I would listen your opinion about this statement of Dr.Bondarchuk:
“We have in view that the exercise executed in the 75-80% zone where the number of repetitions in one set vary from 8-10 the strenght effect can be higher than from those which are executed in the 95-100% zone, whit the number of repetitions from 1-2”
apparently he said opposite of what Abadajev and lot of russian expert said. so which zone has more probability to enhance level fo strenght?
I guess it depends what category of strength he is referring to.
In weights, I’d consider 80% and up to be in the high zone.
Bondarchuk’s point (from his book and listening to his DVD seminar) is that a variety of methods can produce the same high performance. For example if you take 2 guys who throw 70’ shot and squat 700lbs, athleteA can achieve that using lower loads and higher reps while athleteB responds better high loads and few reps (in the gym). The key word in his quote is “can”.
What is his DVD like? I have the book but is the DVD worth looking into?
The DVD’s information is excellent. Worth the $ IMO. It is Bondarchuk presenting mostly about his book and fielding questions from the audience.
The only negative is that it’s about 3x longer than it could be because Bondarchuk says everything in Russian, then Yessis translates it, then Bondarchuk has to say “nonono” and correct him, then Yessis corrects himself…and so on.
Sounds like that alone is worth the money 
Every time I hear about Yessis translating (Bodnarchuk or Verkhoshansky), everyone always says he has to be corrected - practically for every sentence. Why do these guys keep using Yessis to translate?
The Soviet Sports Review journal must be tragically incorrect then.
To be fair to either one of them even if you got someone who is fluent in both languages they would find it difficult to translate given the training nomenclature? Written info is a lot easier - you have got an audience:)
True to a point but Val Nasedkin never had any problems translating a Verkhoshansky live phone call.
How about the translation of the interview with the fictional Prof Okaka who was “working with Ben” on his starts before the 87WCs??
The Soviet Sports Review journal must be tragically incorrect then.
Guess so, too.
which zone has more probability to enhance level fo strenght?
Bondarchuk position must be a reflection of an approach where the time to enhance strength is well defined, otherwise it would make no sense to compare a zone to the other. It would be like saying the hammer is better than the pliers, when in fact they are both (useful) tools.
In the light of this, the lenght of the strength macrocyle, the exercise selection (1-2 reps with OL have a different impact from 1-2 reps with SQ/DL/BP) and the length of the subsequent competitive phase would influence which zone would be more useful.
Generally, you would have higher and more stable strength gains from the 80-90% range (Zone 4 in the Soviet literature; opposite numeration to Bompa, for those who know it) than from the two zones mentioned, but there seem to be some authors that prefer Zone 3 strength work (70-80%) for sport training, for example Ivan Roman Suarez (Cuba - International Weightlifting Federation).
I’ve spoken with a number of people from the former Soviet Union regarding Soviet Sport Science Review. They all laughed about the content. Apparently the translations were not good. Additionally they said that the articles contained a fair amount of dis/misinformation. Tough to tell if this was by design or due to Yessis’ translation.
One coach, who I speak with on a daily basis, went as far as to say that everything that we got in the west was by old/retired coaches, or those who wanted to raise their profile. This person also said that the really accomplished and respected coaches never published.
These are the opinions of coaches that I trust, and nothing that I can confirm as I don’t speak Russian. It made me a little sad when they told me, because when I was getting started in coaching I would rush to the college library to check the latest copy.
I also heard that many of the studies published in those journals were not controlled experiments and, as you said, researchers wanted to show positive results and get a name for themselves.
When I say that they laughed about SSR, I was understating their response. It was much more disdainful and very specific. The validity of the studies was specifically mentioned, not just the level of control, but also the level of the subject (participant).
As an aside, the coaching methods in the former USSR were evidently not nearly as monolithic as we in the west thought.