Warm Up Outline (10-20min)

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

South Central regional

Affiliate event 2 – The 100’s – Affiliate
100 Thrusters(115/75lbs)
100 Push Ups
100 Hang Power Clean(115/75lbs)
100 Ring Dips
100 Overhead Squats(115/75lbs)
Teams of four athletes. Only one team member can be working at one time. teams must complete all 100 reps before moving on to the next movement.
You must move as a team. Movement Standards PDF.

Affiliate event 3 – Row
As a team, max distance row in 24 minutes.
Each athlete will perform 3 rounds of 2 minutes of rowing for maximum distance. There will be a continuously running clock
Teams of 4 Athletes. Only one athlete will be working at one time. There is one rower per team. Team members will switch off rowing every 2 minutes until everyone has rowed 3 times and the 24 minute limit is up. Movement standards PDF.
*Cut this work out in half if you would like!

South Central regional

Affiliate team event 1 – Deadlift and Double Unders
In teams of 4 athletes (2 men / 2 women) AMRAP in 7 minutes of:
2 men have to complete 100 double unders then 25 deadlifts(225lbs) total, in that order
2 women have to complete 100 double unders then 25 deadlifts(155lbs) total, in that order
Once the entire team has completed 200 DU and 50 DL, they spend the remainder of the 7 minutes completing as many reps as possible of either deadlifts or double unders. Only one man and one woman can be working at a time. Two bars will be provided for each team. Movement Standards PDF.

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.

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.

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.

Clean & Jerk 3/40 2/60 2/80 2/100 2/120 1/130 1/140 1/150 1/160
Back Squat 1/180 1/210 1/230
3 Sets
BB Curls + Reverse Press 12+12/20kg
Scaption Raise 15/15lbs
20min of Yoga

400m Run
15min Active Warm Up
Band Front Squats 7-10×1/60-80-100-120-140kg
Back Squat 3/60 3/120 3/150
3 Sets
K-Bell Press 15/12-16-20kg
BB Lateral Step Up 8ea
3 Sets
Straight Arm Lat. Pull Down 15/Band w/ Tempo(4-2-2)
7 Way Shoulder Raise
15min Stretch