squats. Having suffered from Chronic Back problems for more than 15 years, my back was always going to be the weak link in the equation. I flound that I could get more than acceptable results from moving reasonable weights fast, so my workouts were usually 5 x 5’s at a weight of 140kg-180kg. The heaviest squat that I ever attempted was 230kg for five reps, which is nothing special for a shot putter. I could however see my power increasing, and my estimated 1RM was also increasing.

As I have already mentioned, my set-rep range of choice, at least for Bench and Squats, was a 5x5.

Earlier on I would do a few weeks of 5 x 10’s or 8’s, but this was because I had not lifted for eight years, so it was just to get used to the exercise. I was never concerned about gaining size, as anyone who has ever met me will tell you that is not my problem, so I was never concerned with stimulating Growth Hormone production which sets to failure will benefit.

The key factor for me was stimulating Fast Twitch and therefore Power, and for that I had to maintain that EVERY rep was performed at a level of greater than 90% of my maximum power at that weight. Even my sets of eight were performed at speed! I was never concerned with MAX attempts in Bench and Squat, as I felt that the risk of injury was too high and I found that this was also not important for me.

It should be mentioned that my particular circumstances was important in this decision to focus on power, in that I was aiming to go from an inactive business man to an Olympic athlete in a little over 12 months. Therefore I could not risk injuries nor did I feel that my time was best spent building a big base and developing 1RM.

My Olympic Lifts, or in my case the Hang Snatch was the lift of Choice, were based around 5 x 5 or 3 x 3 Workouts, with the inclusion of a workout known as “rounds” which I learned about from Dan Lange. This would be 3,2,1,3,2,1,3,2,1 with the weights increasing in each small pyramid, so that the second and third singles were around or above 1RM levels. This proved to be very effective.

Some sprinters were working on a similar basis to this in Squats and Bench Press, only training for power, and some Speed Skaters also showed impressive results with this training, but as the MuscleLab was very new, it was very much experimental in terms of Training strategies and Periodisation. One interesting factor that came out from the sprinters, is that they did not “Feel” as strong as they had done previously, as they had not put in the same workloads, or Strength Building phase in their training. This was despite the fact that their Power was very high and their 1RM levels were as high than they had ever been, the mental “need” for a strength building phase could not be overlooked. I did not have this need as I had not lifted in so long that I was confident with the strength gains that I was making even though my focus was on Power."

A few thoughts:
1: If the top men’s shot putter is putting out LESS power than the top females, what does that say about power vs ultimate performance?
2: Oldfield had plenty of strength everywhere, especially military- if anyone else remembers his performance in the “superstars” competition. (he pretended to struggle to lift the winning weight- then repped it for ten with ease!)
3: Whenever you have an event with LESS training options (you don’t do special end here!), you must use all the ones you DO have.

Also note that these guys already had an incredible base strength level before they started ‘training for power.’ Once you get over 400 lbs in bench , them maybe it makes sense, but until you have a certain level of base strength, working in a ‘power’ zone probably won’t help much.

Another point that Louie Simmons makes is that the place you generate max power in a lift is generally around 60% of your 1RM, so if you want to be able to demonstrate more power, then increase your 1RM and 60% of that will increase as well!

I think that there are perhaps a number of holes in this argument, but it is something to think about especailly in terms of a ‘strength-reserve.’

For example, lets say that you can 1RM bench 400 lbs. Then without any power-specific training your power-zone is 60% of that or 240 lbs. If you train for power, perhaps you can increase your power zone strength by 10%, so you are at 264 lbs.

On the other hand, if you work towards increasing your max bench by 10%, then you can 1RM 440 lbs. Since you didn’t do any power training, assume that your power zone stays at 60%. This puts your power zone strength at 264 also! Plus as an added bonus your max strength has increased and you have more strength reserve while working at the weight.

Good follow-up points.

Becuase of years of overtraining/no recovery/crap lifestyle I am at the low end of the strength factor. For me, it would be a particular waste of time to focus on the power zones or “honing the strength.” I am giving myself a 3 weak layoff, and then I will just concentrate on mass, strength and recovery for the following 6 months. After that I will gradually hone the power without sacrificing further strength developement, becuase the power zone will still not be the absolute focus of my training, even then.
Perhaps at the elite level there may be more concern for sharpening this power to strength ratio. Ulf Timmerman was one of the smallest but one of the all time best shotputters. But Ben Johnson did not do fast lifts.

Well for myself, working at 70% had increased both my speed/power and 1RM. ie shifting the whole force/velocity curve

Heavy weights just ended up burning myself out and beating me up. I get the best of both worlds at 70%. I added 30lbs to my squat 1RM on the last 8 week training cycle I did where 70% was the average intensity of my lifts, and the rest in the 40-60%.
The important thing was maximal bar accleration.
Since then I strayed into heavy territory and have sufferred for it!
You can get just as good if not better results at moderate weights moved fast, as heavier weights without beating up your CNS and body.

60% is a figure that Simmons quotes, but that is differnet for everyone, fast twitch guys will generate more power at 70% faster than slow twitch guys. Average people would probbaly be at 40-50% judging from the various articles on the micro musclelab. But this changes over time with training as well.

Again like I always say there is no relationship between strength and power. Just because your 60% zone has moved up 30lbs because of your increased 1RM doesn’t mean you can move that weight at the same speed your previous 60% zone was. I just don’t think the relationship is linear. Otherwise all we would need to do is increase our squats to 300% BW and we’d all be vertical jumping over 40inches.

I mean do you really think moving 60lbs when your 1RM is 100lbs is the same as 600lbs when your 1RM has increased to 1000lbs?
It is an extreme example, but does make me think :slight_smile:

Colin - I saw this post on DrSq and was gonna ask you to post it here.

There is research that suggests continued training in limit exercises close to 1RM can decrease speed (power!) short term (Deniskin, 1976). I have found, with 2 reps, a 10% buffer is sufficient to avoid power decrements but provides sufficient stimulus to increase maximum strength. I have also found with mature lifters a buffer of 5% or less can actually lead to a decrease in maximum strength. A reduction in speed could be added to the reasons we’ve compliled previously. (see ‘Buffering’ thread). This also relates well to my ‘Overtraining’ article. Remember, high intensity overtraining on the squat caused a decrease in speed before a decrease in strength. Of course with Olympic lift derivatives this is not an issue since load is such a low percentage of the limit pull. Also, since speed is important in Olympic lifts overtraining will manifest itself immediately.

Xlr8: I agree, very few track athletes are actually too strong

My Olympic Lifts, or in my case the Hang Snatch was the lift of Choice

What’s this DW on the money again? :cool:

Also remember that ground contact time in sprinting is far too brief to exhibit maximum force. A lot of sprinters get surprised when their gym strength levels go way up but they don’t run any faster. There’s just not enough time in sprinting to use all of that extra limit strength.

Originally posted by David W
[b]Colin - I saw this post on DrSq and was gonna ask you to post it here.

There is research that suggests continued training in limit exercises close to 1RM can decrease speed (power!) short term (Deniskin, 1976). I have found, with 2 reps, a 10% buffer is sufficient to avoid power decrements but provides sufficient stimulus to increase maximum strength. I have also found with mature lifters a buffer of 5% or less can actually lead to a decrease in maximum strength. A reduction in speed could be added to the reasons we’ve compliled previously. (see ‘Buffering’ thread). This also relates well to my ‘Overtraining’ article. Remember, high intensity overtraining on the squat caused a decrease in speed before a decrease in strength. Of course with Olympic lift derivatives this is not an issue since load is such a low percentage of the limit pull. Also, since speed is important in Olympic lifts overtraining will manifest itself immediately.
[/b]

David another point is that it’s just not the weight, for me when I go heavy the increased arousal levels required is what burns me out.
Some people can lift heavy and not be too concerned, so it doesn’t “hurt” them as much. I think that is the key to lifting heavy weights - to be able to do so without getting too pysched up.

This therefore also applies to Olylifts as well, even though the loading is lower than deadlifts/pulls, the focus and effort required to maximally acclerate the bar, especially in lifts such as power cleans that require racking, will still be taxing in that regard.
High intensity is high intensity regardless of the bar weight.

This is a fascinating post. I have wondered abotu the whole velocity-power curve concept. However, Charlie seems to think that power is not the main determinant here for performance.

Myself, I am not a faster swimmer at a 255 pound bench than Iwas at a 220 pound bench. In fact I might be a little slower.

If anyone is interested in this topic, check out Zatsiorsky’s book. If you aren’t afraid of a little science, then read the relevant sections, and you won’t be confused any more.

The question isn’t if power is the main determinant, it’s how best to get it and what options are available for training, beyond sprinting itself. We’ve discussed the whole velocity/strength curve issue before at length. Basically, advances ANYWHERE on the curve can have effect EVERYWHERE on the curve (though, of course, primarily on the specific area worked)

CoolColJ,

What matters is the speed that the shot put is released at delivery. The best shot putters need to gear their training to that goal through the training of technique, speed, power, and strength. Some will be obsessed with a big bench, others will be more astute and perhaps focus more on explosiveness and technique. Of course, a maximum bench has only a partial correlation (although reasonably high) with a shot put performance. After all, the skill, strength and speed needed to throw a 7.26 kg ball is much different to that of a powerlifter. There are many champion shot putters that have have a relatively poor bench. The 1983 WC was won by a Pole (Sarul) who could barely bench 200kg. Similarly, Bill Kazmeir got blasted out of the ring in a strength competition when he tried to wrestle linebackers 100 pounds lighter than him. Further, one may have a better bench because of favourable levers and so on. After all, wasn’t Oldfield 2.03m tall.

While I use weights, they are only one source of strength training.
Hence, I agree with Charlie’s general point that the key is "how best to get it (power) and what options are available for training, beyond sprinting itself.

Many sprinters achieve excellent results without weights, although they do other strength training such as callisthenics, bounding and so on. Some just run. From what I have read, Daley Thompson, Allan Wells, Herschal Walker, and Kenteris have such workouts. They obviously still get an optimal training effect given that power is essential to success in such sports.

I believe it is impossible for anyone to find the optimal intensity for training with weights or any other training method. The key will remain specificity, and how long revovery is necessary and so on. Intensity and recovery will also vary from individual to individual. If any asistance has a carry over effect to the chosen sport, then there will be benefit. The proof will be simply in better performance in the chosen sport.

Just what intensity is best is difficult to evaluate even for weightlifting. Just compare the Bulgarian method with the Russians, who trained much lighter. Both won many WCs and OGs.

I also believe that too much is made of how much people lift or jump or thow in other tests. Maximal power tests are simply a guide for each individual to know that he or she is on track in terms of strength levels. For instance, Ben Johnson had great lifts. Does this mean that everybody shoud lift heavy? No it does not. From what I have seen on film, Ben Johnson’s lifts are comparable to leading lifters only because he does not squat deep and he lifts his ass off the bech. Correct me if i am wrong. What matters is that he has enough explosive strength, along with the necessary skill and specific fitness, to be the fastest man in the world over 60m-100m.

The key is to develop strength excerises that are specific and are enjoyed by the athlete. Some athletes like lifting heavy, others do not. Some like weights, others don’t. Some like cleans, others don’t. There is enough assistance exercises for a coach and athlete to design a tailor made program that will improve one’s performance and please the athlete. My athlete loves squats, whereas I don’t.

I would not have done as many weights as I have if I could have another opportunity to repeat my mediocre sprinting career. Upper body exercises, especially, have to be the most overrated. Didn’t Ben Johnson bench 80kg when he ran 10.25 or something similar. Rick Mitchell, a 1980 400m OG silver medalist, could not even do three chinups.

I conclude, by stating the obvious. Specificity is the key to success. That is why people with huge benches do not necessary throw 21-22m. Whether training 70% is optimal or not, strength levels are only a partial factor for an effective program that must stress skill especially, power, and so on.
This is the same for all sports. This is much more important that trying to find the magic recipe for optimal lifting intensity when success in the gym will always be achieved by a variety of methods.

Col, if you never increased your 100% in the first place then your 70% wouldn’t amount to much.

A small cycle of upping your 100% will mean your 70% is more, thus your power will eventually become more.

Make sense? :slight_smile:

Vary the stimulus, work the spectrum, get the results.

Spartacus
So you’ve determined that Ben wasn’t that strong (at a body weight of 173) based on your impression of his form. You suggest that sprinters should suit their own needs (true)- except for Ben (hmmm).
You correctly determine that Ben’s explosiveness was the key while ignoring one of the elements in its production. Ben’s (and every top athlete’s) program must be seen in its entirety. You can’t pick out the pieces you agree with and leave out the rest and think you’ve arrived at the answer to their results. These programs are history- not philosophy.
You are right that weights must never be an end in themselves. Your own unfortunate experience with weights might well have had more to do with the stress you underwent to achieve your lifts and the resultant cost to other training elements, rather than the weights themselves.
Of course, weights should be as progressive and carefully applied as every other training element. The key is is to always remember that the true indicator of training success is the advancement of the speed and speed endurance elements in training. All other training elements must be adjusted to ensure continued advancement here.
BTW, Ben was not benching 80kg when he was running 10.25!
Good point dcw23.

Originally posted by dcw23
[b]Col, if you never increased your 100% in the first place then your 70% wouldn’t amount to much.

A small cycle of upping your 100% will mean your 70% is more, thus your power will eventually become more.

Make sense? :slight_smile:

Vary the stimulus, work the spectrum, get the results. [/b]

Well my 100% has increased by me just working mostly at the 70-75% area and 40-60%. Plus lots of ballistic lifts etc

How do you explain me finding a powerclean singles of 185lbs hard 6 months ago, whereas now I can do 225lbs for multiple singles catching with minimal leg bend? And I can pull 250lbs to my sternum - probably could rack it with a some dipping. Not so long ago 205lbs was my limit single.
Or once I was powersnatching 135lbs from the floor, with slower bar velocity, and now I can do 139lbs from the hang using just a 3inch dip and blasting it up - barely even lowering the bar to mid thigh :slight_smile:

In that time my full squat has gone from 250lbs for 3 reps to failure in Decemeber to 315lbs for 4x3, two weeks ago, and I still had a few sets and reps in me, after doing hang powercleans too I might add.
I remeber my max being around 275 or so, and now I could probably hit 365+ with much faster bar speed to boot, all in the space of 6-8months. I’m on target to 405+lbs by Christmas :smiley:

proof is in the pudding.

Col, how do you know all these 100% max lift figures if you aren’t doing them? Think about it…

I do test them every so often. So that I can work out my percentages etc for the next training cycle.
In fact I’m planning to max out on em in a months time when my current training cycle is completed.

I go for a 3x3 PR in my squat at every deloading period, which is usually every 4 weeks in a cycle. I outlined this in another thread here.

Originally posted by CoolColJ
I go for a 3x3 PR in my squat at every deloading period, which is usually every 4 weeks in a cycle. I outlined this in another thread here.

Could your deloading really be your loading? :slight_smile:

BTW, I am not disputing the fact that constant max weight training is a path to frying yourself. I agree. It sounds like you beat yourself down to oblivion before. I’ve done it myself. Know the feeling well. :frowning:

I like Kit Kat’s quote though, you can’t shoot a 20lb shell from a rowboat. :slight_smile: But on the other hand, its no use shooting a pea from a battleship. That’s why we need to develop all parts of the spectrum.