Since we got Gym Aware
Power Tool system last year for the purpose of tracking power output
in countermovement squat jump to estimate neuromuscular
fatigue (see great summary by Kristie-Lee Taylor) I have been fascinated
by with the simplicity and power of its use.
I started measuring velocity
and power with most of the lifts and with recent acquire of Gym Aware Pro Online it made it a lot
quicker, reliable and easier.
Researching behind LPT
reliability, validity and its use I came across couple of research papers
regarding assessment of 1RM by using load-velocity relationship of a given
movement (e.g. squats, bench press). Reading those motivated me to do my own
small research which you can read HERE.
Eventually I started using
the similar approach with my squad (Hammarby IF) to get some insights where is
their squat strength going without testing 1RM directly or tiring them with
reps-to-failure method (at least for legs – we do reps-till-technical-failure in bench and pull-ups
with and without external weight). I think this approach (i.e. load-velocity
relationship) provides numerous advantages and it could be used in daily
training for monitoring adaptation (tracking what is happening with your
estimated 1RM over training block without
actually testing it) or programming of the workouts. The velocity of
movement will impact the training stimulus and subsequent the adaptations to
training. It has been suggested, therefore, that athletes should try to perform
exercises “explosively” at a velocity allowed by the resistance used in a
volitional manner. Training at a specific velocity improves the application of force
and maximum rate of force development mainly at that velocity, so that less
effective training effect will occur if training velocity deviates from the
specific trained velocity
Reading more about it I came
across one group of authors that provided tremendous quality and practical
insights when it comes to velocity-based strength training.
|
IZQUIERDO M, HAKKINEN K,
GONZALEZ-BADILLO JJ, IBAÑEZ J, GOROSTIAGA E. (2002). Effects of long-term training specificity on maximal strength and
power of the upper and lower extremity muscles in athletes from different
sports events. European Journal of
Applied Physiology 87: 264-271.
IZQUIERDO M,
GONZALEZ-BADILLO JJ, HÄKKINEN K, IBAÑEZ J, KRAEMER WJ, ALTADILL A, ESLAVA J,
GOROSTIAGA EM. (2006). Effect of
loading on unintentional lifting velocity declines during single sets of
repetitions to failure during upper and lower extremity muscle actions. International Journal of Sports Medicine.
Int J Sports Med ; 27: 718–724
JUAN J. GONZÁLEZ-BADILLO,
MÁRIO C. MARQUES, LUIS SÁNCHEZ-MEDINA. The
Importance of Movement Velocity as a Measure to Control Resistance Training
Intensity. Journal of Human
Kinetics Special Issue 2011, 15-19
SANCHEZ-MEDINA, L., AND J.
J. GONZALEZ-BADILLO. Velocity Loss as
an Indicator of Neuromuscular Fatigue during Resistance Training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 43, No.
9, pp. 1725–1734, 2011
J. J. GONZÁLEZ-BADILLO , L.
SÁNCHEZ-MEDINA. Movement Velocity as a
Measure of Loading Intensity in Resistance Training. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 347 – 352
L. SANCHEZ-MEDINA, C. E.
PEREZ , J. J. GONZALEZ-BADILLO. Importance
of the Propulsive Phase in Strength Assessment. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 123 – 129
|
So I decided to contact one
of the authors and pick his brain regarding this method of strength training.
Mladen: Mario, thank you very much for taking the time to do this interview.
Can you please share some info regarding yourself and your research group? How
did you come to the idea to study movement velocity in strength training?
Mario: The ability of the neuromuscular system
to produce maximal power output appears to be critical in many sports such as
sprinting, jumping or throwing, sports that require optimal combinations of
muscle strength and speed to maximize athletic performance. In the classical
concentric force-velocity curve the amount of muscle tension increases with
decrease in velocity, reaching the maximal tension in the isometric (i.e. 0 velocity)
condition.
Under these
circumstances maximal power output has been defined to occur at a shortening velocity
of approximately 0.3 of the maximal shortening velocity, at a force level of
30% of maximal isometric force and/or between loads of 30%–45% of the one repetition
maximum (1RM) (Kaneko et al. 1983; Izquierdo et al 2002 and 2006).
Previous studies have
examined the relationship between maximal power output and load in isolated
bundles of muscle fibers (Hill 1938) or in explosive movements involving upper or lower body muscle groups such as vertical jumping (Bosco
and Komi 1980) or
bench-press throws (Newton et al. 1997). However, there is a paucity of data on maximal strength
and power of upper and lower
extremities muscles in sports activities
requiring different levels of strength and power, such as handball, road cycling, middle distance running
and Olympic weightlifting. It is likely that the load-velocity and load-power
relationships may vary between the different muscle groups, for example, in relation
to fibre type distribution, different usage in sport-specific activities and/or
biomechanical characteristics of the open and close upper/lower kinetic chains.
Classically, strength
training programs have been prescribed according to a percentage of the
individual maximal strength (i.e. 1RM). However, velocity-specific increases
have been shown with strength training programs using different speeds of movement
(Behm and Sale 1993). Therefore, it would be of interest to determine force/velocity
and power/velocity relationships so that athletes perform training exercises at
specific load and/or velocity that would be more similar to the conditions of
muscle performance required in the actual competitive movement (Izquierdo et
al. 2002).
Coaches and researchers in
the field of resistance training attempt to identify the proper handling of
training variables to determine the training stimulus that maximizes
performance enhancement. One variable that is less considered when designing
programs to optimize athletic performance is movement velocity. Classically,
the choice of the load should impact the velocity of the movement but most of
the data examining this phenomenon have been obtained with isokinetic exercise.
The velocity of movement will impact the training stimulus and subsequent the
adaptations to training. It has been suggested, therefore, that athletes should
try to perform exercises “explosively” at a velocity allowed by the resistance
used in a volitional manner. Training at a specific velocity improves the
application of force and maximum rate of force development mainly at that
velocity, so that less effective training effect will occur if training
velocity deviates from the specific trained velocity.
In 2006 one of my
Colleagues (Dr. Mikel Izquierdo from the Public Unviersity of Navarra, Spain)
reported that for a given muscle action (bench press or parallel squat), the
pattern of decline in the relative average velocity achieved during each
repetition (expressed as a percentage of the initial value) and the relative
number of repetitions performed (expressed as a percentage of the total number
of repetitions performed) was the same
with all percentages of 1RM tested. However, relative average velocity
decreased at a greater rate in bench press than in parallel squat performance.
Conceptually, this would indicate that for loads ranging from 60% to 75% of
1RM, one may predict the pattern of velocity decrease for a given exercise, so
that a minimum repetition threshold to ensure maximal speed performance would
be determined (Izquierdo et al 2006).
It was showed that the
velocity that elicited the maximal power in the lower extremities was lower (» 0.75 m·s-1) than that occurring in the upper extremities (» 1 m·s-1). It is not known why the velocity and the
percentage of 1RM that elicits maximal power are different between the upper
and lower extremity actions. Such findings are not uncommon since similar
results have also been reported during traditional lifts (e.g. bench-press or
squat) in young (Cronin et al. 2000; Rahmani et al. 2001; Bosco et al. 1995),
middle-aged and older men (Izquierdo et al. 1999).
A possible explanation
for these differences observed between the upper and lower extremities may be associated
with the extremity-related differences in maximal strength, type of training,
muscle cross-section area, fibre-type distribution (Lexell et al. 1983), muscle
mechanics (i.e. length and muscle pennation angle) as well as functional
differences according to the joint position and geometry of the joints and
levers (Gu¨ lch 1994). This type of information on different muscle groups and
various actions may also be useful to create optimal strength and/or power
training programs for sports with different levels of strength and power demands.
Mladen: What are
the differences in load-velocity profiles between upper-lower movements (e.g.
squats vs. bench press) or explosive movements like clean, snatch, jump squats
or bench throws? What would be their 1RM velocities on average and how do
velocities at certain %1RM relate to it (velocity at 1RM)? How does the
inclusion or removal of stretch-shortening cycle affect the load-velocity
profile (e.g. pause squat or bounce squats)?
Mario: Yes. My Colleague, Professor Mikel Izquierdo From the Public
University of Navarra (Spain) showed that, for a given muscle action
(bench press or parallel squat), the pattern of decline in the relative average
velocity achieved during each repetition (expressed as a percentage of the
initial value) and the relative number of repetitions performed (expressed as a
percentage of the total number of repetitions performed) was the same with all percentages of 1RM tested. However,
relative average velocity decreased at a greater rate in bench press than in
parallel squat performance. Conceptually, this would indicate that for loads
ranging from 60% to 75% of 1RM, one may predict the pattern of velocity
decrease for a given exercise, so that a minimum repetition threshold to ensure
maximal speed performance would be determined A different pattern of velocity
declines in relative average velocity was observed when performing repetitions
at different intensities between upper and lower extremity muscle actions. For
all intensities tested, the average repetition velocity decreased at a greater
rate in bench press than in parallel squat performance, so that in bench press
performance the significant declines observed in the average repetition
velocity (expressed as a percentage of the average velocity achieved during the
initial repetition) occurred when the number of repetitions was over 34% of the
total number of repetitions performed, whereas in parallel squat it was over
48%. In addition, it was interesting to observe that the velocity attained
during the last repetition performed during the sets at 75%, 70%, 65% and 60%
of 1RM was significantly higher in half squat than in bench press performance
(Izquierdo et al 2006)
Mladen: You showed that velocity loss during a set is related to neuromuscular
fatigue of the workout. Are there any published or unpublished data on the
relationship of velocity loss during a set with adaptation seen over a training
block? I know of one study that did just that. What are your
opinions on the GREAT results of velocity based group? What are your thoughts
on training to failure?
Mario: Yes. As I mentioned above recent studies
from Izquierdo and colleagues showed neuromuscular fatigue related to
repetitions to failure. (# IZQUIERDO M, IBAÑEZ J, GONZALEZ-BADIILLO JJ,
HÄKKINEN K, RATAMESS NA, KRAEMER WJ, FRENCH DN, ESLAVA J, ALTADILL A, ASIAIN X,
GOROSTIAGA EM. (2006). Differential effects of strength training leading to
failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength and muscle power
gains. Journal of Applied Physiology. May;100(5):1647-56.) It was showed that after the 11-wk training
period (from T0 to T2), 1) similar gains in
bench press 1RM, parallel squat 1RM, muscle power output of the arm and leg
extensor muscles, and maximal number of repetitions performed during parallel
squat were observed between Repetition to failure (RF) vs. NON repetition to
failure approach (NRF) and NRF; and 2) the RF
group experienced larger gains in the maximal number of repetitions performed
during the bench press. During the peaking phase (from T2 to T3), 3) larger gains
in muscle power output of the lower extremity were observed after the NRF
training approach, and 4) larger gains were
found in the maximal number of repetitions performed during the bench press
after RF training approach (Izquierdo et al. J Appl Physiol 2006)
