INCREASES LUNG CAPACITY
Improve the strength and durability of the muscles involved in breathing. An increased lung capacity will greatly enhance physical capabilities and efficiency of breathing. This will allow greater gas exchange, absorption and elimination to take place.
RESULTS ARE SIMILAR TO TRAINING AT ALTITUDE. As oxygen saturation is lowered during certain components of the training, chemoreceptor sites detect the lower amounts within blood and tissues. The kidneys in particular detect the lowered oxygen levels, increasing the production of erythropoietin and haemoglobin. More haemoglobin means more available oxygen vital to the enhancement of performance and recovery.

INCREASES THE STRENGTH AND FUNCTION OF THE RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Inefficient respiratory systems can attribute to ailments becoming noticeable at an early age. These may include: – Respiratory Disorders and disease; Migraine headaches; Colds and flu; Bronchitis; Digestive disorders; Heart disorders; High blood pressure; Fainting; Immune deficiencies etc. A majority of the time the symptoms of these ailments are treated by the use of drugs and with no focus placed on correct nutrition. Often this creates an even more toxic environment for the body to combat and then operate within. By addressing the cause of the problem (usually resulting from a form of stress) rather than the effect, we begin by allowing the body to return to the very basic and natural way in which it was designed to operate i.e. a constant state of health. Breathing effectively is the starting point, addressing the body from a cellular perspective.
Cells create tissues – tissues create organs – organs create the systems by which the body operates. Each cell needs a rich source of oxygen so that you can operate at your potential.

INCREASES ANAEROBIC THRESHOLDS
Athletic performance is largely governed by anaerobic threshold i.e. the ability to operate when the activity rate utilised more oxygen than the body can provide to the working muscles. This inefficiency does not allow enough Adenosine Tri Phosphate (ATP) production, the ‘energy currency’ of living systems. ATP is crucial to the life of all cells and has the essential function of providing energy for cellular activities. An insufficient uptake of oxygen also slows the removal of excess carbon dioxide, lactic acid is created and glycogen stores are depleted. As the trainees’ body adapts to the Breath Enhancement Training, their buffering effect against raised levels of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) within the blood plasma is enhanced, they become better able to deal with higher levels of CO2, lactic acid and their anaerobic threshold may be extended.

INCREASES TOLERANCE TO ELEVATED LEVELS OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND LACTIC ACID
Increasing levels of toxic Carbon Dioxide in the body are brought about by either physical exertion and/or mental stress and they both have an immediate effect on breathing. It can create lactic acid build up within muscle and higher acidity within the blood. To improve our tolerance to this, components of the Breath Enhancement Training rapidly increase levels of carbon dioxide over short, safe periods of time, ensuring the body can adapt and a greater tolerance results. Ability to deal with stress whether physical or mental is greatly enhanced. B.E.T will improve the way in which Oxygen is released from haemoglobin as it is transported about the body and decreases the chances of excess Carbon Dioxide building up within the tissues, creating an acidic environment where oxygen will not be readily absorbed into the blood.

INCREASES BREATH HOLD ABILITY UP TO 400%
For those that surf, train in the surf or like to indulge in free diving, this training will have you feeling much calmer and more confident ‘under’ waves and in big, rough surf conditions. If you want to get better at something you have to practice that thing. Besides the physical changes that take place to allow an extended breath hold, mental strength and confidence dramatically improves which is a fantastic attribute when dealing with wipeouts, hold downs and scenarios which see you struggling for the surface. It will give you the advantage in sports where intermittent breath holding is necessary,for example when body surfing during surf swimming races. Components of the training activate a reflex within the body known as the ‘mammalian diving reflex’. This creates a physiological change that decreases oxygen consumption through reduced heart rate, a blood shift etc. Over time once this reflex has been activated you will find it a great asset to extending ones breath whenever the need arises.

Misinformation Engineering©
Andrew Charniga, Jr.
www.sportivnypress.com
2009

There Is No System: 1962
Part II

Section A: Marketing Functional Isometric Contraction

The commercialization of Functional Isometrics/Power Racks shifts into high gear while America’s weightlifting fortunes continue to decline.

“The fact of the matter is that a predominant development of strength can have a negative effect on the development of speed.” (“The Dependence of the Snatch and the Clean on the Athlete’s General and Special Physical Preparedness.” A.V. Chernyak, Tiiazhelaya Atletika. Sbornik Statei. Fizkultura i Sport, Moscow, Publishers, 1971:99–109. Translated by Andrew Charniga, Jr.Sportivny Press©)

The 1965 June issue of Strength and Health magazine featured an article written by Terry Todd entitled “The Bob Hoffman Foundation” (S&H 06:28-30,71:1965).

“The Bob Hoffman Foundation was founded in 1961 shortly before the announcement by Strength and Health magazine of the recent developments in the field of the application to sports of isometric contraction….The term ‘isometric contraction,’ virtually unknown a short four years ago, is a household phrase today. It was a combination of the scientific genius of Dr. Ziegler and the promotional genius of Bob Hoffman that started the big ball rolling: a ball that has grown in size to become a veritable avalanche of isometric racks. They have sprung up like forests in the schools of our country, and other lands around the world are following suit.”

Never were truer words spoken.

However pleased Bob Hoffman would be, were he alive today to see how ubiquitous his power rack has become in the American high school, university, and professional sports team weight rooms, he would no doubt be surprised that the words of Terry Todd about power racks springing up like forests were not hyperbole.

The marketing of functional isometrics (FIC) and the power rack was intensified in all of the 1962 issues of Strength and Health.

In his report of the 1961 World Weightlifting Championships, Bob Hoffman declares (S&H 01:14:1962) that, “The days of US and Soviet domination are over.” T. Kono wins his fourth Mr. Universe title at the Worlds championships. Hoffman notes that W. Baszanowski of Poland who wins the 67.5 kg class “does not look like a weightlifter.”

This is an often repeated theme to be found in Hoffman’s reports of the major championships of the early to mid 1960s. The physical appearance of champion weightlifters, who are very different from those weightlifters of the era of absolute strength (particularly the American lifters), contradicted Hoffman’s ideal of a weightlifter with a well developed physique. The “muscle less” weightlifting champion became, for him, an unsolvable puzzle.

In an article entitled “A Minute A Day” (S&H 01:14:1962) at the end of which appeared an ad for FIC training manuals and power racks, Hoffman wrote, “I predict that all records in weightlifting, track and field, swimming, and other sports will be broken and rebroken in the next two years by men who train in the Functional Isometric Contraction way. It pleases me to make such a prophecy….”

Read more……..

Introduction

The fundamental problem with the USA system of strength training is that there is no system. In America anything can be commercialized; this of course includes information. The commercializing of strength training research, methodologies, modalities and the like, even if some are valid, has ultimately led to confusion and an indiscriminate leaping from one “new and improved” strength training methodology or modality to another.

A scholarly examination of elite sport development in the USA by E. Sparvero, L. Chalip, and B. Green (Comparative Elite Sport Development. New York. Elsevier, 2008) made the following observations: “Although school, university, and professional sports systems are effective users of sport science knowledge, they are not producers of sport science knowledge…. There is no coordinated research scheme for sports medicine. The mass of American sport science research capacity resides in its universities, but outside the athlete development system…. given the absence of a coordinated sport development strategy and the lack of any significant sport science funding body, the long term outlook for American sport science is bleak.”

These observations were in reference to elite sport development for the Olympic Games. However, the observation concerning the lack of coordinated research does not take into consideration the confusion created by the commercialization of the research that is done in the USA and its effect on the development of elite sport.

General Guidelines for an Objective Evaluation of Strength Training Methodologies and Related Research in the USA

The concepts/conclusions listed here are by some noted Soviet era sport scientists regarding the concurrent development of strength and muscle mass form the basis of our assessment of the various topics to be covered in this series of articles of the history of weightlifting training in the USA. The commercialization of functional isometrics/power rack training is highly questionable in regards to value along with its long lasting influence on American methodology of strength training for athletics.

1. “An increase in muscle mass is accompanied by an increase in muscular strength only in certain cases where the required movement is connected with overcoming a large resistance or moving it with a low velocity…. An increase in muscle mass is not an obligatory result of strength training.” Y.V. Verkhoshansky. Fundamentals of Special Strength Training in Sport 1977. Translated by Andrew  Charniga, Jr. Sportivny Press©.)

2. “The athlete who employs heavy weights such that the movement becomes close to an isometric (although a very good strength development) risks ‘coordination enslavement’ which emanates from tension in the antagonists muscles.” (L.N. Sokolov, 1970, “Special Physical Training of Weightlifters.” Tyazheloatlet: V Pomosch Treneru. Translated by Andrew Charniga, Jr. Sportivny Press©.)

3. “These types of training (isometrics) can and do typically exert a negative influence on joint mobility, muscle and tendon elasticity.” (A. I. Falameyev. 1986. Translated by Andrew Charniga, Jr. Sportivny Press©.)

4. “No matter how constant the increase in strength, weightlifters cannot fully realize it because of the limited time determined by the amplitude of the task the working links in the kinematic chain have to execute the competition exercises.” (Y.V. Verkhoshansky. 1972. Translated by Andrew Charniga, Jr. Sportivny Press©.)

5. “There is no essential difference between the strength displayed in slow movements and isometric conditions.” (V.A. Zaprazhanov. 1988. Translated by Andrew  Charniga, Jr. Sportivny Press©.)

6. “It should be noted that there is no connection between ability to generate great force and the ability to realize it at maximum speed. This is obvious with respect to the training of powerlifters and bodybuilders. There are virtually no examples of these  athletes who have switched to weightlifting and achieved distinguished results in the new sport. Whereas, on the other hand, there are numerous examples of high class weightlifters having switched to powerlifting and becoming champions.” (L.S. Dvorkin. Tiiazhelaya Atletika. Uchebnik, Moskow. Sovyetsky Sport, Publishers. 2005. Translated by Andrew  Charniga, Jr. Sportivny Press©.)

The first five concepts/conclusions form the basis for the 6th observation of Dvorkin, which in simple terms means that it is extraordinarily difficult to switch from training at a static sport like bodybuilding or powerlifting and succeed in a dynamic sport like weightlifting. This is despite how strong one is or how much muscle one has developed. Consequently, the value of strength training under predominantly static conditions and over restricted amplitudes of movement for dynamic sports is highly questionable.

The commercialization of the “Power Rack” (Functional Isometrics) and its profound effect on the American athletic community

The October 1961 issue of Strength and Health magazine is the beginning; it is “a ground zero” of a prolonged, commercialized  information campaign extolling the benefits of isometric, high muscular tension exercises of small movement amplitude to develop strength with the simultaneous development of muscle mass. The hardware to which this training methodology was inextricably connected eventually came to be known as the “power rack.”

The term “power rack” is of course an oxymoron because the use of the system and the racks are for strength development not power. The generation of power is connected with a simultaneous high speed muscular contraction and relaxation which one cannot effectively perfect performing isometrics or heavy weightlifting movements of small amplitude in a power rack.

In his report of the 1961 USA National Weightlifting Championships published in Strength and Health magazine (Strength and Health 10:53:1961), Bob Hoffman wrote, “Lou Riecke was the sensation of the meet, for he lifted 105 pounds more than he did one year ago. Broad shouldered, heavily muscled in the trapezius, his back and shoulders are developed to a point that make them pretty close to the best I have ever seen. This, with his slender waist and a fine pair of legs, indeed make him everything a weightlifter ought to be.

Further on in Hoffman’s description of the competition of the 90 kg class, he noted the following about the surprise winner Bill March, “a year ago he could not even qualify for the nationals because his best total of 800 lbs. in the 181 lb class was 25 lbs below the qualifying standard. …this year he has done 975 in the 198 lb class.”

An enduring legacy of the commericalization of Funcional isometrics is the survival of many of the ideas from that era. This is a power rack exercise without the rack. It was an exercise for strength pressers introduced when the era of strength in weightlifting was coming to an end.

(Charniga photo)

These two men, had for that era, made phenomenal improvement in one year. They had one thing in common. Over the preceding year both had been under the tutorage of Doctor John Ziegler, MD. Under Ziegler’s guidance both had been performing isometric exercises mimicking some of the positions of the body and barbell in the three Olympic weightlifting exercises. They were doing mental training for concentration. And, they also were receiving dosages of a new pharmaceutical from the Ciba – Geigy Company, a derivative of the male hormone testosterone known by its trade name Dianabol.

It must be first emphasized that the relatively new research of Hettinger and Mueller which purportedly proved scientifically the effectiveness of isometrics for training strength led Ziegler, Hoffman, and others to credit the isometric exercises for these two athletes’ improvement.

Furthermore, lifters and coaches of the late 1950s and early 1960s, which can justifiably be called the beginning of the end of the era of absolute strength in Olympic Weightlifting, believed success in weightlifting was determined by the development of absolute strength with its accompanying large muscle mass and, of course, will power. No one really imagined something as insignificant as a small tablet could have a profound effect on an athlete’s strength development. So, mental training aside, it was logical to assume the phenomenal progress Riecke and March made was considered to be the result of isometric training.

The following is the first line of an article (Strength and Health 11:30:1961) written by Bob Hoffman entitled, “Revealing the New Power System.” He referenced it as the most important article I have ever written. “I am about to tell you about the greatest system of physical training, the greatest system of strength and muscle building the world has ever seen.”

Hoffman went on to trace the history of isometric research conducted by the likes of Hettinger and Mueller, Phillip Rasch, C.H. McCloy, Steinhaus, Karpovich; he wrote, “Isometric contraction will develop functional strength quickly and completely.”

This use of the word “functional” to describe a physical quality like strength or a method of training has become, at the present time, so overused and so ubiquitous that it is meaningless.

Hoffman stated in this article, emphatically, that the isometric training of March and Riecke was the secret to their phenomenal progress in such a short time. He even wrote that, “We had to keep this training secret, for it was a new principle and we did not want others, particularly the Russians, to learn about it until we knew more about it ourselves, knew its full value.”

Statements like this were in all probability not intended to be a marketing ploy. They reflected an honest, but nonetheless overzealous reaction to what seemed to be the answer to the declining fortunes of American Weightlifting at the international level, a “new and improved” system of training for strength. Bob Hoffman, the many times Olympic coach and the “Father of American Weightlifting,” without a doubt, was sincerely excited by the possibilities of this training methodology.

On the other hand, the gist of the claims made in this article also reflected another side of Hoffman, the businessman. And, he was an excellent businessman. Hoffman had for many years personally bank rolled American Weightlifting. He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours supporting lifters through his business the York Barbell Company and his magazine Strength and Health. He also paid the bills out of his own pocket to send American teams to numerous international competitions. All of this time, money, and efforts were made out of a genuine love for the sport.

Consequently, there was a duality in Hoffman’s overzealous reception of isometrics. This form of training could be a real boost to the declining fortunes of American weightlifting, to the delight of Hoffman the coach. And, the anticipated boom in sales of isometric equipment and training courses could be a boon to Hoffman the businessman; the scope of which is exemplified by this statement from that article, ”a system which will produce not only better weightlifters, better athletes, better men in the Armed Forces, but can help every man, woman and child in the nation.” That then leads to many prospective customers.

Here it should be noted that the two athletes for whom the isometric training was purported to be the source of their astounding progress performed two distinct types of isometric contraction exercises. One simply pulled or pushed on an immovable bar fixed at various positions in a metal power rack stand; whereas the other held a barbell of various weights against the pins of a power rack. At first this would seem to be problematic for an astute businessman like Hoffman who was in the barbell business. But, this “problem” would in fact prove to be an opportunity in disguise.

The Initial “technical” advertisement campaign

It was no coincidence that the very first advertisement in the Strength and Health magazine appeared in the very same issue as the previously mentioned article, and it was no accident that the ad was inserted on the page opposite the end of this effusively glowing report of scientific research and practical experience with isometrics.

With the caption, “60 seconds daily quickly builds amazing strength and development!” (Strength and Health 11:65:1961) and a notation “patent applied for…,” the power rack marketing campaign was born. The rack pictured in the very first advertisement consisted of four  metal tubes attached to a wooden base. The tubes were aligned/attached in pairs at the base and top and the whole device was secured on the wooden base and by steel rods to the wall directly behind it.

There were 550 holes drilled in the collective four tubes to provide a large number of possible positions to perform exercises. It was called an “Isometric-Isotonic Power Rack.” Pins approximately 12” in length were to be inserted into the holes in the tubes to provide a support for a barbell or just a bar for doing isometrics with weight or just static isometrics with an immovable bar.

The ad stated, “This is the rack and the training system used by leading lifters, who in a few short months made such sensational improvement.” The ad also touted the expansive versatility of the stand with which 14 different movements could be performed such as heavy squat stand, heavy leg press stand, bench press machine, leg press machine, incline press machine and other exercise positions.

Three models ranging in price from $29.95 (made of wood) to $99.95 were offered. A “super” 25,000 word training course penned by Bob Hoffman was offered free (a $5.00 value) with any of the four models pictured.

Claims were made that, “Many days you will train as little as 1 minute with a limit  of five exercises for 12 seconds each.” Further on in the ad this profoundly hyperbolic statement appears, “Training with the Hoffman super power rack and the hitherto undisclosed secret training methods this Super Training Course includes will be the answer to your dreams, the answer to your physical desires.” (Are you sure about that last statement for an answer Bob?)

Of the illustrations present in the ad one in particular should be committed to memory. It is a picture of an Olympic lifter lifting in the power rack. His trunk and legs are fully extended, his heels are raised, shoulders are elevated and arms are partially flexed, head is tilted back and line of sight is upward. This was considered at the time to be the ideal “full extension” of the pull and every Olympic lifter should strive to achieve this position in order to lift the barbell high enough for the snatch or the clean. You could now practice this “ideal position” in the power rack with isometric tension.

One of the enduring exercises performed in a power rack or on an isometric stand involved mimicking this posutre except with fully extended knee and hip joints, heels and shoulders raised. The problem is a weightlifter passes through this disposition in a very small fraction of a second. Training for this as an isometric would be counterproductive. (Charniga photo) 

This ideal of a weightlifter with a fully extended trunk, lower extremities and elevated shoulder girdle in this lifting position is of course a myth which has persisted to this very day in many quarters of the weightlifting community. It is counterproductive to an effective timely descent under and receiving of the barbell in the squat position, i.e., the descent is delayed and the joints are not prepared to receive and brake the descending the barbell with this “full extension.”

What has all of this have to do with the state of strength training in America? The commercialization of isometric training and its simultaneous  equipment sales pitch may not be the beginning of this type of marketing, but it certainly raised it to a level never achieved before . Virtually every major university, college, or high school weight room in the USA has at least one, and at most, a multitude of power racks. It is arguably third behind a bench press bench and a barbell as the most ubiquitous piece of training equipment to be found in university and school weight rooms from coast to coast.

This commercialized training methodology with its attendant equipment and the all encompassing philosophy which went hand in hand with them, not only did not stave off the decline in American weightlifting at the international level, but, in our opinion, accelerated it to a nose dive. The isometrics/power rack craze could not have come at worse time. The era of absolute strength in Olympic weightlifting was coming to an end. Isometrics and power rack exercises were not the way to prepare for the speed strength era.

This attendant philosophy for developing absolute strength epitomized by power rack training, this psychology of strength training with concomitant increase in muscle mass, the misperception that strength development and increased muscle go hand in hand is very much alive today.

The reader should not assume in any way shape or form that this treatise is meant to bash Hoffman, the York Barbell Company, his or the company’s contributions to weightlifting. On the contrary, against this backdrop of the marketing of isometrics and the power rack there was a genuine belief that this training method would build the strength and of course the muscle mass needed to regain competitiveness with the Russians and other East block weightlifters.

It is highly unlikely that it ever occurred to Hoffman and the others touting this training that the type of exercises, the small range of joint motion worked, the development of what Soviet sport scientists called “static strength” and the extra muscle mass could prove to be not a benefit to Olympic weightlifters, but instead become a hindrance.

For instance, Hoffman was unable to fathom why the young upcoming American lifters of the early 60s and thereafter were unable to lift as much as the Soviets and East Europeans when they had all of this strength and muscle mass, so much in fact they were able to virtually walk from the weightlifting platform to the Mr. Universe competition and succeed at bodybuilding after failing at weightlifting.

The declining competitiveness of American weightlifting and its relationship to the marketing of the power rack for “Functional Isometrics”

It is pertinent to this discussion to examine the backdrop against which the commercialization of isometric training and the marketing of the power rack occurred.

The USA won its first real gold medal in weightlifting in 1936. Bob Hoffman was the Olympic coach. This was followed by four gold medals in 1948, four in 1952, and four in 1956. But by 1960 the USA won only one gold medal, the last by an American male which was  some 49 years ago.

In the aftermath of the 1960 Olympics in Rome, Bob Hoffman wrote an editorial (Strength and Health 9:3:1960) in which he analyzed the performance of the US weightlifting team.  He wrote, “ In reference to the communist block athletes, naturally, they are not stronger, but they work harder at their sport.”

Subsequently addressing this same issue in 1961 (Strength and Health 01:3:1961), after first reciting a litany of excuses for the some of the poor performances in Rome, Hoffman went on to say, “There were a lot of reasons, but the most important ones… in simple terms, the real reasons our men did not win more often were the condition and ability of the foreign athletes, their skill, their endurance, speed and strength … But in so many countries the athletes train harder than our fellows do.”

Hoffman recognized the obvious; the communist block athletes and lifters from some Asian countries were training harder at weightlifting than the Americans. Either we had to train as hard, even harder, or come up with a superior system. It is obvious why isometrics and the power rack were quickly seized upon as the latter of the solutions. This method appeared to produce rapid gains in a relatively short time and required less time in the gym. No need here for a radical change of life style.

However fortunate American weightlifters were to have such a benefactor as Bob Hoffman, the USA, then and to this day, lacks a state sponsored, coordinated research effort designed to not only produce elite athletes, but to find the means, the wherewithal, to stretch the limits of human performance. The Soviets, and to a lesser extent other East block countries, had funded for many years and continue to fund such an effort.

A distinction must be made between the information produced from research of elite sport performance in a communist country like the former Soviet Union and East Germany. This type of information, for the most part, was not readily commercialized as it can be in the USA. The training methodologies and training apparatuses were evaluated by coaches and sport scientists as either effective or not. This stands in stark contrast to how training information and training modalities can be hyped in the USA as they can leap from the laboratory to the market place.

As already mentioned, Hoffman wrote, “a system which will produce not only better weightlifters, better athletes, better men in the Armed Forces, but can help every man, woman and child in the nation.”  So, right out of the “box,” there was the obvious attempt to sell the science of isometrics to ”every man, woman and child” in America.

A common weightlifting posture to train in the power rack or with an isometric stand is to place a baarbell at knee level. This is a difficult posure durning the pull phase of weightlifting. (Charniga photo)

Unfortunately, the marketing of the isometrics/power rack, an unfortunate part of the commercialization of knowledge in America, makes it difficult if not impossible to evaluate something like a “new” training methodology; this is a sad result which, in this case, accelerated the decline of American weightlifting.

Echoes of Hoffman’s observations from a different standpoint are to be found in an article “Our Rivals – The Foreign Athletes” written by Y. Kutsenko (Merited Master of Sport, Merited Trainer of the USSR. Tribuna Masterov,. 1963: 200. Translated by Andrew Charniga, Jr. Sportivny Press©) This was his analysis based on first hand observations of the training of the teams at the Rome Olympics.

“The Americans did not adhere to a strict regimen. They went to bed later (24:00); got up later (9-10:00); dispensed with morning gymnastics, the warm up in the fresh air which was an obligatory routine for our athletes, the Japanese, and the Poles who considered it to be an essential means of improving health and improving sport form.

“It was obvious that many were clearly over – trained. Miyake, Berger, Kono and others, ‘prematurely’ sensing the ‘breath’ of their competitors, tried to amaze and show off…. You get the impression that the Americans, like the others, do not have a daily training plan….Right in the middle of their training animated contests break out with laughter and including betting whether one is doing a competition or some other exercise.

“Today, I. Berger won $25.00 for snatching 112.5 kg; tomorrow there is a bet of $50.00 for a clean and jerk of 152.5 kg. T. Kono and C. Vinci challenged throwers O’ Brien and Neider who had already finished training and showered. But suddenly they began a bench press contest with them for a maximum. What is this?

“The Americans devoted little time to warm up before training. Running, jumping and gymnastic exercises were excluded… In my opinion they did warm up enough for the next exercise which was evidenced by the poor technique of the beginning sets.

The young, unassuming, Japanese athletes, in contrast to most of the Americans, warmed up carefully; and, they imitated the forthcoming movement before each attempt. They were subdued, focused, sensible on each task. They were psyched, angry at the enemy. It was a mix of muscular speed and effective work; this is what set the Japanese athletes apart. They would relax their muscles well between attempts, stretch or sit, and relax.”

Kutsenko’s observations were an unflattering assessment of the Americans’ pre Olympic preparation, to say the least. However, apparently Hoffman would have agreed at least in principle. Later in the previously mentioned editorial (Strength and Health 01:6:1961) he wrote, “The Russians have this willingness, this dedication, and that is why they are so good in so many sports. The Russian official who said, ‘We train seriously, while you prefer the easy way,’ was right”

Chuck Vinci was USA team’s only gold medalist at the 1960 Olympics in Rome. He was the last American male to win an Olympic gold medal in weightlifting.

At the 1961 World Weightlifting championships (later that same year of the report of the fantastic progress made by the two lifters March and Riecke) the USA won only three medals. Issac Berger won a gold, Kono a bronze, and Zirk a silver in the superheavyweight class, but his total of 475 kg would have placed him second in the 90 kg class. The dearth of quality entries in the 90+ class made a medal possible as he was 50 kg behind the gold medal winner.

Despite the dubious showing of the USA, Hoffman noted on the bright side that Kono and March (unable to lift because of illness) entered and placed 1st and 2nd respectively in the Mr. Universe contest which was part of the world weightlifting championships program in those days. Unlike the Americans for whom bodybuilding and weightlifting were becoming evermore fused together as one event in the pages of Strength and Health, none of the European lifters (Plukfelder, Toth, Palinski, for instance) took part in the physique event.

A number of misperceptions prevalent during the 60s regarding the training for weightlifting and weightlifting technique, which were and for the most part still are unfortunately ingrained in the American psyche, can be traced to this time:

1. the need to develop absolute strength with assistance exercises to improve results in the weightlifting exercises;

2. the need to develop muscle mass especially in the trapezius, quadriceps, and gluteus muscles to maximize the gains in strength;

3. the conceptual misunderstanding of the basic principles of the biomechanics of weightlifting technique; most misconceptions about the biomechanics of the weightlifting exercises come from video and still picture analysis;

4. the notion that increased strength and muscle mass would improve weightlifting results, even if the strength was developed from slow and or partial movements.

So, in the aftermath of the Rome Olympics, it was becoming apparent to Bob Hoffman that the weightlifters of the Soviet Union, the other east Europeans, and Japan were training harder and more diligently.  These countries were developing their own training systems. These countries emphasized dynamic strength, coordination, flexibility, and overall dynamic conditioning in their systems while our lifters, fast becoming weightlifter/bodybuilder hybrids, were behind the times as far as developing modern training methods and appropriate conceptualizations of modern technique.

There was no American system.

Misinformation Engineering©

Andrew Charniga, Jr.

www.sportivnypress.com

2009

Cal States Games

Oly Cal States Games

Competitors’ Results:
Jen Balster: gold, 48kg class
Gillian Formaneck: gold, 58kg class
Armen Hammer Amirian: went 4 for 6 out of his lifts
Steve Yurosek: gold, 105kg Masters class
Michael Ryan: went 3 for 6 out of his lifts, with two new personal bests!
Ron Yellin: bronze, 85kg class
Ben Oliver: silver, 85kg class
Big Will Otto: gold, 105kg class (and taking Coach Max’s four-year standing title!)

Power Cal States Games

Sheryl Punky Condon: gold, 75kg class

The combination of weight training, aerobic exercise and sound eating habits have shown to be the most effective for fat loss and toning. Toning is simply the restoration of muscle and the simultaneous decrease of fat. Every year after the age of 25, the average American gains one pound of body weight, yet loses one third to one half pound of muscle (Evans 1992). Consequently, our resting metabolism decreases approximately one half of a percent every year. Proper exercise and sound eating habits can reverse this process.

While aerobic exercise burns fat during exercise, anaerobic exercises, like weight training or sprints (see HIIT), utilize fat hours after exercise. Weight training can also increase the metabolic rate a second way: It restores muscle tissue that had been lost over the years from a sedentary modern lifestyle, thus improving the aesthetics of the body by accentuating its curves and shape. The average adult adds 3 pounds (1.36 kg) of muscle after 2 months of strength training (Westcott 1995) and consequently increase their metabolic rate by 7% (Campbell 1994, Pratley 1994). One pound (0.453 kg) of muscle burns approximately 30-50 Calories per day. In contrast, a pound of fat only burns about three Calories per day. After 3 months of strength exercise, the average adult loses 4 pounds (1.8 kg) of fat despite eating 15% more Calories (Campbell 1994).

Weight training exercises that use large muscle groups (e.g. Gluteus Maximus, Quadriceps, Hamstrings, Chest, and Back exercises), with a progressively greater resistance, have the most potential for restoring lean body weight and raising the metabolism hours after exercise.

Most people do not have to be worried about getting too big when training with weights. Evidence suggests that less than 20 percent of men, and very few women, can develop large muscles, even if they wanted to, regardless of what program they follow. Bodybuilders seen on TV have usually trained for years, possess a certain degree of genetic aptitude and, most likely, have used anabolic steroids sometime in their careers.

When beginning an exercise program muscle mass increases may initially outpace fat loss, resulting in a very small, temporary weight gain. When exercise can be increased over time, more significant fat loss can occur. Unless an exerciser is highly motivated, actual weight loss is usually only seen with particular dietary improvements.

Increasing the quantity and speed of your workouts and varying the frequency with which you train can lead to huge improvements to your performance. If you want to improve your performances, you can’t train the same way all the time. If you did, your body would simply adapt to the training you were doing, your fitness would settle in at a fixed level, and you could train far into the next century without making any improvement. Hoping to perform better with an unchanging training programme is like expecting to become a maths wizard while working on only the simple equations encountered in first-year algebra.

Your body’s tendency to merely maintain the status quo means that if you want to get better your workouts must progress to a higher level of difficulty. To progress, you could simply increase your intensity, volume, and/or frequency of training over time. As long as you weren’t exceeding your body’s ability to adapt, you would steadily get better. The trick would be to avoid exceeding your body’s biomechanical and physiological limits; too much stress would actually begin to break your body down, rather than build it up.

This guileless pattern of gradually increasing the quantity of work you do, the speed of your workouts, and/or the frequency with which you train is the simplest way to alter your training over time in hopes of improving your performances. Such progression does produce performance gains, but by itself it can never help you reach your ultimate potential, because it ignores the fact that your training must also be goal-oriented. There are a number of specific things you need to accomplish in order to optimize performance, and these goals aren’t always reached merely by fiddling with the ‘work-load knob’ on your training programme.

The seven commandments

If you’re an endurance athlete, for example, there are seven key things you must do to perform at your very best. You must:

1. Expand your VO2max (maximal aerobic capacity) to the greatest possible extent, so that your body becomes a huge energy-creating machine. As your capacity to process oxygen swells, your ability to exercise without fatigue increases dramatically, and the difficulty of various movement speeds decreases. To put it simply, you can cycle, swim, run, row, skate, or ski further and faster.
2. Increase the strength of your muscles and connective tissues, because doing so fortifies your body against injuries and thus allows you to train and progress without unplanned interruption. Becoming stronger is also the first step on the path to improved economy (see goal no. 5).
3. Lift your lactate threshold (LT) to the highest-possible level. LT lift-offs increase all of your race paces and make it possible to move at faster-than-ever speeds without fatigue.
4. Maximally pad your power. Optimizing your power means not only developing greater force with your muscles – but also learning to exert that force more quickly than usual. Power means faster, more explosive movement – a quicker trip from start to finish of your races; it matters not at all whether your competitions last four minutes or three hours. Of course, one way to augment your average power output is to simply boost VO2max and lactate threshold, but developing maximal power also requires the utilization of special training techniques which increase your muscles’ amount and rate of force production.
5. Become as economical as possible. Being economical means having Honda efficiency, even though you have a huge, ‘Rolls-Royce’ exercise motor (VO2max). Remember that possessing a great VO2max is synonymous with having an expanded heart, as well as muscles which have the capability of processing incredible amounts of oxygen, while being economical means moving along at decent speeds while your heart is still puttering along moderately and your muscles aren’t forced to gear up all their oxygen-processing capacity (eg, even though the movement speed is high-quality, you’re ‘operating’ at only a modest fraction of your VO2max, giving you lots of ‘room’ to pick up your pace without exceeding your oxygen-handling potential). And of course being economical means beating the pants off your fellow competitor, even though that rascal has a similar VO2max, because you can cycle, swim, or run at the same race pace as him at a lower fraction of your capacity, making the speed feel easier to you.
6. Restore yourself regularly and systematically, healing the muscular, connective-tissue, nervous-system, and endocrine traumas which are the natural result of hard training, and thus permitting further hard work and a relentless approach toward your ultimate goal. This restoration would include one prolonged period each year during which your body totally refurbishes itself, making far more than the minor repairs required between workouts.
7. Develop specific endurance. It’s not enough to be a physiological thoroughbred, with good VO2max, LT, economy, strength, and power in a rested body. You must also develop the ability to function smoothly and efficiently and with minimal fatigue at your goal speed – the one that will take you to a PB in your key competition of the season. Research has shown us, for example, that a runner who is economical at six-minute per mile pace MAY NOT be economical at seven-minute pace. If that individual wanted to run a marathon at seven-minute tempo, he would have to devote part of his training time to functioning at that specific intensity in order to become economical at that pace.

Train step-by-step

That’s a lot to do! And of course, you can’t accomplish all those goals at once – with the same kind of training. It would be ridiculous to expect to maximally increase your VO2max – a physiological change which depends on rather large amounts of intense training – at the same time as you were attempting to enhance your rest and recovery.

It would also be foolish to expect to optimize your lactate threshold at the same time as you were making large gains in power, since the former depends on continuous movement for 20 to 30 minutes at a time at moderately difficult paces and also the performance of long intervals (lasting for six to 12 minutes or so) at about 88 to 90 per cent of maximal, while the latter necessitates shorter blasts at considerably higher speeds and special power-building drills.

And it’s silly to throw yourself into power training without first building a broad platform of strength; the upgraded strength will protect you from injury during the high-intensity power-promoting workouts, and maximal gains in power simply can’t be achieved unless muscles first develop the ability to generate greater force. The lesson is that you must do things in step-by-step fashion when you train, rather than attempt to improve everything at once.

It’s important to remember, too, that the gradual development of proficiency in a sport changes the way the body adapts to training and necessitates an actual change in the make-up of one’s training programme – to ensure that further performance progress can be attained. For example, research has shown that beginning shot putters make major advances in performance primarily by improving the strength of their arm muscles, while experienced putters increase the length of their throws mainly by boosting the strength and power of their legs (Programming and Organization of Training, Y. V. Verkhoshansky, Fizkultura i Sport Publ., Moscow, 1985). Investigations also reveal that pole vaulters initially make large increases in performance by improving the strength of their abdominal muscles but can only continue to progress by achieving major upswings in shoulder and arm strength (Supertraining, 3rd ed., Mel Siff and Yuri V. Verkhoshansky, Vision Press, 1997). Similarly, beginning runners or runners coming back to the sport after a lay-off can make rather large gains in performance simply by boosting their mileage, while highly experienced runners must tweak their intensity of training and perform special strength- and power-building drills in order to continue to make progress.

The Greeks started it

For all of these reasons, the periodization of your training is critically important. Complicated definitions for periodization training exist, but the term simply means the division of your overall training programme into periods which accomplish different goals. Since you can’t do everything at once, you must divide your training time up into discrete blocks and tackle one or two goals at a time.

Over 2000 years ago, the ancient Greeks were the first to use periodization training, although their periodization plans were very simple (they simply increased their total training load over time, using heavier and heavier weights and resistances, for example, to train strength athletes who were preparing for the Olympic Games). After the Greeks, periodization training theory entered a 1900-year lull, only to be revived earlier this century in Russia during the Russian Revolution. Since that time, the Russians have literally led the world in the development of periodization theory. The Russians have also enjoyed one key advantage over other countries; they have actually tested various periodization schemes with large numbers of their international athletes and have accumulated an extensive amount of practical information about periodizing training properly.

The earliest periodization training schemes utilized by the Russians in the 1920s and 1930s were logical but pretty basic; their exercise scientists theorized that training should be divided into what they called general, preparatory, and specific phases. The general stage of training, often lasting for about two months or so, was supposed to develop the heart and lungs, the preparatory training, also two months in duration, sought to boost muscle strength and endurance, and the specific period of about eight months prepared an athlete for an individual sporting event by emphasizing extensive practice of the precise movements involved in the sport.

A tough nut to crack

Finnish and English scientists soon entered the fray and begin publishing periodization papers and books, but – unfortunately – the majority of investigators have provided us with lots of periodization theories but few hard facts. Of course, one reason for that is that meaningful research into periodization needs to cover rather broad time periods.

When we examine the differences in training between athletes who are successful and those who are mediocre, we want to know not how they trained for the past week or even month but how they’ve organized their training over the previous year. Proper periodization means coordinating training correctly over extended periods of time – long enough to make large gains in fitness and prepare properly for major competitions.

That makes periodization a rather tough nut to crack for exercise scientists, who often feel that they need to limit an investigation to 12 weeks or so – as part of the ‘publish-or-perish’ lifestyle of academia. There are also major difficulties involved in getting a group of athletes to adhere to a specific training programme for a year or more at a time; many athletes will drop out, others will not follow the prescribed training very closely, and some will get hurt. For an exercise researcher, embarking on a long-term periodization project is a pretty risky thing to do, because the whole thing may blow up in his/her face after a year or more of hard work.

Words, words, words

So the periodization theorists – rather than experimentalists – have held sway, and they have achieved major success in one area: they have given us a large amount of jargon. For example, it’s impossible for any periodization ‘expert’ worth his salt to write an article about periodizing training without mentioning the terms macrocycles, mesocycles, and microcycles.

Since you’ll encounter these terms often if you read about periodization in the future, we might as well give you an account of what they mean.

According to convention, a ‘microcycle’ is simply a number of training sessions which form a recurrent unit. For example, if your training consists of a hard day, an easy day, and then a rest day, followed by the hard-easy-rest pattern again, these three days represent your basic training unit, or microcycle. Or, if you’re a runner and your typical training week consists of a hill workout, an interval session on the track, a long run, three easy runs, and a rest day, that repetitive weekly pattern is your microcycle.

In contrast, a ‘mesocycle’ is a block of training, consisting of some number of microcycles, which emphasizes the attainment of a particular goal. A ‘macrocycle’ is a long stretch of training which is intended to accomplish an extremely important overall goal, such as the preparation for and completion of a very important marathon. A macrocycle is made up of a number of different microcycles and covers a period of many months.

Typically, a microcycle lasts for five to 10 days (for many athletes, a microcycle is simply one week of training in a predictable way), a mesocycle usually covers four to 12 weeks, and a macrocycle lasts for 10 to 12 months. Many athletes who periodize their training don’t alter their macrocycles very much; one year is structured very much like the next, and thus the year is the largest unit of periodization. However, some athletes think longer term and may utilize what are called ‘large macrocycles’ which consist of two to four ’small macrocycles,’ each of which lasts about a year. These small macrocycles may differ from each other considerably. For example, a high jumper preparing for the Olympics in the year 2000 might spend most of the year of 1998 (the first small macrocycle) working on agility, flexibility, strength, and power, devoting little time to actual jumping or competition, and then shift over in 1999 (the second small macrocycle) to a much greater emphasis on technique and an increase in the number of competitive efforts. In this case, the 32-month period from the beginning of 1998 to the summer Olympic Games in 2000 could be considered the large macrocycle.

Different athletes, different needs

Of course, these terms don’t tell us much about HOW a periodization plan should be created, which is the really challenging part of periodization. The first step in proper periodization is to realize that there is not one best periodization plan; what works for one athlete may actually hurt the performances of another. A key reason for this, of course, is that different athletes can have dramatically different needs. For example, a runner with relatively poor muscular strength might need to spend several blocks of training (mesocycles) within a year focussing on developing general and running-specific strength by carrying out a variety of progressively more difficult resistance routines. Such a runner would also need to devote a large chunk of time to hill training, which increases the force-development capacities of the leg muscles. In contrast, a very strong runner could spend considerably less time on such activities and might more profitably mark off large periods of time to work on strengthening a particular weakness, such as a poor lactate threshold or a miserly VO2max.

So, it’s clear that each individual athlete needs his/her own unique periodization plan. Periodizing an individual’s programme requires skill in figuring out what the athlete really needs – and of course knowledge of the various periodization possibilities (the different programmes which might work effectively). The person doing the periodizing must be a ‘training doctor’ who can figure out what’s wrong with the patient and also knows (and can evaluate) the various therapies which are available.

Catching the ‘wave’

That’s not always easy, because there are many therapy (periodization) models – and lots of hot debate about which is ‘best’. The notion that there is a profusion of periodization possibilities may come as a bit of a surprise to you if you have read about periodization before. In fact, many athletes believe that there is just one way to periodize – the so-called basic wave-like periodization pattern. Using this scheme, athletes first build up their volume (total quantity of training) to a rather lofty level (creating a big ‘wave’ of miles), while intensity (speed) of training remains fairly modest. This initial period of training is supposed to establish basic strength and endurance. The mileage wave then gradually weakens, replaced by a steadily increasing wave of intensity (mileage is reduced, but average movement speed rises as the quality of workouts increases). According to convention and tradition, the athlete is ready for major competitions once the intensity wave has peaked. After the competitive season is over, the individual rests for awhile before catching another mileage wave and beginning a new season of training.

This basic wavelike pattern of periodization is utilized, year after year, by millions of athletes all over the world. It has a certain logic to it (it seems good to gradually build muscular and connective-tissue strength before subjecting the body to the harsh rigours of high-intensity training). That’s not to say that it’s the ideal way to prevent injuries, however! Among runners, for example, most injuries are over-use maladies which are more likely to occur during high-mileage weeks, rather than lower-mileage periods, even though the latter may contain a bounty of quality workouts.

The basic wavelike pattern also parallels the classic ‘dyad’ of ‘aerobic’ and ‘anaerobic’ training which countless numbers of coaches still use to plan the training programmes of their charges. The idea is to gradually build up ‘aerobic endurance’ by covering lots of moderately paced miles (the mileage wave) and then to ’sharpen’ athletes with intense ‘anaerobic conditioning’, which is supposed to improve speed and heighten surging and kicking ability in races. Viewed from a muscle-fibre rather than aerobic-anaerobic paradigm, the notion is to first work on the slow-twitch muscle fibres and then to shift attention to the fast twitchers in time for competition.

Of course, this view of training is ridiculously simple. Some accomplished athletes have been found to have almost no fast-twitch muscle fibres, for example, so how can they work on something they don’t have? In addition, it’s very misleading to categorize an endurance athlete’s training as ‘anaerobic’, since even the high-speed movements carried out by very skilled endurance athletes actually involve a mix of aerobic and anaerobic energy creation, with the former usually predominating. When Haile Gebrselassie burns his 55- to 60-second 400s during workouts as he prepares to break his own 5K world record, for example, most of the energy created during those fast 400s is produced aerobically, not anaerobically. The truth is that the two systems of energy creation work together, even during the most intense, so-called ‘anaerobic’ mesocycle of your training (unless your workouts consist solely of 10-second sprints, separated by long recoveries).

So, instead of worrying about developing raw anaerobic capability, you need to think about gradually increasing your power (your ability to cycle, swim, ski, skate, run, or row more quickly). A lot of that boosted power will come not from the development of ‘anaerobic capacity’ but simply from having a higher VO2max, because more oxygen processed per minute by muscle cells means more energy created per minute, more muscular force exerted per arm or leg movement, and higher movement velocities. Some will also come from improved economy, because better economy means being able to move up to higher speeds without incurring greater oxygen ‘cost’. Some will come from lifting lactate threshold, because higher thresholds allow quality speeds to be sustained for longer periods of time. And some will come from better neuromuscular co-ordination – improved reactivity of the nervous system and a heightened ability to utilize available muscular force to drive the body forward, rather than stabilize uncoordinated body parts or waste energy on non-propulsive movements. And of course, some will come from pure strength – the ability to stabilize the body and generate large amounts of force. It’s stupid to think that speed arises merely from ‘anaerobic conditioning’.

Contrasting periodization training plans

Another problem is that the basic wave-like periodization plan and its corollaries, the aerobic-anaerobic and slow-twitch, fast-twitch schemes, oversimplify training because they treat the overall training process as merely a matter of intensity and volume, saying nothing about how to construct and coordinate periods for optimizing LT, VO2max, economy, strength, power, and so on. Fortunately, there are other periodization plans; the key ones are summarized below:

1. Step periodization: As an alternative to the wave-like periodization pattern, noted Russian exercise scientist A. Vorobyev proposed what is now known as step periodization, in which training loads and intensities are changed abruptly rather than smoothly and progressively from workout to workout – and also in weekly and monthly cycles. In this ‘bumpy’ periodization plan, series of light to moderate workouts are alternated with collections of very intense efforts – with very little break between the difficult sessions. Different investigations have shown this scheme to be a fairly effective way to develop muscular strength, and it is described in more detail in Vorobyev’s classic book, ‘Textbook on Weightlifting’.

2. Skill-Strength Periodisation: this scheme for divvying up training time has been utilized by the former U.S.S.R.’s track and field teams prior to the Olympic Games. In this very interesting plan, athletes spend an extensive amount of time perfecting their technical skills during the preparatory phase of training, prior to embarking on the development of strength and/or endurance. The idea is that once athletes are skilled (for example, once they are technically proficient jumpers or economical runners), they can then optimally use their increasing strength to boost performance, because the increased strength is not ‘wasted’ on inefficient movements but is channelled correctly into proper patterns of motion. It’s the opposite of many traditional schemes, which build strength first and worry about technique later, and in one sense is the reverse of the classic wave-like periodization pattern, which emphasizes an initial, huge wave of strength-building moderate running, followed by the gaining of technical proficiency (economy and co-ordination) while running fast. No carefully controlled research has ever contrasted skill-strength periodization with the basic ‘waving’ paradigm, but the Russians have reported excellent results with the former (and of course their teams have done quite well in Olympic competitions). An additional advantage of skill-strength periodization over traditional waves is that skill-strength deals with more than just the volume and intensity of training, adding in an emphasis on the development of technique and efficiency.

3. Emphasis Periodisation, also called the Concentration of Loading, in which training is divided into four to 10-week time ‘blocks’ or mesocycles, with each block having a special emphasis (concentration). Each emphasis is supposed to act as a foundation for the following period of concentration (for runners, this might mean the development of running-specific strength before power, or the attainment of economy prior to VO2max for example), and the athlete is not considered to be fully prepared for competition until all of the emphasis periods have been duly completed. This kind of periodization goes far beyond mere fiddling with the volume and intensity of training and actually addresses an athlete’s specific goals – the targets which must be reached before maximal fitness can be attained. Developed and popularized by noted Russian scientist Yuri V. Verkhoshansky, emphasis periodization is actually not inimical to the classic wave-like pattern of training or any other manner of adjusting training loads, since alterations in volume and intensity can occur in the background as an athlete concentrates on specific objectives.

Additional theories about periodization can be found in Tudor Bompa’s well-known book, ‘Theory and Methodology of Training’, from Kendall-Hunt publishing.

The first phase of periodization: rest

So which periodization plan should you use? Well, any periodization scheme must begin with one basic element – rest. This is intuitively and logically obvious: the human body simply needs ‘down’ (restoration) periods to recover from extended periods of stress; you must convalesce from the training you carried out in your just-completed mesocycle or macrocycle. That’s the easy part; the difficult part involves answering two key questions: how often should a full recovery take place, and how long should the recovery period last?

We have anecdotal answers to the first question and scientific answers to the second. Of course, we do know that athletes need to recover well between individual workouts, and especially between high-quality sessions, and research which has investigated the phenomenon of ‘tapering’ has shown that athletes can profit from fairly regular back-downs in training lasting for a week or two, but we simply don’t know how often endurance athletes need to reduce their training for more extended periods of time. Indeed, that need probably varies among athletes. Anecdotally, top athletes seem to profit from one month away from training each year. For example, many world-class Kenyan distance runners take the month of September or October off before starting their cross country seasons.

Of course, the word ‘off’ can mean different things. Moses Kiptanui doesn’t run at all during his four-week break, but many other runners prefer to run at a moderate pace at least a couple of times a week. Again, there’s probably no right way to do it: the key is to make sure the body’s muscular, nervous, connective-tissue, endocrine, and nervous systems are fully restored before vigorous training is resumed.

We do know a bit more about the appropriate length of the recovery period, thanks to research carried out with marathon runners. A study carried out by Michael Warhol and his colleagues at Harvard Medical School and Tufts University uncovered extensive damage in marathoners’ leg muscles immediately after the 26.2-mile race (broken cell fibres, swollen cells, mangled membranes, degenerated mitochondria, and damaged blood vessels were present). Repair of this sorry state of affairs took about four weeks, and in some runners it took even longer (‘Skeletal Muscle Injury and Repair in Marathon Runners after Competition,’ American Journal of Pathology, vol. 118, pp. 331-339, 1985).

True, not all endurance athletes are marathon runners, but subsequent research showed that moderate endurance training (about 31 miles of running per week – with no marathon running) can produce similar damage in 33 per cent of runners and slightly heavier training (48 miles per week with no marathoning) can induce comparable damage in the majority of runners (‘Structural and Ultrastructural Changes in Skeletal Muscle Associated with Long-Distance Training and Running,’ International Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 10, pp. S156-159, 1989). Thus, we can conclude that almost all serious runners need a recovery period, and that the minimal length of this recovery period should be four weeks.

Swimmers may need a comparable amount of time to restore their shoulder areas; it’s less clear what cyclists need, but certainly a four-week rest can do no harm. Overall, it’s very reasonable to contend that the subsequent training year will be much more profitable if it is preceded by a thorough rest.

During the recovery period, training should be held to a minimum. In runners, research suggests that – to minimize muscular stress – mileage should not exceed 20 miles per week, with no single run longer than eight miles. To burn calories and calm their appetites for exercise without stressing their muscle cells, runners can also bike or swim moderately during their recovery mesocycle, but the total quantity of exercise should be greatly reduced. At least one week of total inactivity, followed by three or more weeks with just one to three workouts per week, should optimize recovery in most endurance athletes (remember that total mileage for runners shouldn’t exceed 20 weekly miles and single runs shouldn’t last more than eight miles).

The next phase: strength-building

After recovery, what’s next? For runners, the answer is very clear. 65 per cent of all runners are injured during an average year, which tells us that runners’ basic strength is poor. The muscles and connective tissues of the average runner are simply not ready to stand up to the stresses of regular training. So, once recovery has been completed, it’s definitely time to begin strengthening the whole body – in preparation for the tough training to come. Endurance athletes in other sports should also benefit from the strengthening process.

This notion of placing strengthening routines ahead of the highly technical training which follows seems to defy the highly touted skill-strength periodization scheme often used by the Russian Olympic teams. However, remember that running and cycling are not the quintessential skill sports, at least not in the same sense as pole vaulting, high jumping, or throwing a discus, and remember also that having good overall body strength allows the body to move in a coordinated, ’skilled’ way – without unnecessary, energy-wasting movements. Research has documented that strength training can lower injury risk in runners and other endurance athletes, too, so it makes sense to put strength first (‘Value of Resistance Training for the Reduction of Sports Injuries,’ Sports Medicine, vol. 3, pp. 61-68, 1986).

It’s also clear that the exercises used in this strengthening phase of training should involve all of the major muscle groups in the upper and lower body, including the critically important trunk muscles in the abdomen and low back. Such exercises literally make athletes stronger from their toes to their heads, an overall strengthening process which improves biomechanical stability, heightens economy, and promotes fatigue-resistance.

The key workouts to utilize during this strengthening period of training are extremely interesting, consisting of a demanding circuit of exercises carried out in series, with very brief rest breaks between activities. To build the capacity to move more quickly, as well as whole-body strength and stamina, the exercises are performed in conjunction with intervals which are completed at brisk speeds.

Follow these routines

Here’s how to do the strengthening workouts (please follow along in Table 1; the routines are set up for runners, but they can be easily adapted for cyclists, swimmers, and other endurance athletes). After 10 to 15 minutes of light jogging, run for 400 to 800 metres at about your 5K race pace from the previous season (if you didn’t run a 5K, you can simply use a pace which is four seconds per 400 faster than your typical 10K velocity). Then complete five whole-body exercises, followed by a second running interval, five more exercises, and then another interval to finish the circuit. As your strength and muscular endurance improve from week to week, the number of exercise reps and the length of the running intervals tend to increase, and an increased number of circuits can be completed per workout. That’s how you challenge your body to attain even greater strength and endurance.

Running at 5K velocity (or cycling or swimming quickly) during the intervals forces you to practice running at race pace when you are very fatigued, which initiates the important process of building speed stamina at an early point in the training year and also kick-starts the process of expanding VO2max, which will be a key goal of the forthcoming macrocycle (5K pace is one of the very best training speeds for VO2max advancement). The circuit, which lasts from 20 to 60 minutes from start to finish, should be carried out two to three times a week on non-consecutive days (Tuesday and Friday, for example, or Monday, Thursday, and Saturday). You should maintain good form during the exercises, never working so fast that technique suffers. 10 to 15 minutes of cool-down jogging always conclude the session. A five-week basic-strength programme is outlined below:
Just to make sure you understand the workouts, please follow along in column one, under the ‘week no. 1′ heading. During the week-one workouts, you would warm up, run 400 metres at 5K pace, do six squat thrusts with jumps, four pull-ups or chin-ups, 12 ab crunches, 10 push-ups, and 20 body-weight squats before embarking on a second 400-metre interval. You would then perform the rest of the exercises in column 1 in sequence (numbers 8 through 12), before running a third 400-metre interval. Since this is the first week of the strengthening period, you wouldn’t do any more circuits, letting just one trip through the exercises be the ‘meat’ of your workout. However, as you can see from the table, the number of circuits gradually increases until you are whipping through the overall series three times during week five – with a considerably increased total number of reps.

Don’t be fooled by the above workouts! Although the circuits look deceptively simple, they are actually extremely challenging. They are great for building strength (after a couple of weeks, you will feel the difference in your body and the way you run), and they are also terrific for raising your running capacity. Not surprisingly, they represent a terrific test of your overall fitness – and thus can help you chart your training for subsequent months. If you are strong in running or cycling but rather poor in overall strength, the circuits will nearly crush you at first. On the other hand, if your running fitness is poor but your overall strength is good, the circuits will still be a very strong test of your fortitude (running 800 metres at 5K pace immediately after completing 30 fast body-weight squats is challenging, even for the gifted athlete). After five weeks, you will notice remarkable improvements in both your strength and your running. Many of the runners I’ve coached have been able to race very well after completing the five-week programme, even before progressing to the other periods of training which follow.

After this strengthening phase, proper periodization depends on the needs of the individual athlete; there is no one right way to do it. A situation I encountered recently will demonstrate a logical and effective way to divide the training year into useful periods.

Putting it all together

At the end of May this year, a veteran runner came to me asking for help.

His ‘big goal’ of the year was to break three hours at the Cal International Marathon in Sacramento on December 7. Along the way, he also wanted to compete in some USATF races and improve on his 8K, 10K, and 1/2-marathon times. This 55-year-old chap had run the Big Sur Marathon (a very challenging course) on April 27 in a very creditable time of 3:22 and had recovered nicely during the four weeks before he talked with me. His usual routine before he met me was to run 35 to 45 miles per week with five to six weekly workouts – and five to six quality sessions every two weeks. His previous training had included an array of tempo runs, interval workouts, hill reps, races, and long runs. He also went to the gym for a couple of weight-training sessions each week.

Since he had recovered well from Big Sur, it was time to think about beginning a block of post-recovery training. But what should we start with? His description of two strength workouts per week might have indicated good muscular strength, but I strongly suspected that he was in possession of good ‘gym strength’ but only average running-specific strength, and that we therefore needed to begin serious work on his strength. That suspicion was confirmed by the fact that he found the strength circuits described above, as well as the classic special-strength routines for runners (one-leg squats, high-bench step-ups, one-leg hops in place, balance and eccentric reach with toes, and the ‘core exercises’ prescribed in the April 1995 issue of Peak Performance) to be quite challenging.

When he first contacted me at the end of May, we had 27 weeks to prepare for the Cal International Marathon, his ‘big-goal’ race. He needed to upgrade his strength, but the ‘hooker’ was that he also needed to get ready for some races on the near horizon – a 5K on July 4 and an 8K on July 12. Therefore, in addition to putting him on a rigorous strength programme, I decided to spend our first five weeks together emphasizing VO2max (a great way to prepare for racing, since the training intensities match up well with 5K speed) and the next five weeks working on lactate threshold (another critical goal of training, and one which would be paramount for the half-marathon and marathon).

Putting together the other periods was simple. I knew that the 10 weeks of strength (plus LT and VO2max) work would leave him strong enough and fit enough to handle a full seven-week period devoted to economy and power development. This period needed to be longer than the others because I wanted to accomplish two key things – to dramatically boost his specific strength for running with three to four weeks of hill repetitions (this would enhance his economy) and to transform all of his newfound strength into more powerful, explosive running with three to four weeks of fast reps on the track and speed-bounding drills. After that, we would return to VO2max for three more weeks to push his aerobic capacity to even greater heights, hit lactate threshold for three weeks again to extend his ability to run at quality speeds for long periods of time, and then spend the final four weeks tapering, sharpening, and completing specific preparations for the marathon. The ‘background themes’ for these final 17 weeks would always be continued strength development, an increase in specific endurance for the marathon (making larger and larger portions of the regularly scheduled long run parallel goal race pace of about 6:45 to 6:48 per mile), and a gradual expansion of weekly mileage. However, mileage would not steadily increase from week to week; within the first 23 weeks of the programme, there would be recovery mesocycles containing lower-than-usual mileage every fourth or fifth week or so. In addition, total mileage during the final four weeks before race day would continuously decrease.

Overall, the plan was as follows:

1. Five weeks of strength and VO2max training,
2. Five weeks of strength and lactate-threshold work,
3. Seven weeks of economy and power training,
4. Three weeks of VO2max effort,
5. Three weeks with our old friend LT, and
6. Four weeks for tapering, sharpening, and final preparations.

The actual training schedule

Why were the periods designed to last three to seven weeks – not shorter or longer? Research has shown that when you emphasize something in your training – whether it’s the inflation of VO2max, the lifting of LT, or some other goal – there are few measurable improvements obtained in the first week or two of training. However, during the third and fourth weeks, the improvements can be quite dramatic. Unfortunately, those gains often begin to diminish during the fifth or sixth week – and peter out to nearly nothing as time goes by (as your body adjusts and adapts to the training). Therefore, it’s reasonable to utilize three- to seven-week periods, moving on to a different emphasis and thereby continuing to push your athletic capacity higher after that amount of time has elapsed.

What did this runner’s training schedule actually look like? Well, the start of his first five-week mesocycle was as follows (remember that we were stressing VO2max and strength, with marathon-specific endurance along for the ride).

Monday – Easy 5-miler

Tuesday - VO2max session: 2-mile warm-up, 5 x 800 in 3:05 each (about his estimated current 5K pace) with 3-minute jog recoveries, and a 2-mile cool-down.

Wednesday - Core exercises (special strength routines to enhance strength in the muscles attached to his pelvic girdle and lower spine)

Thursday - Easy 6-miler

Friday - Marathon-specific session: 2-mile warm-up, 4 miles in 27:12 (6:48 per mile pace), and 2-mile cool-down (over the weeks, the number of marathon-specific miles and total length of the workout would gradually increase).

Saturday - Rest day: No training

Sunday - Speed-strength circuit

Total miles for week: 32 (modest, because he was just emerging from recovery). Quality Miles: 7.25 (23 per cent)

The schedule continued in this manner, with VO2max sessions taking place at 5K pace once a week. The intervals utilized in the VO2max workouts ranged in length from 400 to 1600 metres, and recovery time between work intervals became relatively shorter over time.

One of the VO2max exertions involved doing some fartlek running on trails, rather than performing intervals on the track. For the fartlek session, the runner warmed up with two easy miles and then completed seven ‘bursts’ at what felt like 5K pace, with each surge lasting about three minutes or so. These accelerations were interspersed with bouts of recovery running lasting around two minutes each.

The strength circuits and core exercises also continued to take place once a week (in a ‘normal’ strength period, the circuits would occur twice or even thrice weekly; they didn’t in this case because of the runner’s need to use VO2max sessions to ready himself for racing), and the marathon-specific efforts began to expand in duration. During the five weeks of the VO2max mesocycle, the runner carried out three quality workouts during three different weeks, two quality workouts during another week, and two quality sessions and a race during the fifth week. Thus, there were 14 high-quality efforts in a 35-day time span (five pure-VO2max workouts, one race, five strength-circuit sessions, and three marathon-specific long runs). Mileage was pretty modest (remember that he was coming out of a recovery period) and increased only moderately, totalling 32, 38, 36, 40, and then just 27 miles in weeks one through five, respectively (the fifth week was a recovery-taper week to consolidate the gains made during the first four weeks and to rest a bit before the 5-K race).

The fruits of his labour?

A couple of very nice things happened to this runner at the end of the first five-week (VO2max) mesocycle. First, he achieved a performance breakthrough, running his 5K in a PB time of 18:43 – just a tick over six-minute per mile pace. It was clear that the VO2max intervals, carried out at a pace of 6:00 to 6:10 per mile, had significantly boosted his aerobic capacity and improved his economy and perception of effort at six-minute tempo (he had run a total of about 20 miles at approximately six-minute pace during the month of June leading up to his 5K; some of that distance was completed during track and fartlek sessions, some during the strength circuits). He also reported a feeling of greater muscular strength and stability as he ran, which we attributed to both the strength circuits and core exercises.

The second event was a little more surprising: at the age of 56 (he celebrated his 56th birthday the day before the 5K PB), he also achieved a new, higher-than-ever maximal heart rate during his 5K. A new, higher maximal heart rate at the age of 56? In an experienced, award-winning runner who had been training for years? While that may seem strange, you should bear in mind that this man had pretty much been a ‘heart-rate trainer’ who used a heart monitor to plan and gauge the intensity of workouts – before he began working with me. He had always believed his max heart rate to be 176, because that’s as high as it ever got during his most strenuous workouts or races, yet at the end of the 5K his ticker was pumping away at a rather lofty 181! How come?

Well, bear in mind that the 5K is a great race to detect max heart rate, since it is completed at a very high intensity and is often capped with a dramatic rush to the finishing line. However, to truly get your heart rate into the highest part of its ‘red zone’, you have to improve the fatigue-resistance of your leg muscles, so that they can sustain a dramatic pace through the final stages of the race to almost the finishing line, and so that they can then pour even more coals on the fire when the line is in sight!

Remember that your heart is pretty much along for the ride as you race; it will do what your leg muscles ‘tell’ it to do. If your leg muscles cannot sustain a lofty intensity for a long period of time, they will never drive your heart to its upper limit, and you’ll never reach true heart-rate max. On the other hand, if you can improve the fatigue-resistance of your leg muscles at high running speeds (by practising those speeds relentlessly and strengthening your legs and core muscles to promote stamina), then your ability to sustain quality efforts for longer and longer periods of time will force your heart to work harder than it ever has in the past, trying to keep up with your muscles. In the case of this particular runner, he had never previously been able to run at six-minute pace for long enough to push his heart rate above 176, so he thought that 176 was his true max.

Put aside the monitor

If I had used a heart-rate monitor to train this athlete, he never would have run his PB – or attained a new max HR. For one thing, if we had set up all his VO2max intervals to be completed at 90 to 95 per cent of max heart rate (as many coaches and runners do), rather than the specific pace we utilized, then his heart would have been ready to work at 90 to 95 percent of his old HR max – not 103 percent of his old max, as was the actual case in the race – and his legs would have been set to work at an intensity that produced 90 to 95 per cent max heart rate, instead of motoring him to the finish line in record time! Also, during the race, a heart-rate-trained runner who believed his max to be 176 would have become alarmed as heart rate soared into the 170s (and probably would have slowed his pace as a result), instead of focussing on keeping his legs relaxed and working at the well-rehearsed, six-minute pace.

We had made good improvements in strength and VO2max (otherwise, he wouldn’t have been able to set a 5K PB), and as the sixth week began it was time to turn to an emphasis on lactate-threshold development. It was also time to turn up the strength-building fires a little, since the runner had gained a great deal of basic strength and was ready for more challenging and specific work. So, in addition to his regular running sessions, he began to carry out a new strength workout two to three times per week; this new regime included one-leg squats, high-bench step-ups, one-leg hops in place, toe-walking and heel-walking drills, core exercises, eccentric knee squats, eccentric reaches with toes, eccentric reaches with knees, and dynamic Achilles exercises. He had a fair amount of difficulty with several of these exercises, which was actually a good sign, since it meant that he would be getting specifically stronger – and that the improved strength would carry him to even faster race times.

This runner is now in the hill-rep phase of his economy-power mesocycle, and he is reporting that the strength he gained during his first 10 weeks of training is allowing him to run his hill workouts faster than he ever did in the past – yet with a feeling of relative ease. I fully expect him to achieve some performance breakthroughs in his remaining 10Ks – and to run a great marathon in December. His rapid progress tells us that proper periodization of training is not such a difficult thing to do. You need to study yourself to determine what you really need, remember the key physiological goals you want to accomplish, establish reasonable time goals for your important races, and give yourself enough time to reach those goals.

If you do, you’ll find that your detailed periodization programme will add some nice details to your performance scorecard – in the form of some solid new PBs.

Owen Anderson

Introduction

Before discussing explosive exercise in detail it is necessary to define terms and present a theoretical background for the discussion. Of particular importance for this discussion are the concepts of strength, rate of force development and power.

Strength can be defined as an ability to produce force (Siff 2001, Stone et al 2001). Because force is a vector quantity, strength will have a magnitude and direction. The magnitude of strength output can range from 0 to 100% and the muscles involved determine the direction of force application. It is important to understand that strength can be “applied” using different muscle actions.

Strength is exhibited when muscles act to produce force. Muscle action can take different four different forms:

Isometric - in which the muscle gains tension but does not appreciably change its length
Concentric – in which the muscle gains tension and shortens
Eccentric – in which the muscle gains tension and lengthens
Plyometric – in which a concentric action is immediately preceded by an eccentric action, thus taking advantage of a stretch-shortening cycle.

Muscle actions are supported by a number of different physiological and biomechanical mechanisms.

The various mechanisms involved in muscular strength are listed in Figure 1. Two primary factors, which govern muscle activation and the gradation of strength are: 1) the number of motor-units recruited and 2) the frequency of motor unit activation which can be termed “rate coding”. These two factors normally work together in increasing force production. The exact degree to which one mechanism is emphasised over the other during muscle activation depends upon the amount of force required and perhaps the size and type of muscle being activated.

Figure 1: Neuromuscular Factors Involved in Strength Production

Neuromuscular Factors Involved in Strength Production
•	Motor Unit Recruitment
•	MU Activation Frequency (Rate Coding)
•	Synchronisation (Ballistic Movements)
•	Motor Unit Activation Pattern (Intra-Muscular Activation)
•	Muscle Action Pattern (Intra-Muscular Activation)
•	Use of Elastic Energy and Reflexes
•	Neural Inhibition
•	MU Type (Muscle Fibre Type)
•	Biomechanical \ Anthropometric Factors
•	Muscle Cross-Sectional Area

There is doubt that an untrained muscle can be fully activated (Aagaard et al 2000; Semmler and Enoka 2000). Furthermore, strength training can result in a greater activation of muscle, thus influencing strength production.

Another mechanism, which can effect muscle force, is the synchronisation of motor units. Under normal low intensity muscle activation motor-units fire asynchronously. However, as the maximum level of strength is approached some motor units are activated at exactly the same time as other motor units. Synchronisation is also a major factor in ballistic movements and will be discussed later.

There is a great deal of evidence for the concepts of intra and inter muscular task specificity. Intra-muscular task specificity deals with specific patterns of activation for motor units while inter-muscular task specificity deals with the interplay and pattern of activation among muscles during a specific task. The concept of intra-muscular task specificity may help explain the phenomena of regional hypertrophy (Antonio 2000), in which a specific exercise may cause hypertrophy in one region of a muscle but not in others. Bodybuilders have recognised this aspect of training arguing that in order to more completely develop a muscle, many different exercises for that muscle must be performed.

Both intra and inter-muscular activation patterns can change with very slight alterations in movement pattern, eccentric versus concentric actions or with changes in velocity (Semmler and Enoka 2000, Zajac and Gordon 1989). Because of these alterations in activation patterns, selection of exercises for strength/power training should be viewed as movement specific rather than simply training a muscle(s). Improvement in the efficiency of intra and especially inter muscular activation implies an enhanced coordinative ability and is an important mechanism contributing to improved strength expression (Semmler and Enoka 2001).

The use of reflexes and stretch-shortening cycles (SSC) can also alter the production of force (Bobbert et al 1996, Cronin et al 2000). Basically a SSC consists of a plyometric muscle action in which an eccentric action immediately precedes a concentric action. The mechanisms involved in concentric enhancement may include: use of elastic energy, a stretch reflex, optimising muscle length, optimising muscle activation and muscle activation patterns (Bobbert et al. 1996, Bobbert 2001). Some evidence indicates that improving maximum strength can augment the concentric portion of the SSC (Cronin et al 2000). Learning to use a stretch-shortening cycle more efficiently can markedly increase force production.

The degree of neural inhibition can also effect strength capabilities. Inhibition can take two different forms conscious and somatic-reflexive. Conscious inhibition deals with a perception (right or wrong) that a given weight may produce injury. For example, if you have never performed squats before and you are asked to perform a 300-kg full squat, chances are (if you are remotely intelligent) you will refuse. Somatic-reflexive neural inhibition, includes feedback form various muscle and joint receptors, and has been suggested to be part of a protective mechanism. This protective mechanism can reduce muscle tension during maximum and near maximum efforts. Strength training appears to reduce receptor sensitivity, diminish inhibition and is partially responsible for the greater forces achieved (Aagaard et al. 2000).

Motor unit type can also influence strength. Several studies have indicated that a large cross-sectional area of type II muscle fibres may be advantageous in terms of dynamic force production (Powell et al 1984) even when muscle architecture and other mechanical factors are taken into consideration. Strength training, particularly explosive strength training appears to increase the ratio of type II:I muscle fibre cross-section area in a manner favouring strength and power production.

Biomechanical and anthropometric factors such as gross muscle architecture, muscle insertion point, height, limb length and moment arm may alter the mechanical advantage of the intact muscle lever system. For example, weightlifters possess a high body mass to height ratio (Bm/h) compared to untrained subjects and other athletic groups. This Bm/h is advantageous because it can provide an increased force production. This advantage is associated with the strong positive relationship between a muscle’s physiological cross sectional area and maximum muscle force generating capabilities (Semmler and Enoka 2000). If two athletes of different heights and different limb lengths have the same muscle mass and volume, the shorter athlete will have the greatest muscle cross-section and therefore a greater muscle generating force.

Of the various mechanisms dealing with absolute maximum strength, the most important is the physiological cross-sectional area of a muscle. From a practical standpoint, if cross-sectional area were not the most important factor effecting absolute muscular strength then there would not be body weight classes in sports such as boxing, judo, wrestling or weightlifting. The relationship between strength and the physiological cross-section area stems from the number of sarcomeres in parallel. The more sarcomeres in parallel the greater the maximum strength of a muscle. The process of hypertrophy, resulting from strength training adds sarcomeres in parallel thus raising the muscle’s potential force production.

Explosive Exercise

Explosive exercise can be defined as a movement in which maximum or near maximum rates of force development are attained. Explosive exercises can be either isometric or dynamic. Several factors contribute directly to explosive exercise these include muscle activation rate, and synchronisation.

Rate of Activation: An important factor, which effects the rate of force development, is concerned with the rate of muscle activation. – Work by Viitasalo and Komi (1981) clearly pointed out that the rise in motor unit activation as measured by EMG is associated with a rise in muscle force. Evidence of this relationship can be observed in Figure 2 Note in that in tracing A the initial rate of activation and force development is higher than in tracing B. Thus, the rate of force development is largely a function of the nervous system’s ability to activate muscle. Typically, high rates of force development are necessary for success in “explosive and high power activities” such as sprinting, throwing and weightlifting.

Figure 2: Rate of Activation.

Komi 1986.

Synchronisation: At low muscle tension very little synchronisation is noted. Motor units typically are activated as brief “dynamic” twitches. Figure 3 depicts the asynchronous activation patterns of several motor units. Note that during asynchronous activation when one motor unit deactivates another is being activated; this pattern creates a muscle tension production, which allows a relatively smooth movement to occur. Increased muscle activation through recruitment or rate coding can increase muscle force.

As force output is increased greater levels of synchronisation can occur. The maximum frequency of activation can range from 30-50 htz for low threshold motor units, up to 100 htz for high threshold motor units depending upon the type and the intensity of the muscle action. Furthermore, strength training can enhance the number of motor units synchronising and can result in synchronisation at lower force outputs (Semmler and Nordstrom 1998). However, the degree to which synchronisation effects maximum strength, especially when measured isometrically appears to be minimal (Yao et al 2000). Synchronisation does appear to play an important role in ballistic movements.

Figure 3: MU Activation

Ballistic movements: Dependence on Synchronisation: In Figure 4 note the characteristic triphasic muscle activation pattern as recorded by EMG. In the first phase there is a silent period in which the motor units have enough time to complete their refractory periods. This “pre-motor silent period” precedes activation of the prime mover or agonist. The pre-motor silent period allows for a large number of motor units to synchronise, which in turn produces a brief, but very large force impulse during the 2nd phase or pre-programmed period. After the burst of activity from the prime mover the agonist is activated and acts as a braking system, which slows movement and reduces injury potential. In the 3rd and final phase of “proprioception” the prime mover again becomes active in order to produce subtle adjustments in the final stages of movement.

This basic triphasic response is activated in all ballistic movements and can be refined by appropriate training procedures.

Figure 4: Triphasic Activation Pattern

The Measurement of Explosive Strength

To adequately describe “explosive strength” both peak force and a reasonable measure force development is necessary. Typically a force plate is used.

Isometric force-time curve: Figure 5 represents a typical isometric force time curve produced from a mid-thigh clean pull. The force produced in the first 30 milliseconds has been term “Starting Strength”. Starting strength is associated with the ability to produce high velocity “quick” movements such as punching or kicking. Peak force is the maximum force attained under the measurement conditions and is associated with the ability to lift heavy objects. The peak rate of force development has been termed “Explosive Strength” and is associated with the ability to accelerate objects.

Figure 5: Explosive Exercise: Measurement – Isometric force-time curve

Concentric force-time curve: Figure 6 represents a force-time curve for a concentric mid-thigh pull. Note that at any dynamic effort at weights less than the maximum isometric capability, peak force will be correspondingly less. For example the peak force would be lower at each decreasing percentage of maximum from 90 to 80 to 70 and so on. However, some evidence indicates that the peak rate of force development is correspondingly higher as the load decreases, at least to a point. Thus, in general, peak force and peak rates of force development are inversely related.

Figure 6: Explosive Exercise: Measurement – Concentric force-time curve

Plyometric force time curve: Many exercises involve a plyometric movement in which there is a stretch-shortening cycle. Figure 7 shows a typical force-time curve, which can be generated as a result of a jumping movement. During a typical counter-movement jump there is an un-weighting phase, which initiates the stretch shortening cycle and produces a plyometric movement. The resulting upward force can be augmented by previously stretching the muscle. As previously noted the mechanism(s) by which concentric force can be augmented by a previous stretch is not completely clear but involves several possibilities including: a) muscle elastic properties, b) a myototic reflex, c) returning the muscle to its optimum length or d) optimising the muscle activation pattern (Bobbert 2001).

Figure 7: Vertical Force: Importance of SSC – Plyometric force-time curve

For many sports the ability to produce force rapidly may be more important than maximum force production. Rate of force production is a change in force/ change in time. As previously noted, the rate of force development is primarily a function of the rate of increase in muscle activation by the nervous system (Komi and Viitasalo 1976, Viitasalo and Komi 1981). Although force is directly responsible for the acceleration of an object it may be argued that the faster a given force is attained, the more rapid the corresponding acceleration occurs. Thus rate of force development can be associated with the ability to accelerate objects (Schmidtbelicher 1992). So, attaining a high peak rate of force development or explosive strength would be associated with high acceleration capabilities. The importance of both peak force production and high rates of force development can be ascertained by using Newton’s 2nd law and by considering sprinting as an example.

F = MA + W

In this equation representing Newton’s 2nd law, force (F) minus the weight (W) of an object is equal to mass (M) times acceleration. Rearranging the equation, force (F) is equal to the weight (W) of an object plus mass (M) times acceleration (A).

Studies have indicated that the limiting forces during sprinting are vertical forces, effecting stride length, rather than horizontal (Weyand et al. 2000). During sprinting elite male sprinters use an alternating pattern of vertical ground reaction forces and the center of mass moves upward at a velocity of 0.49 m x s-1 and downward at 0.49 m x s-1. Their average foot contact time is 0.087s and the average body mass is approximately 79.5 kg. Peak force typically occurs at a knee angle of approximately 135-140° (Mann 1996).

Substituting these values, for elite male sprinters, into the force equation (Newton’s 2nd Law)

VF = 79.5 (0.98 m x s-1 )/0.087s = 895.5 N + 779.1 = 1674.6N

we find that the typical elite male sprinter has to produce 1675 N or 375 lbs. of vertical force, on one leg. Thus sprinters must be quite strong. Furthermore it is important to note that this force production must occur in only 0.087s, thus the rate of force production is quite high. So, these sprinters must be very strong and “explosive” in that this peak force must be produced very rapidly.

The importance of power production: Work is the product of force and distance. Power is the rate of doing work and can be expressed as the product of force and velocity. Power can be calculated as an average over a range of motion or as an instantaneous value occurring at a particular instant during the displacement of an object. Peak power (PP) is the highest instantaneous power value found over a range of motion. Maximum power (MP) is the highest peak power output one is capable of generating under a given set of conditions such as the state of training or type of exercise. Muscular actions that maximise power include jumping, throwing and kicking; indeed activities in which a movement sequence results in maximum achievable velocities primarily depends upon power production (Young 1993). Furthermore, activities requiring a rapid direction change and acceleration, such as displays of “agility”, depend upon bursts of high power output. Thus, power output is likely to be the most important factor in separating sports performances; that is who wins and who looses. Although average power output may be more associated with performance in endurance events, for explosive activities such as jumping, sprinting and weightlifting movements, PP is typically strongly related to success (Garhammer, 1993; Kauhanen et al 2000; McBride et al 1999; Thomas et al 1994).

Potential Training Adaptations

Training adaptations can depend upon a number of factors including, training variables such as volume and intensity, mechanical specificity and the trained state.

Different methods of training can produce different long-term adaptations (Figure 8). For example typical heavy strength training would be expected to produce increases in the high force end of a force-time curve. Explosive training, particularly dynamic explosive training would likely effect the initial rise in force rather than peak force. It should be noted that in order to effect reasonable long-term adaptations that appropriate volume and intensity characteristics should be considered in training.

Figure 8: Potential Training Adaptations

Threshold value for strength: For, example Hakkinen et al. (1987, 1988) studied elite weightlifters over a 1-year period. It was noted that maximum strength levels depended upon maximum muscle activation. Maximum muscle activation was achieved only when the training intensity was 80% of the 1 RM or greater. When the average training relative intensity dropped below 80%, maximum strength also decreased. These data indicate that among elite weightlifters, the threshold for maintaining or increasing maximum strength is about 80% of 1 RM.

However, Hakkinen et al. (1987, 1988) also notice that if the weightlifters trained at high intensities for too long, then maximum strength and power decreased regardless of the intensity of training. More recently Fry et al (1994) has presented data indicating that constant high-intensity training can diminish maximum strength and explosive strength performance in as little as 2-3 weeks. This type of “overtraining” has been attributed to “neural fatigue” and points out the necessity of variation in training. Similar arguments can be made for volume considerations.

Specificity of Training

“Transfer of training effect” deals with the degree of performance adaptation, which can result from a training exercise and is strongly related to the concept of training specificity. Mechanical specificity refers to the kinetic and kinematic associations between a training exercise and a physical performance. Thus mechanical specificity includes movement patterns, peak force, rate of force development, acceleration and velocity parameters. The more similar a training exercise is to the actual physical performance the greater the probabilities of transfer (Behm 1995, Sale 1992, Schmidt 1991).

There are various strength/power training methods which can be employed. However, the effects of these training methods on neuromuscular physiology and performance variables can be drastically different. Four types of training will be discussed; these training methods are: isometric, heavy weight training, high power or speed strength and intentionally slow training.

Table 1 compares the relative effects on the neuromuscular system resulting from 4 different types of training protocols (Hakkinen 1994, Jones et al 1999, Jones et al 2000, Stone et al 2001): isometric training, typical heavy weight training, dynamic explosive training and intentionally slow training.

Table 1: Specificity of Strength/Power Training: Relative Neuromuscular Adaptations

Isometric training, which reached peak popularity in the 1960’s, has not been shown to produce extensive hypertrophy. Heavy weight training is characterised by loading that is typically 80% of 1 RM or higher and typically uses 5-8 repetitions. The load lifted may move slowly, even if performed explosively, because it is relative close to maximum values. Heavy weight training can produce marked hypertrophy, except during the initial stages of a beginning training programme. Speed-strength weight training with a high power output typically does not produce marked hypertrophy, except in sedentary individuals, but can result in profound alterations in the nervous system. Intentionally slow training has become popular among health clubs recently; basically a relatively light weight is moved in an intentionally slow movement pattern both eccentrically and concentrically. The intentionally slow movement can result in a high motor unit fatigue rate, which is believed to cause more motor units to be recruited. Proponents of intentionally slow movements believe that the time that a muscle is under tension enhances both hypertrophy and strength, Often this type of training is performed for only one set. Although, currently, there is little information concerning intentionally slow movement’s effect on hypertrophy a few studies suggests that while some hypertrophy can occur it is not as extensive as that resulting form heavy weight training (Keeler et al 2001).

Differential effects have been noted for fibre type adaptations. Type II fibres typically display a faster rate of hypertrophy than type I fibres, although the reason for faster hypertrophy is not completely clear. Thus weight training can produce fibre hypertrophy such that the II/I cross-sectional area ratio increases; the degree of increase depends upon the type of training. There is evidence that high power training enhances the II/I ratio of cross-sectional area to a greater degree than other types of training. A high II/I ratio is likely advantageous in producing “explosiveness and high power outputs.

Table 2 compares training methods based on potential performance outcomes. Although angle specificity is often observed, isometric training can enhance measures of maximum strength, especially when maximum strength is measured isometrically. In relatively untrained subjects isometric training may enhance speed of movement, provided a conscious effort to move fast is made (Behm 1995). However, the effects on speed are relatively minor compared to speed strength training (Hakkinen 1994). Heavy weight training has its greatest effect on maximum strength as measured by a 1RM. Among beginners and novices, relatively large gains in power, rate of force development and speed can occur. Speed-strength training has its greatest effects on rate of force development and power output, with lesser effects on measures of maximum strength. Intentionally slow training has its greatest effect on measures of maximum strength, with much smaller and perhaps negative effects, on rate of force development, power and speed.

Table 2: Specificity of Strength/Power Training: Relative Performance Effects

The specificity effects of training are very apparent in a comparison between heavy weight training and speed strength training (Figure 9) carried out in a series of studies by Hakkinen and Komi (1985a 1985a). One group of physical education students were trained in the half squat using heavy weight training methods, another group used explosive jumping with weights of approximately 30% of their 1RM. Isomeric force-time curves measured pre-posts indicate different adaptations. The heavy weight-training group showed a 27% improvement in peak force but very little alteration in peak rate of force development. Simultaneous EMG tracings show alterations corresponding to changes in the force-time curve with only a 3% increased activation in the peak force region and no change in the peak force region. The gain in peak force shown by the heavy weight-training group was attributed to muscle hypertrophy. On the other hand the speed-strength group showed gains of 11% in the peak force region of the force-time curve and a 24% improvement in the peak rate of force development region. Simultaneous EMG tracings indicated that EMG enhancement generally corresponded to the gains in peak force and force development. Thus, the speed-strength group showed the greatest adaptations in the nervous system while the heavy weight-training group showed greater gains in hypertrophy.

Figure 9: Neural Adaptations to HRT

Another factor, which enhances the transfer of training to performance, deals with movement pattern. Movement pattern deals with applying forces in the most efficient manner and in the appropriate directions. Movement pattern specificity includes both intra and inter muscular specific aspects.

Movement pattern specificity (intra-muscular): Several studies have shown that there is a high degree of intra-muscular task specificity. These studies indicate that for a given movement, there are groups of motor neurones, which are activated in a specific manner for a specific task. If the task is changed, through alterations in movement pattern or perhaps velocity, then the neuronal task group will be changed. This type of data lends support for the practice among bodybuilders of using many different exercises to more fully develop a muscle (Antonio 2000).

Movement pattern specificity (inter-muscular): The pattern of activation of whole muscles, as well as the efficient use of reflexes and stretch shortening cycles is also task specific. In this respect the functional role of muscles as agonist, antagonist or stabilisers must be classified with care. These functional roles can change from single joint to multiple joint movements and with changes movement velocity (Zajac and Gordon 1989). Thus in sports or daily living settings in which multiple joint movements occur, especially those requiring high power or high velocity, transfer of training effect is more likely accomplished using complex multi-joint movements which have similar kinetic and kinematic characteristics.

Because of the high degree of task specificity, gains in strength may be effected by a number of factors including the number of joints involved, velocity of movement and position (Rach and Morehouse 1957, Zajac and Gordon 1989, Stone et al 2001). For example, Thorstensson (1977) trained university physical education students in the half squat for 8 weeks. Pre-post measurements indicated approximately a 75% improvement in the 1 RM half squat (Figure 10). However, the improvement in the isometric leg press was only about 40% and essentially no improvement occurred in the seated leg extension. Although the half squat training effected muscles used in all three tests it is clear that movement pattern differences altered the apparent strength gains. These data also indicate that the greater the similarities between training exercises and performance the greater the transfer.

Figure 10: Movement Pattern Specificity

Speed-Strength Exercises

Many sports require the development of speed. In order to enhance speed development a special category of exercise termed “speed strength” can be used. Speed strength exercises are performed with maximal effort and are characterised by having high peak rates of force development and high power outputs. Typically these exercises are performed with sub-maximal weights selected to maximise power. Evidence indicates that for single joint and small muscle mass exercises that power is at its peak at about 30% of peak isometric force. For multiple joint exercises in which the body weight is involved, such as a jump or in weightlifting movements, it appears that peak power may occur some where between 10 and 40% of peak isometric force depending upon the trained state.

If performance is ballistic then evidence indicates that much, if not most, of the training should also be ballistic in nature (Newton et al 1996). Ballistic exercises are not limited by end-point deceleration as are joint range limited exercises such as typical bench presses or typical squats. Ballistic exercises include various types of throws, jumps and weightlifting movements. It should be noted also that ballistic movements can be concentric movements or can have a plyometric nature.

Plyometric versus concentric only exercises: Exercises for the development of power and speed can be divided in different categories based on their speed of movement and on whether they contain a plyometric element. For example (Figure 11) jumping movements can be performed as heavy squats or heavy jump squats or they can be performed as speed-strength exercise – however both would have a preliminary counter-movement. In some sports a movement may be initiated without a counter-movement, for example a sprinter coming out of the blocks. Therefore some of the training exercises should attempt to duplicate this type of start, so for example, heavy squats could be performed by descending, stopping for several seconds before ascending or squats could be performed from a pin at a set height in a power rack.

Figure 11: Specificity: Development of Power and Speed: Exercise Categories

CATEGORY Counter Movement a) slow b) fast Static Start a) slow b) fast

EXAMPLE - heavy squats - weighted VJ - dead stop squats, deadlift - static VJ, snatch, clean

Successful Transfer of Training Effect

As previously noted, there are a number of criteria that an exercise must meet for successful transfer of training effect. These criteria include movement pattern, force production and velocity considerations. There also must be an overload application for successful performance adaptation. If there is no overload then sport performance will not improve beyond adaptation to simple practice of the sport.

The Trained State

Figure 12 represents a qualitative expression of potential chronological strength adaptations and underlying mechanisms. The underlying mechanisms have been grossly divided into neural and hypertrophic factors. Initial neural adaptation occurs quite rapidly compared to hypertrophic factors and represents the primary mechanism of strength gain during this early phase of training. Later adaptation is typically more dependent upon increased muscle cross-sectional area. However, both of these factors have genetic limitations that make additional strength or power gains among advanced athletes difficult.

Figure 12: Trained State: Time Course of Adaptation

Interestingly, almost any reasonable training programme can enhance maximum strength, power and speed among initially untrained subjects due to rapid neural adaptations. However, the training of advanced and elite athletes requires considerable variation as well as creative approaches in order to elicit gains in performance.

Specificity of Strength/Power Training – Untrained

Table 3 lists the expected primary adaptation of three different methods of training in initially untrained subjects. Based on the current scientific literature, as well as experience, heavy weight training would produce marked and substantial alterations in maximum strength, peak rate of force development and power. Speed-strength training would have its greatest effects on peak rate of force development and power and intentionally slow training would show gains in strength but much smaller effects on rate of force development and power.

Table 3: Summary: Specificity of Strength/Power Training (Performance) – Untrained

However, the training of advanced and elite athletes requires considerable variation as well as creative approaches in order to elicit gains in performance. Using previously strength trained males Wilson et al. 1993 studied the effects of various types of training on leg and maximum strength and measures of “explosiveness” (Table 4). Fifty five trained subjects were divided into 4 groups. One group continued with heavy weight training, but did not attempt to overload, simply training with already established weights, thus serving as a control group. A second heavy weight training group continued their training routines but did overload by increasing the weights lifted over the experimental period. A third group switched to depth jumps beginning with boxes at 0.2m and progressing to 0.8 m. A forth group switched to explosive jumping movements using a resistance equal to about 30% of there peak isometric force measure at 135° knee angle. Pre-post measurements included counter-movement and static vertical jumps, and isokinetic leg extension at 400°/s and a modified Wingate cycle maximum power test. After 10 weeks of training the control group did not change on any measure. The traditional strength training group improved on the counter-movement and static jumps and the cycle power test. The depth jump group improved only on the counter-movement vertical jump. However, the speed-strength group improved on all measures. Furthermore the percent improvement on these measures was as good or better than any other group. These data indicate that speed-strength exercises can optimise “explosive” performance and it also possible that previous strength training may enhance the optimisation process.

Table 4: Wilson et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993

Support for the concept of strength training optimising subsequent speed-strength training can be found in the observation of elite weightlifters training in different manners. Medvedev et al. (1981) divided several hundred elite Soviet weightlifters into three different training groups. Group1 trained heavy throughout the entire experimental period lasting several months and emphasised strength increases. Group 2 trained with relatively light weights, between 70-80% of 1RM. However, group 3 trained in a sequenced manner such that the month was devoted to strength training with heavy weights and the remainder of the experimental period was used for speed-strength training. At the end of the experimental period group 3 produced superior improvements in weightlifting total, primarily through an improved snatch. Furthermore group 3 realised superior improvements in other “explosive” measurements such as sprinting ability and medicine ball throws compared to the other two groups. These data indicate that a sequenced training programme in which an emphasis on strength training precedes power-training can produced superior results, particularly in measures of explosiveness.

In order to further investigate the concept of sequenced training, Harris et al. 1999 used a group of 42 American football players. The study concentrated on leg and hip maximum strength and explosiveness. For 4 weeks all of the players trained using a high volume strength endurance programme. Following the initial 4 weeks the players were divided into three groups equalised on the 1 RM squat and body mass. Group 1 trained for an additional 9 weeks using explosive heavy weight training. Group 2 using speed-strength-training methods used weights equivalent to 30-40% of their 1 RM squat. Group 3 used a sequenced combination training programme; for the first 5 weeks group 3 trained in the same manner as group 1 except heavy and light days were used. Light days consisted of the same lifts except at using 20% less weight. During the last 4 weeks group 3 used a combination of heavy weight training and speed strength exercises. For example, in the squat, after warm-up sets, one heavy set of 85-90% of 1 RM was performed and then followed by 3 sets of jumps at 30% of the 1 RM. All lifts were performed as explosively as possible.

Pre-post measures included various measurements of maximum strength, a counter-movement vertical jump, vertical jump power, a Margaria stair limb power test, a 30 m sprint, 9.1 m agility test and a standing long jump. The results indicate that the heavy weight training group (Gp1) and the combination group (Gp3) produced the best gains in maximum strength measures. However, in measures of power and explosiveness the speed strength group (Gp2) and the combination group (Gp3) produced the best gains. Furthermore the percent gains for combination group (Gp3) in all tests were as good or better than the other two groups. These data indicate that 1) combination training can produce superior gains across a wide spectrum of performance variables and 2) that sequenced training consisting of strength-endurance, strength and speed-strength phases can optimise these training responses (Table 5).

Table 5: Harris et al. JSCR 2000: American Football Players

Specificity of Strength/Power Training – Previously Trained

Of concern to the coach is creating continued gains in trained athletes. Table 6 lists the potential strength/power adaptations in athletes already strength trained. For example we would expected that continued heavy weight-training would result in diminished or little gain in maximum strength, rate of force development or power; intentionally slow movements would also result in diminished adaptations. Some evidence actually indicates that by switching to intentionally slow movements, maximum strength and especially rate of force development and power may be reduced. On the other hand switching to a speed strength type of training can elicit beneficial and quite marked alterations in rate of force development and power (Wilson et al. 1993, Harris et al. 1999).

Table 6: Summary: Specificity of Strength/Power Training (Performance) – Trained

Factors Effecting Explosiveness

In addition to specific training protocols, several different factors can have a marked impact upon the development of explosive qualities in an athlete. These factors include maximum strength, fatigue levels and cross-training.

Thus, the development of power and explosiveness can be augmented through development of strength.

While factors such as maximum strength can have a positive effect on explosiveness, other factors such as fatigue and cross-training can have a negative impact. Two factors, which must be considered in training programmes, are the degree of fatigue, which occurs within a training session, and the degree of residual fatigue, which can accumulate between training sessions.

Fatigue results in reductions in maximum strength, peak rate of force development and power output. Because of the fatigue-induced reduction in performance capability high fatigue levels can interfere with technique and interfere with learning or stabilising technique. Thus learning to be explosive” can be compromised.

Evidence indicates that the combination of typically aerobic training, such as distance running, and resistance training can result in decreased maximum strength and power. Thus, if maximum levels of strength and especially power and speed are desired, then typical aerobic training should be minimised or eliminated.

Injury Potential of Resistance Training

It is well known that the injury potential of weight training is low compared to other recreational (Powell et al 1998) and sports activities (Hamill 1994). Although it is commonly believed that free weights produce a higher injury rate then machines there is no evidence for this belief (Requa et al. 1993). This last statement is particularly important to understand because free weights can produce a superior transfer of training effect, especially for explosive strength compared to machines (Stone et al 2001).

It is also commonly believed that weightlifting and other ballistic explosive exercises produce high rates of injury. Again there is little data to support this idea. Hamill (1994) studied the injury rates of several different sports in the United Kingdom and in the United States. Based on injury rates per 100 participation hours both general weight training and weightlifting training produced injury rates that were among the lowest of the sports studied. Thus, there is little evidence that weight training, including explosive weight training, produces excessive injuries (Table 7).

Table 7: .Injury Rates Among Sports: Hamill 1994

Summary

Thus we can conclude that “explosive exercise”, when properly integrated into a training programme, can be a valuable part of training.

References

Aagaard, P. Simonsen, E.B., Andersen, J.L., Magnusson, S.P., Halkjaer-Kristensen, J. and Dyhre-Poulsen, P. Neural inhibition during maximal eccentric and concentric quadriceps contraction: effects of resistance training. Journal of Applied Physiology 89:2249-2257, 2000.
Antonio, J. Nonuniform response of skeletal muscle to heavy resistance training: can bodybuilders induce regional muscle hypertrophy? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 14:102-113, 2000.
Behm, D.G. Neuromuscular implications and applications of resistance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 9(4): 264-274, 1995.
Bobbert, M.F., Gerritsen, K.G., Litjens, M.C. and Van Soest A.J. Why is countermovment jump height greater than squat jump height? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 28:1402-1412, 1996.
Bobbert, M.F. Dependence of human squat jump perfromance on the series elastic compliance of the triceps surae: a simulation study. Journal of Experimental Biology 204(pt 3): 533-542, 2001.
Cronin, J. B., P.J. McNair and R.N. Marshall. The role of maximal strength and load on initial power production. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise, 3:1763-1769, 2000.
Fry, A.C. W.J. Kraemer, F. van Borselen, J.M. Lynch, J.L. Marsit, E.P. Roy, N.T. Triplett and H.G. Knuttgen. Performance decrements with high intensity resistance exercise overtraining. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 26:1165-1173, 1994.
Garhammer, J.J. A review of the power output studies of Olympic and powerlifting: Methodology, performance prediction and evaluation tests. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 7:76- 89, 1993.
Hakkinen, K. Neuromuscular adaptation during strength training, aging, detraining and immobilization. Critical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 6(3): 161-198, 1994.
Hakkinen, K. and P.V. Komi. Changes in electrical and mechanical behaviour of leg extensor muscle during heavy resistance strength training. Scandinavian Journal of Sports Science 7:55-64, 1985a
Hakkinen, K. and P.V. Komi. The effect of explosive type strength training on electromyographic and force production characteristics of leg extensor muscles during concentric and various stretch shortening cycle exercises. Scandinavian Journal of Sports Science 7:65-76, 1985b.
Hakkinen, K., P.V. Komi, M. Alen and H. Kauhanen. EMG, muscle fibre and force production characterisitcs during a 1 year training period in elite weightlifters. European Journal of Applied Physiology 56:419-427, 1987.
Hakkinen, K. A. Pakarinen, M. alen, H. Kauhanen and P.V. Komi. Neuromuscular and hormonal adaptations in athletes to strength training in two years. Journal of Applied Physiology 65:2406-2412, 1988.
Hamill, B.P. Relative safety of weightlifting and weight training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 8(1): 53-57, 1994.
Harris, G.R., Stone, M.H., O’Bryant, H., Proulx, C.M. & Johnson, R. Short term performance effects of high speed, high force and combined weight training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 13: 14-20, 1999.
Jones, K. G. Hunter, G. Fleisig, R. Escamilla, and L. Lemak. The effects of compensatory acceleration on the development of strength and power. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 13: 99-105, 1999.
Jones, K., P. Bishop, G. Hunter and G. Flesig. The effects of varying resistance-training loads on intermediate- and high- velocity- specific adaptations. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 15: 349 -356, 2001.
Kauhanen, H., J. Garhammer and K. Hakkinen. Relationships between power output, body size and snatch performance in elite weightlifters. Proceedings of the 5th annual Congress of the European College of Sports Science, Jyvaskala, Finland (J. Avela, P.V. Komi and J. Komulainen, eds) pp. 383, 2000.
Keeler, L.K., L.H. Finkelstein, W Miller and B. Fernhall. Early-phase adaptations of traditional- speed vs. superslow resistance training on strength and aerobic capacity in sedentary individuals. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 15: 309-314, 2001.
Komi, P.V. and J. H. Vitasalo. signal characteristics of EMG at different levels of muscle tension. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 96:267-276, 1976.
Mann, R. Fundementals of sprinting and hurdling. Presentation at Level 3 track and field clinic, Orlando, Fl, 1996.
McBride, J.M., T.T. Triplett-McBride, A. Davis, and R.U. Newton. A comparison of strength and power characteristics between power lifters, Olympic lifters and sprinters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 13:58-66, 1999.
Medvedev, A.S., Rodionov, VF. Rogozkin, V. Gulyants, A.E. Training content of weightlifters in preparation period. (translation: M. Yessis) Teoriya I praktika Fizcheskoi Kultury 12: 5-7, 1981.
Powell, KE., G.W. heath, M.J. Kresnow,JJ. Sacks and C.M. Branche. Injury raes from walking, gardening, weightlifting, outdoor bicycling and aerobics. Medicine and Science in sports and Exercise. 30: 1246-1449, 1998.
Powell, P.L., Roy, R.R., Kanim, P. Bello, M.A and Edgerton, V.R. Predictability of skeletal muscle tension from architectural determinations in guinea pig muscle. Journal of Applied Physiology 57: 1715-1721, 1984.
Rasch, P.J. & Morehouse, L.E. (1957) Effect of static and dynamic exercises on muscular strength and hypertrophy. Journal of Applied Physiology 11: 29-34.
Requa, R.K., DeAvilla L.N. & Garrick, J.G. Injuries in recreational adult fitness activities. The American Journal of Sports Medicine 21(3): 461 -467, 1993.
Sale, D.G. Neural adaptation to strength training. In P.V. Komi (ed), Strength and Power in Sport. pp. 249 – 265, 1992.
Semmler, J.G. and Enoka, RM. Neural contribution to changes in muscle strength. In V.M. Zatsiorsky (ed) Biomechanics in Sport, Blackwell Science Ltd, London, pp. 3- 20, 2000.
Semmler, J.G. and Nordstrom, Motor unit discharge and force tremor in skill- and strength- trained individuals. Experimental Brain Research 119: 27-38, 1998.
Schmidt, R.A. Motor Learning and Performance Champaign, Il: Human Kinetics, 1991.
Schmidtbleicher, D. Strength training: part 2: Structural analysis of motor strength qualities and its application to training. Science Periodical on Research and Technology in Sport 5:1-10, 1985.
Schmidtbleicher, D. Training for power events. In Strength and Power in Sports (P.V. Komi Ed) London, Blackwell Scientific Publications pp. 381-395, 1992.
Siff, M. Biomechanical foundations of Strength and power training- In: V. Zatsiorsky ed. Biomechanics in Sport London, Blackwell Scientific Ltd., pp. 103-139, 2001.
Siff, M.C. & Verkhoshanski. Supertraining: Strength Training for Sporting Excellence (3rd edition). Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand, 1998.
Stone, M.H., Plisk, S. and Collins, D. Training Principle: evaluation of modes and methods of resistance training – a coaching perspective. Sport Biomechanics 1(1): (In Press), 2001.
Thomas, M., A. Fiataron and R.A. Fielding. Leg power in young women: relationship to body composition, strength and function. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 28:1321-1326, 1996.
Thorstensson, a. Muscle strength, fibre types and enzyme activities in man. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica Suppl: 443::1977.
Vitasalo J.T. and P.V. Komi. Interelationships between electromyographic, mechanical, muscle structure and reflex time measurements in man. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 111: 97-103, 1981.
Weyand, P.G., D.B. Sternlight, M.J., Bellizi and S. Wright. Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements. Journal of Applied Physiology, 89:1991-1999, 2000.
Wilson, G.J., Newton, R.U., Murphy, A.J. & Humphries, B.J. (1993) The optimal training load for the development of dynamic athletic performance. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise 25(11): 1279-1286, 1993.
Yao, W.X., Fuglevand, A.J., and Enoka, R.M. Motor unit synchronization increases EMG amplitude and decreases force steadiness of simulated contractions. Journal of Neurophysiology 83: 441-452, 2000.
Young, W. Training for speed/strength: Heavy versus light loads. National Strength and Conditioning Association Journal 15(5): 34-42, 1993.
Zajac, F.E. & Gordon, M.E. Determining muscle’s force and action in multi-atrticular movement. In K. Pandolph, (ed), Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.

Andrew Charniga, Jr.

Do not reproduce or republish in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. © 2001

I have published my translation of the article “Methods of Developing leg Strength” at this time, for a couple of reasons. First, to allow anyone unfamiliar with the origin of this program to see that it was not designed for Powerlifting or the brainchild of any “Doctor of Squatting”. Second, to raise the question as to whether this type of specialized training for the legs is necessary for weightlifting training.

It is obvious from the contents of this article that it is designed for Olympic weightlifters. The author recommends this program if one’s squat results are below what is considered the norm; and, it is to be applied for a specific period of training – the preparatory period.

The main characteristic of this program which clearly distinguishes it from powerlifting is that unlike Olympic lifting training, the legs are not even involved in one lift (the bench press) and only for a short range of motion in the other (the deadlift). Conversely, legs are heavily involved in the lifting in both the snatch and the clean and jerk. So, any specialized loading for the legs in Olympic lifting has to take into consideration the overall loading on the legs from the other exercises and the potential negative effect the hard leg work from squatting would have on the performance of the main exercises (the snatch and the clean and jerk).

Is a specialized squat routine necessary for Olympic lifters?

Training the squat is going to have the greatest effect on the recovery phase of both the snatch and the clean. Since the weight in the snatch is usually about 80% of the clean, the lifter’s leg strength in this segment is usually more than sufficient to complete the recovery. So, it is in the clean, where the lifter has to stand with a very heavy weight, that the leg strength that is developed by squatting is critical.

Therefore, it is a logical assumption that if one has difficulty recovering from the clean, more squatting is needed. The attraction of this particular Russian program to the western mind is that, one, it appears to address the issue of a difficult recovery in the clean; two, it conforms to the western notion of gradual change (in this case improvement in strength) will be the inevitable result of a uniform, gradual and progressive increase in the training load over a specific time frame.

The basic idea behind this type of program is that each increase in the number of repetitions per set (from 6 sets of 2 to six sets of six) is appropriate; the body is ready and needs this increase in order for the muscles to respond. The notion that the body’s response to training may take the form of a “Punctuated Equilibrium” is not even considered.

Two reasons come to mind one should forego employing this “routine”:

1. Squats alone do not address the technique of the clean. Technique has a significant effect on the bio – mechanical efficiency of the clean and consequently the effort required of the recovery phase.
2. The legs generate the most productive power in weightlifting (or for that matter in most of athletics) over a relatively small range of motion at the knee, hip and ankle joints. The hamstring muscles (within that relatively small range of motion at the knee, ankle and hip, where the lifter generates the greatest forces on the barbell) are not strengthened by squatting.

With respect to the first reason, squatting and the technique of the clean, consider the following examples of three outstanding squatters.

The author witnessed the Soviet superheavyweight Aslanbek Yenaldiev pinned with a 240 kg clean at the 1979 Spartakiade. He tried bouncing 6 – 8 times but was physically unable to recover form the squat. He was the “champion squatter” among the soviet lifters with a 455 kg back squat (23).

According to Leonid Taranenko (11), his best front squat was 300 kgs for 3 repetitions. Yet, in exactly the same manner as Yenaldiev, the author witnessed Taranenko pinned with 250 kgs at the 1983 Soviet Spartakiade. It is does not make sense that a lifter would be unable to stand with a weight 50 kgs below his personal best in the front squat.

Antonio Krastev (13), had a best front squat of 310 kgs, yet he was unable to rise with successive 255 kgs and 257.5 kg cleans at the 1987 World’s Championships.

Now, consider the results of two of the world’s great lifters in the clean and jerk: Vasily Alexeev and Anatoli Pisarenko.

According to Alexeev (1,2, 21) he did not attempt to lift very large weights in the squat. Indeed, Alexeev uses the following example to show that results in weightlifting are not dependent on high results in the squat. “Look, a lot of guys train incorrectly. They end up doing a lot of work for nothing. For example, Falyev is a 110 kg lifter on the national team, who squats with 320 kgs. I have never used more than 270 kgs. This is a difference of 50 kgs in our respective training weights. He clean and jerks 220 kgs and I do 256 kgs. So, results in the classic exercises are not determined by the strength of the legs”(21).

When the author asked Leonid Taranenko about Alexeev’s squatting weights, he said, “That’s about right. He usually squatted with weights that were equal to his Clean and Jerk” (11).

Regarding Alexeev’s assertion, consider the USA’s Mark Henry. He could front squat 325 kgs (10). However, his best clean and jerk was 220 kgs. Legendary squatter Paul Anderson (1200 lbs in the back squat) had a clean and jerk of about 200 kgs (23). Likewise, Shane Hammon has a 230 kg clean and jerk to his credit and has squatted about a 1000 lb. In each of these cases the clean and jerk to squat ratio is considerably outside the norm (9,18,20,22). Their results in the squat had long since reached the point of diminishing returns.

Anatoly Pisarenko had a result of between 280 – 290 kgs in the back squat and a clean and jerk of 262.5 kgs. On this subject of “big back squats” and “big lifts”, Alexander Kurlovich (12), said he witnessed Pisarenko miss a squat of 260 kgs in training; only to clean and jerk it 5 days later. According to Taranenko, “if he (Pisarenko) had to stop at the bottom of a clean, he would not be able to get up”(11).

This observation by Taranenko, is of course the crux of the issue. The three big squatters cited, who were pinned with their cleans, all stopped at the bottom and then tried to recover. Conversely, Alexeev and Pisarenko always employed good technique in timing the recovery in order to utilize the bend in the bar and the storage of elastic energy produced by the rapidly stretching muscles.

During the competition of the 94 kg class at the 2001 European championships the author saw one of the lifters make a very easy 175 kg snatch. This prompted the person seated next to me to point – out, this power was due, without a doubt, to his ability to front – squat 300 kg. Subsequently, I watched this same lifter, literally screaming to recover from his 207.5 kg and 210 kg cleans. I had to point out to this same person, that those weights could not possibly be that heavy, for someone whose legs are purportedly, so strong.

Let’s look at the second reason. The importance of the hamstring muscles in weightlifting should not be underestimated (15,16). In the snatch and the clean and jerk the greatest power output occurs in the “explosion” phase (from a knee angle of about 120 – 125 degrees). The power the lifter generates in the final acceleration on the barbell (i.e, the work of the quadriceps muscles) is facilitated considerably by the speed with which the quadriceps have been stretched as the knees shift forward under the bar.

The strength of the hamstrings (in performing flexion at the knee) in relation to that of the quads, is critical to the speed with which the action of shifting the knees under the bar occurs. Likewise, hamstring strength (in stabilizing the hip) is crucial as the shins straighten during the first phase of the pull. So, one needs to be careful not to create a significant imbalance in strength between the quads and hamstrings.

Therefore, the need for caution in planning a specialized loading for squats – “A lot of squats adversely affect speed” (12).

On this subject, “A lot of squats adversely affect speed”, we asked Alexander Kurlovich about this squat program. The author of “Methods of Developing Leg Strength”, A.A. Zenalov, is from Grodno. This is just happens to be Alexander Kurlovich’s home -town.

Alexander knew the coach but was unfamiliar with the program. He had never used such a program. Generally, Kurlovich trained with weights 10 – 20 kgs in excess of his clean and jerk. His best front squat was 280 x 2 kgs (he clean and jerked 262.5 and 265 kgs, only to be turned – down for not having the bar under control) and best back squat was 350 kgs (12).

He questioned the author’s claim that this program had been employed by the number and quality of lifters cited in the article. What is interesting about the “routine” is that it appears to be in conformity with the literature with respect to the search for the optimal number of repetitions per set (3,4,5,6,7,14,18,20) and the volume of squats in training (17,18,20).

Like Kurlovich, Yuri Zakharevich apparently is between the two extremes of the examples cited. His best front squat was 250 kgs, done at the time of his best clean of 265 kgs. His best back squat was 300 kgs x 2; power clean 235 kgs; and, snatch from blocks – 215 kgs. He has never heard of a “Russian Squat Routine”, and he personally, never followed a special program of squatting, specifically to increase his squat results (24).

Without a doubt, squats are the most important assistance exercise. And, someday it may be universally accepted, that after a period of several years of development, only the classic snatch, the classic clean and jerk and front squats will make – up the weightlifter’s arsenal of training exercises (19).

However, pursuit of a “big squat” to achieve high results in the snatch and the clean and jerk, by doing specialized training on the squat is questionable. In all likelihood it would be better to spend more time and effort perfecting the technique of the clean and focus on the front squat, which is more specific to the leg strength of the recovery from the clean.

References

1. Alexeev, V. I., “My training Experience”.

Tyazhelaya Atletika, 5:13, 1976

2. Alexeev, V. I., “My training Experience”.

Tyazhelaya Atletika, 6:28, 1977

3. Berger, R.A., “Effect of Varied Weight Training Programs on Strength”. Res. Quart., 33 (2):334, 1962

4. Berger, R.A., “Optimal Repetitions for the Development of Strength”. Res. Quart., 33 (3):334, 1963.

5. Berger, R.A., “Comparative Effect of Three Weight Training Programs”. Res. Quart., 34 (3)396, 1963

6. Berger, R.A., “Comparison Between Resistance Load and Strength Improvement”. Res. Quart., 34 (4):637, 1962

7. Berger, R..A., “Effect of Maximum Loads for each of Ten Repetitions on Strength Improvement “. Res. Quart., 38 (4)715, 1967

9. Chrenyak, A.V., “Methods for Planning the Training of Weightlifters”, Fizkultura I Sport, Moscow, p 18 – 23, 44 – 46, 1978

10. Barnett, W., Personal Communication

11. Taranenko, L., Personal Communication

12. Kurlovitch, A., Personal Comunication

13. Krastev, A., Personal Comunication

14. Delorme, T. L., “Effect of progressive Resistance exercise on Muscle Contraction”. Arch. Of Phys. Med. 33:86, 1952

15. Lukashev, A. A. “Substantiation of Methods of Perfecting Snatch Technique of Class II Weightlifters”, 1980 Weightlifting Yearbook, p Sportivny Press, Translated by Andrew Charniga, Jr.

16. Lakashev, A. A., Personal Communication

17. Ermakov, A.D., “The Training Load of Weightlifters in Pulls and Squats”, 1980 Weightlifting Yearbook, p 34 – 38 Sportivny Press, Translated by Andrew Charniga, Jr.

18. Roman, R.A., “The Training of the Weightlifter” Sportivny Press, Translated by Andrew Charniga, Jr.

19. Roman, R. A., Personal Communication

20. Medvedyev, A.S., A System of Multi – Year Training in Weightlifting”, Sportivny Press, Translated by Andrew Charniga, Jr.

21. Ivanov, D.I., “Russkii Ispolin – Vasily Alexeev” Cov. Rossia, Moscow, p – 131 – 141. 1980

22. Ivanov, A. T., “Squat Results and Their Connection to Achievements in the Clean and Jerk”, Tyazhelaya Atletika, p26 – 29, Fizkultura I Sport, Moscow 1976

23. Demarco, L. , Personal Communication

24. Zakharevich, Y., Personal Communication

” . . . guidelines set down by Philostratus (second century A.D.) sequence small, medium and large workloads within a four-day training cycle.” Vladimir B. Issurin

Louis Abele
by Chester Teegarden

Foreword

These training programs of Louis Abele have been compiled, organized and now published so that you, the reader, may study them. This publication is the culmination of my original idea. When I first became acquainted with Louis Abele I was impressed that his methods of training procedure should not be lost to humanity in general or to the muscle culture fan in particular. Before becoming personally acquainted with Louis at the Junior National Weightlifting Championships at St. Louis in 1939, and consequently receiving correspondence from him, I had, as a quick-lifting enthusiast and competitor in the AAU, been interested in the training programs of Charles Rigoulot of France. Also of Nosier and Touni of Egypt, Walker of England and Novak of the USSR. Rigoulot has been for more than a score of years the world record holder in the two hands clean & jerk at 402.5 pounds. But, have Rigoulot’s training schedules been recorded and published, making them available and useful to the general public?

Objective data, unrecorded, is soon lost. Stanko and Davis have totaled more than 1,000 pounds on the three Olympic lifts but have their training programs and schedules (which they actually did perform) become objective recorded data? Only RECORDED OBJECTIVE DATA are valuable to a literate people.

These programs of Louis Abele are of value to the average enthusiast because they acquaint him with a field of operation beyond his probably attainable horizon. But it shows you this thing has been done, therefore, broadening your horizon in Muscle Culture. It is easier to follow a path than to blaze a trail. Few of us attain more than 10% of our intellectual potential, so, most of us live well within our capacity even when the energy is present and the facilities are at hand. We lack know-how.

Abele’s training can be useful to you if you adopt his system of progression in poundages and repetitions according to the ease or difficulty of performance. My advice – Study and discuss – Abele.

Chester O. Teegarden, Proprietor Strong Barbell Co., Associate Editor of Iron Man Magazine.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
12 February, 1940.

Dear Chester,

You have my permission to use the idea which I wrote to you some time ago. If you want to write it up please refrain from writing up the Press. I have been experimenting and will have some data in the future regarding the extent of improvement that can be expected. You can mention that I will try to have completed research on the “white mice” (the boys Louis trains) in about two months.

I am expecting to get some photos taken in New York soon. I well send some for publication in the Iron Man.

I broke the World Heavyweight two hands snatch record in the contest at our club (the Lighthouse Boys’ Club, Philadelphia) on the tenth of February. The former record was held by Ronald Walker of England at 292½. I did 296. My total was 941 (280, 296, 365).

Yours truly,
Louis Abele

Quick Lifting Training Schedule

Dear Chester,

I was pleased to receive a letter from you so soon after the Junior Nationals. I had not expected one for some time. It seems as though you are in earnest in regard to your lifting and your desire to improve. I can not specifically advise you what to do, but I can give you my opinion regarding some of your problems. You wrote, in part, that you had been training for some years, three times a week. Why don’t you try training six times a week? Training six times a week may make you snap out of your present slump. I have observed numerous instances of young men who have approximately the same problems as you, and they have benefitted from training more often. One fellow in particular made tremendous improvement by training eight or nine times a week; once or twice in the afternoon, then every evening in the week. The extras were only partial workouts. The times between workouts enable greater effort to be utilized in each individual attempt. If I remember correctly his total jumped from 565 to 675 in four months time as a lightheavyweight. He did not work or engage in any other activity. He also slept the greater part of the day.

I tried training every day in the week and improved considerably. but as I think I told you in St. Louis, my deltoids gave out. That is, they pained me so in lifting that I had to discontinue my training. I have not come up to the lifts that I made in any contest I have entered since. I had pressed 265, snatched 275, clean & jerked 340 for a total of 880.

In training every day do only presses one day and snatches or cleans the next day, and press again the third day. Do the following repetitions. I will list what I did.

Press –
210×5
220×4
230×3
230×3
240×2
245×1
225×3
215×5

Snatch – all from dead hang
220×5
230×4
240×3
240×3
250×1
235×3
225×3
215×5

This is not as difficult as it looks, since you do only one lift in a workout period. Do nothing else. That means squats, dead lifts, etc. Strange as it may seem, you will more than likely improve in your squats due to the lifts. I had not squatted for about 1½ years; and when I went back to try myself I did 15 repetitions with 400 pounds so easily that I think I could do about 20 or 22 reps in a couple of weeks.

It may interest you to know that Constantine Kosiras, the Greek fellow at our club, made a remarkable improvement. He had been doing nothing but squats for some months and then tried himself on the lifts one day. His press came up from 170 to 190, his snatch from 195 to 220, and his clean & jerk from 235 to 260. His bodyweight had also increased from 172 to 185, due to the squats, and previous to this new improvement in lifting.

I hope that anything I may have written will give you some helpful suggestions to incorporate in your training, and, hoping I will hear from you in the near future, I remain,

Sincerely,
Louis Abele

A Biographical Sketch

29 February, 1940

This is an answer to your letter asking for a short biography of myself. I was born in the Province of Württemberg, Germany, on November 7, 1919. My ancestors were farmers, foresters and quarry workers. I lived in the hilly country.

We came to the United States when I was five years of age and in the following years I engaged in the ordinary activities of boyhood. I noticed early in life that I could outrun and outjump my companions with ease. I was interested in gymnastics before lifting became my greatest interest, and often remained in the gymnasium for hours. Swimming was also one of my favorite pastimes.

My first attempt to lift a bar bell resulted in my pressing 100 pounds. I started training on progressive weight training and body building at the age of 15 after watching older fellows practicing lifting at the Lighthouse Boys’ Club. At that time I was 5 feet 5 inches tall and weighed 130 pounds. I had an inborn desire to be stronger than the next fellow and the environment also had a great bit to do with my urge for strength. My father often spoke of our powerful ancestors and he, himself, was considered the most powerful man in the surrounding district.

I had many teachers during my initial period of training due to the leader plan in the Lighthouse Boys’ Club. When a fellow reaches 21 at the club and is particularly suited to teach younger fellows, he is asked to stay on and become an unpaid member of the staff. His only reward is the continued use of the facilities of the club and the pleasure of watching the progress and development of the younger members. (There are also some junior members who, because of their unusual ability in their particular activity, either sport or social, become ideal teachers.) At present I am a junior leader. The club has about 80 leaders.

I think I have been my own best teacher due to experiments. The peculiar thing is that none of my experiments have ever failed to produce desirable results and I have, therefore, never been compelled to seek outside information. I have also learned very much from discussion with fellow lifters. We have always been receptive to any reasonable idea put forward by training companions even if they were much inferior in muscularity and strength. In fact, anyone who comes to our training quarters will find a heated discussion in full swing in regard to some training problem. Usually it is Kosiras and myself who are in the midst of a heated discussion.

My goal, as perhaps you are aware, is to surpass the records of Charles Rigoulot in the two hand quick lifts and Josef Manger in the two hands press. Another objective is to weight 225 in hard muscular condition at the height of 5 feet, 9 inches. I also want to explode the theory of the dependency of muscular size on bone size. I have already done this mentioned thing but wish really to explode it to my own satisfaction. According to the experts my 7½ inch wrist would not support any more than a 16¾ inch arm and at present my arm measures 18 inches. I hope to get it up to 19 inches.

I have always hammered away at back and leg work until I started seriously to improve my lifting, but I will make that the subject of a future letter since the multitudinous amount of leg work I have done could fill a volume.

The Two Arm Press

18 January, 1940

Friend Chester,

Please keep this information about the Press quiet, it has not been thoroughly tested yet. do not have any of the details made public. It has had such beneficial results on my “white mice” that I am not telling everyone.

Since you are intending to work out three times per week you should really be able to polish off some worthwhile results. Work the press as follows:

Start with a poundage about 35 pounds below your limit. Do 1 repetition. Wait 5 minutes and do another single repetition. And so on until you have done 20 or more single repetitions. Do this 3 nights per week. The second week add 2½ pounds, and son on the third and every week. When the going gets tough and you cannot finish in your specified time of about 1½ hours, cut down on your single repetitions to 15 or so and rest 7 or 8 minutes between each press, and finally allow yourself 10 or 12 minutes rest between each repetition when the poundage approaches your limit. Now reduce the weight 25 pounds below your limit at this time and work up again using the same procedure. When you get stuck this time take two or three weeks rest and then start over again. REMEMBER, do nothing else in the line of exercises even though you get fat or if your muscles shrink a little.

More About The Press

15 May, 1940

Friend Chester,

I believe I have some definite information now regarding the press. As I told you, practice the press every other day doing one repetition and then resting for a specified time. I explained also how I increased the weight and lengthened the time between presses. This information has been followed by several of my acquaintances, both personal and those with whom I correspond. There have been definite increases in every case over a period of several weeks. The increases as I noted in almost every instance amounted to 15 or 20 pounds. This is strange indeed if it happens to be a coincidence that all those who tried it improved to the same extent but I would be unwilling to commit myself and say that every one will definitely improve to a similar extent. You can add this information to the other letter I wrote if you wish.

Yours very truly,
Louis Abele

Some Back Work

14 October, 1940

I am now specializing on back work, and have worked up to 235 x 10 consecutive dead hang snatches. I will attempt to give you my leg schedule as soon as possible.

Abele’s Leg Program

8 March, 1941

Friend Chester,

I was glad to hear from you again. I did not answer sooner because I have been in Cuba several weeks. Davis, Terlazzo and I gave exhibitions in Havana. I surprised myself by totaling 980: press 310, snatch 300 and clean & jerk 370.

Regarding the leg program I have followed, I wish to make it clear that I did not reach the peak of development my legs possess at present through following a specialized leg program for two months. I did the following leg program with minor variations at three separate periods of my training each consisting of two months intensive work.

I ask you, Chester, did you ever during your career of lifting, see anyone whose thighs showed extreme muscular development due to such work as the proponents of the “take it easy and grow” school advise? I think I can answer for you: No!

You know as well as I the products of such system develop a “muscularity” that is entirely devoid of contour and woefully lacking in separation. They develop fat men’s thighs and nothing more. Then when they reduce in order to bring about the transformation of smooth thighs to muscular thighs they find to their amazement that they are practically back where they started and their gains of many inches fade away.

Do not these (take it easy and grow) gents realize it takes toils and sweat and more toil and sweat to build strength and muscle! To approach anything approximating muscular phenomenon requires work of the most intense sort. You must literally sweat blood to get up there, and let none forget it for an instant.

This tirade certainly would not do for manufacturers of exercise equipment to advocate as it would scare away all their prospects; but it, nevertheless, stands as the unvarnished truth.

Let me give you an example of what I mean by intense muscle building work as followed by someone other than myself; namely, John Davis, World Heavyweight Champion. Davis, realizing his legs could stand improvement, tackled the problem and followed a squatting routine of from 60 to 80 squats in sets of over 15 with weights above 400 pounds. The improvement in the contour and separation of his thighs has been amazing. His thighs have grown from 25 to about 27 inches.

Now let me tell you of the program I followed to improve my thighs and which caused muscular tissue to grow – not fat. I started at about 20% below my limit. WHEN DOING THESE LEG EXERCISE I NEVER STOPPED BETWEEN REPETITIONS TO REST as most leg exercisers do. I gradually increased the poundage and stayed at the maximum repetitions. The exercises are as follows:

1.) Deep Knee Bend, or Squat, 20 repetitions.
2.) Leg Press, 20 repetitions.
3.) Calf Exercise, 25 repetitions. One foot at a time with toes raised on a block.
4.) Step-up on a box, 20 repetitions with each leg.
5.) One Leg Squat, 15 repetitions. In split position going down on forward foot to maximum squat depth and balancing with the rear foot.
6.) Leg Curl, 15 repetitions.
7.) Calf exercise, 20 repetitions.
8.) Front Squat, 10 repetitions. Squat with barbell in Jerking position.

Questions by Teegarden and Abele’s answers:

How often did you work out?
Three times a week.
Any upper body work during this period?
No upper body work.

Don’t think that I advise everyone to go at it this severely; also keep in mind that to build strength and make muscles grow you must really work at it. An acquaintance of mine and incidentally one of the most muscular specimens who ever lived (not Grimek) used to exercise so hard his joints creaked and groaned so much it was audible to a bystander. This information may be a jolt to some exercise fans, but it is, nevertheless, the truth.

Many of our best lifters work to the point of nausea time and time again when they are working near their maximums. I have worked so hard on various occasions I had to vomit. You simple do not become exceptional unless you put forth the effort. Function makes structure, by heck, and don’t try fooling Nature with roundabout methods.

Cordially yours,
Louis Abele

Abele’s Back Program

As I explained while you visited me last (May 1942) I am a great proponent of specialization. When I first awakened to the possibilities of specialization I had been reading Mark Berry’s writings in which he outlined some suggestions of previous specializers.

From my early experience it was possible for me to outline a program which I believe is as good as any ever evolved. I had, by this time, been steeped in the benefits of heavy leg and back work and this idea, therefore, became a basis of my program.

As is well known after a gain in bodyweight, the smaller muscle groups respond more easily to exercise than if one’s bodyweight remained stable. Therefore, reason prompts me to work on the large muscle groups first, then on the smaller groups. What would be the sense of straining and striving for bigger arms and shoulders first, when the leg work that causes the gain in weight and the proportion of arms to the other parts of the body produces the desired results more efficiently? It always seemed reasonable to me to bring up the legs and hips first, back and chest next, and with the consequent enlarging of the rib box and shoulder girdle, the arms, when finally called upon, will grow very easily.

Naturally, one specializes when further growth thru other methods becomes too slow. When the muscles become accustomed to a definite degree of exertion they will fail to increase in size unless they are caused to exert themselves further. This becomes impossible after one has reached a peak in his training. If one kept increasing the work of all the muscles at one time it would not be long before rigor mortis set in. This leaves us with only one alternative, and that is the specialization in one specific section of the body at one time.

As I have explained to you previously, I had done my leg program first, which lasted over a period between two and three months. I also believe I explained to you that I estimated poundages that were within my reach and therefore would start at a poundage that would enable me to make a gradual increase throughout the entire program. Anyone with some measure of experience can judge how long he will continue to improve steadily and can therefore set his poundages with a fair degree of accuracy.

This is the back specialization program which I followed:

1.) 8 bent presses. Consecutive from the shoulder to overhead.
2.) Straight leg dead lift. 12 to 15 repetitions. On a box to arches of feet.
3.) Chin the bar. 10 to 12 repetitions with weight attached, usually by a rope or strap around the neck. Three variations were used: regular and undergrip pull to chest; overgrip to chin; and behind neck.
4.) Stationary rowing exercise. 12 repetitions.
5.) One arm rowing with a kettle bell. 15 repetitions.
6.) Two arm snatch. 10 consecutive times, no pause, from dead hang.
7.) Two hands clean in the same manner as the snatch but eliminated because it was too tough.
8.) Regular dead lift. 10 to 12 repetitions.

When I used to do snatches and cleans I had to pry my fingers off the bar and would often tear calluses off. It also caused such violent breathing my teeth ached.

During a specialized program on any part of the body the unused parts of the anatomy will naturally lose some shape and tone. But do not loose sight of your principle aim. After these periods of specialization are over the unused parts will quickly snap back to their original size and strength within two weeks time.

These are some of my best lifts which you requested:

Press 315; Snatch 310; Clean 375 (no jerk); Jerk 375 (no clean); Bent Press 225 at 185 lbs. bodyweight; Best Deep Knee Bends 400×18, 450×10, 475×7.

28 September, 1947

During the World Weightlifting Championships Abele told Rader and me that he can still press 300 and tried himself on Dead Hang Snatches having done 285×3. Louis weights about 225 and looks better than at any previous time I had seen him.

Louis works with his father, who is a cement contractor, every day. It is quite probable that in competition he could do no better than second to Davis. If Davis were not in competition Abele would quite probably be Heavyweight Champion of the World; but oh, that inevitable IF!

Copyright, 1948 by Strong Barbell Co.