Set and Rep Schemes in Strength Training (Part 2)

SET AND REP SCHEMES IN STRENGTH TRAINING (PART 2)

Set and rep schemes in strength training (part1)

Set and rep schemes in strength training (part2)

Here is a second installment of set and rep schemes article for EliteFTS. You can find my blog post on the first installment HERE. 

The purpose of the article is to 'explain' (or at least rise awareness) to the difference between Training objectives, Training parameters and Training progressions and variations. In simple words, training objectives represent description of what needs/can/should to be done to get from point A (current state) to point B (future state), defined by Needs Analysis and  Athlete Characteristic taking into account context at hand. 

Training parameters then represent operational decisions and program in achieving training objectives. 

Training progressions and variations represent a 'wiggle room' within Training parameters ~ since we can achieve same objectives using different approaches. The important point of the article is that there are similar ways to vary and progress training parameters regardless of training objectives. Those commonalities is what the article is set to explore.

In lay terms, if the training objective is to increase upper body muscle mass, we "know" (from research, previous experience or training knowledge) what training parameters generally needs to be performed  (e.g. training upper body 2-3x/wk with 30-50reps per muscle group with 65-80% 1RM), but within those parameters (and constraints) we have a lot of wiggle room to experiment with (art of coaching?). Here comes training progressions and variations that could be explored based on context, individual characteristics, reactions and preferences (e.g. sets across for someone, or waves for someone that hates sets across). 

This is pretty much the same as Tool of Three Levels, just explained a bit differently.

The explored progressions and variations are based on Load/Exertion profile (DOWNLOAD). Also, the new Strength Training Card Builder v3.0 will have ~90 set and reps schemes that are dependable on modifiable Load/Exertion table. If there is an interest will explain how I used Load/Exertion table to devise a lot of set and rep schemes. 

Anyway, follow the links on the top of the page and let me know what you think.

Set and Rep Schemes in Strength Training (Part 1)

Set and Rep Schemes in Strength Training (Part 1)

Here is the latest article I wrote for EliteFTS. The article will be published in two parts. Part one deals more with terminology and something that I call 'intensity trinity'. I hope that this terminology will become standard in our field/industry.

It also explains traditional approach to exercise prescription, know as percent-based approach, along with novel velocity-based approach.

The article purpose is to explain load/exertion table, training process, the difference between "periodization" of training objectives versus training parameters aimed at achieving those objectives and common progressions and variations (set and rep schemes) utilized within training parameters. In my opinion writers tend to confuse those.

I hope that this article will clear up some terminology issues and provide very usable load/exertion table that can be utilized to explain various common progressions and variations on workout, week and block time-frames.

Enjoy the article and tell me what you think.

Click HERE to read the article at EliteFTS website.

Intensity-Effort Table for Strength training

Intensity-Effort Table for Strength training

Continuing on my rant on three parameters of intensity in strength training I decided to update my Percent-Repetition Chart from August, 2012 that seems to be quite popular (I have seen it in couple of blogs and some recent books – I don’t mind – au contraire – I feel pride).

I have modified and updated this table over the last year mainly using ideas and work of others like Dan Baker, Michael Tuchscherer, Joe Kenn and Donnell Boucher.  

The table features Intensity zones (% of 1RM) and Effort zones (proximity to failure; see Intensiveness). Effort zones could be based on Tuchscherer’s RPE levels, but for this table I have chosen Dan Baker effort zones (which he presented in is Wave-cycle approach to In-season training at this year’s NSCA conference).

The table is read starting with Intensity level and then you choose Effort level. This way you get amount of reps that should be done in a given set. 

Training cycles can progress in couple of ways and one can use this table in most of them (at least for compound movements, not for Olympic lifts and power/ballistic movements). 

Just for the sake of example I will present couple of different progression schemes over a cycle. Some of the variations can be called intensification, accumulation, “effortification” (my word  ), depending on what are you progressing and what are you trying to keep same. All of these represent Level Three – Programming in Tool of Three Levels™ approach.  

Increasing intensity and effort over cycles, while keeping the same reps and volumes (written in brackets)

Week 1: 80% x 3 reps x 6 sets (18) [HE]

Week 2: 82.5% x 3 reps x 6 sets (18) [HE]

Week 3: 85% x 3 reps x 6 sets (18) [NME]

Week 4: 87.5% x 3 reps x 6 sets (18) [NME]

Increasing number of reps and effort over cycles, while keeping the same intensity

Week 1: 80% x 3 reps x 6 sets (18) [HE]

Week 2: 80% x 4 reps x 6 sets (24) [HE]

Week 3: 80% x 5 reps x 6 sets (30) [NME]

Week 4: 80% x 6 reps x 6 sets (36) [NME]

Increasing the volume (number of sets) while keeping everything else the same

Week 1: 80% x 3 reps x 4 sets (12) [HE]

Week 2: 80% x 3 reps x 5 sets (15) [HE]

Week 3: 80% x 3 reps x 6 sets (18) [HE]

Week 4: 80% x 3 reps x 7 sets (21) [HE]

Increasing the intensity while keeping effort the same by decreasing number of reps. Keeping the volume pretty same

Week 1: 75% x 5 reps x 5 sets (25) [HE]

Week 2: 80% x 3 reps x 7 sets (21) [HE]

Week 3: 85% x 2 reps x 9 sets (18) [HE]

Week 4: 90% x 1 reps x 12 sets (12) [HE]

One could probably come up with dozen versions utilizing different combos, rep and set schemes, etc. 

The point of this table is using it to understand certain progressions in certain programs, to allow us easier progression and to see how much we are pushing it in certain cycles. Use Prilepin table as a guideline for volume, but keep in mind that this table is used in Olympic lifting, so it could be a bit ramped up with general strength goals and it could be ramped up a lot with hypertrophy goals.  

If you are interested in velocity-based approach modification of this table please refer HERE. 

I wish to thank everyone who have used it in their blogs, books and work. That keeps me motivated to share and contribute more to this field. 

Intensity-Effort Table with rep ranges

Intensity-Effort Table with exact number of reps for easier reading

Click HERE for Excel workbook. 

[EDIT]

Andrew McGunagle asked a good question in the comments and I wanted to address it in the article since I planned covering it. 

If athletes are getting stronger from week-to-week and the percentages are becoming slightly less-accurate, would the prescribed effort levels begin to take precedence for weight selection?

The table above is useful for shorter cycles (up to 6 weeks IMO) without adjusting either percentages or 1RM. 

With shorter cycles (4 weeks), last week might be something 6x3 w/85%, while in longer cycles (12 weeks) it might look like 6x3 w/95% because 1RM improved during that longer cycle.  This again depends on the duration of the cycle and "expected" improvement in 1RM (which depends on the level of the lifter). 

So, ones needs to either adjust 1RM used in planning the weights or adjust the percentages for the long cycles. 

This is pretty similar to work by Jim Wendler and his 2x5/3/1 plus unload week (7 week cycles). 

Between each 5/3/1 cycle, Jim Wendler recommends  adjusting (increasing) your 1RM for 1,25-2,5kg for upper body and 2,5 to 5kg for lower body (make sure to remember that he recommends starting 5/3/1 with 90% of 1RM). 

Using absolute 'jumps' instead of percentages work better because it adjusts for the level of the lifter automatically. This means that beginner will improve more from phase to phase in terms of percentage, than advanced lifter (e.g. 2.5% compared to 1.25%). If you put this to numbers, hypothetical beginner squatting 100kg gets improvement of 100x2.5% = 2.5kg, and advanced lifter get 200x1.25% = 2.5kg. Hence, if someone uses 1RM 'jumps' it is better to use absolute weight than percentage. If I have used same percent jump, the advanced lifter (since he is using more weight) will get unrealistic jump in 1RM.

"Better" option might be to test 1RM using open sets in the last part of the cycle and adjust 1RM accordingly (see Juggernaut method). In the example above (6x3 @85%) this might take a form of 5x3 @85% and 1x3+ @85%, where one tries to perform more than 3 reps on the last set. If one uses 2 reps in buffer (i.e. 5RM) and the athlete performs 8 reps, then 1RM needs to be adjusted for the next cycle. 

One could also use 'subjective approach' and use RPE levels (effort levels) as Andrew pointed out to adjust loading. This is how Mike Tuchscherer autoregulates his training. 

Third and novel option might be to use velocity based approach, since velocity is most stable from cycle to cycle and doesn't demands re-testing. I have wrote about this extensively - just check the Velocity-based strength tab.

 

  

Three I’s of intensity in strength training

Three I’s of intensity in strength training

This is a short rant regarding the confusion that exist regarding the topic of intensity in strength training. Without going into too much of details (I have spoken about this problem before HERE and HERE) my opinion is that Intensity (with the big “I”) has THREE interrelated components:

INTENSITY – This is weight on the bar [absolute], usually expressed as percentage of your maximum lift [% 1RM] or expressed as weight with which you can do certain number of maximum reps [5RM, 10RM, etc]. Example might be squat with 150kg, or bench with 80% 1RM or press with 10RM weight which might be 50kg [10RM = 50kg]. 

INTENT – Is lifters’ [well duh] intent to lift each rep with maximum acceleration and speed. For example, using 80% 1RM one athlete might use maximum intent and lift it with 0.4 ms^-1 mean velocity or he might use sub-max intent and lift it with 0.2 ms^-1. With the same intensity [% 1RM] using different levels of intent will yield different levels of force, power, velocity & acceleration and TUT (Time Under Tension). Sometimes this takes form of Tempo prescription.

INTENSIVENESS -  This is how close to a failure [RM; repetition maximum] you are. If the intensity is 80% 1RM one might perform 3 reps [pretty away from failure] or perform 7 to 8 reps [which is point of failure]. There are couple of ways of controlling and prescribing intensiveness. One is to prescribe intensity with nRM [e.g. 5RM weight, or 10RM] and prescribe reps with that weight, something along these lines 8[10], which means do 8 reps with the weight you could use to do 10 reps. In other words reps in the tank, in this case 2. You can also prescribe reps in the tank for a given intensity (e.g. lift this weight until you have two left in the tank). Another way is using RPE (Rate of Perceived Exertion/Exhaustion) which is another way to quantify/quality reps left in the tank. One novel way of controlling and prescribing intensiveness is by monitoring velocity of the lifts (especially the stop velocity), taking into account that intent in every rep is maximal. 

Coaches, and especially researchers should take into account all three parts of prescribing and quantifying Intensity (Intensity together with Volume provide LOAD; but I will leave different ways of quantifying Volume for another rant) to avoid confusion and provide precision. This could be done with monitoring velocity of the lifts as well and I urge researchers reading this to start using velocity data to supplement usual statistics reported (like 1RM, 5RM, % 1RM, etc). 

One thing to consider also is that all these three “components” are related not only to kinetic and kinematic performance [external], but also to MU recruitment, fatigue, etc. Here is a short summary:

INTENSITY – Highly related to force output (both mean and peak) and MU recruitment. Inversely related with velocity taking into account maximum intent.  

INTENT – Related to peak force output (not sure about average force), acceleration and velocity along with MU recruitment

INTENSIVENESS – Related to end velocity (taking maximum intent into account) and MU recruitment. Highly related to fatigue, both metabolic and NMF. Related to volume parameters as well. 

The tricky part is the complexity of their interaction at both micro (single set and sets for an exercise) to mezo (single workout to a single week) to macro (couple of weeks to couple of months) training effects and training prescriptions. Another complexity is that we still don’t know what drives adaptation (gain in strength, hypetrophy) regarding these parameters (i.e. mean/peak force, MU recruitment, volume, velocity…).

Hence the importance of acknowledging these three components, prescribing it and reporting it with studies. 

Some great findings and ideas from velocity-based strength training

Some great findings and ideas from velocity-based strength training

I have been thinking more and more about velocity-based lifting recently as a method of prescribing load and volume for an individual. I have wrote couple of blog posts and article on this topic that you might want to read first: 

Estimating 1RM using load-velocity relationship

Velocity Loss as an Indicator of Neuromuscular Fatigue during Resistance Training

Velocity-based strength training: Short Q&A with Mario Marques

Using PowerTool/GymAware: short video and explanation

Does Speed Work work? My response to Mike Tuchscherer’s article. Part 1

Does Speed Work work? My response to Mike Tuchscherer’s article. Part 2

Is power/speed reading in clean and snatch counterproductive (and other rant)?

Percent-based training vs. Auto-regulatory? Can they be complementary?

The mentioned links should cover the bases. What I want to do now is to discuss possible applications and some interesting findings.

I have re-reading great paper by Izquierdo et al. Effect of loading on unintentional lifting velocity declines during single sets of repetitions to failure during upper and lower extremity muscle actions and I came to couple ideas. 

What the researchers did is to perform Bench Press and Parallel Squat exercises to failure with 60%, 65%, 70% and 75% of 1RM, while trying to perform each rep as fast as possible. 

These graphs are very interesting and I will get back to them, but first I want to convey some of my ‘insights’ using velocity measurement in the gym over the last year and something.

Here is the load-velocity table for my ATG pause back squat and pause bench press I did somewhere in February this year. This is based on the first rep for each load which is usually the fastest. 

I we visualize %1RM used in bench press and squat and mean velocity reached, we get the following graph:

What is immediately apparent is that the slope of the curve for bench press is steeper. We can calculate those and we get -1.46 for bench press and -0.89 for squat. In plain language, one tend to lose more speed with increasing loads in bench press than in squat. 

Another apparent feature is that velocity at 1RM (we are going to call it MVT – minimal velocity threshold) is lower for the bench press (~0.1 m/s) than for squat (~0.3m/s). We can talk all that why this might be the case – but at the end of day it is not really important. What is important is to remember that there is different MVT for every exercise and that they differ from individual to individual (not much thought). 

What might be interesting to find out is weather MVT changes when some improves his 1RM? According to study by González-Badillo and  Sánchez-Medina (Movement Velocity as a Measure of Loading Intensity in Resistance Training) it is not changing over time, at least for bench press

 This is important for couple of reasons – we can use velocity to prescribe intensity. Even more important is that 1RM might vary from day to day due readiness or normal variability, thus using %1RM might be misleading and not taking into account improvements or decrements in strength. Using velocity might solve this issues, along with being auto-regulatory in nature.  Long story short, instead of prescribing 5 reps with 80% 1RM, one might prescribe 5 reps with 0.5m/s starting speed. What is also interesting is that providing immediate feedback might increase motivation, competition, stability of performance and higher improvements – based on the studies by Randell et al. (study1, study2), at least for jump squats – but I believe that this might be true for non-ballistic exercises as well. 

Ok – this is what happens to the velocity of the first (best) rep across loads. But what happens to velocity when we repeat sub-max sets to failure? That is also what the study by Izquierdo et al ought to find out. 

What we can see from the graphs (see at the beginning of this article) is that the velocity across reps is falling down quicker in the bench press than in squat. I will get back to this soon and why is this important. 

What is VERY INTERESTING is the finding that mean velocity in 1RM load is pretty much the same as Mean velocity in the last rep of nRM test. What does this mean is that my last rep in 5RM is probably going to be very close to 0.3m/s for squat and 0.1m/s for bench press.  How can we apply this to practical settings? Well, the closer we come to our MVT in multiple-rep sets, the closer we are to failure. According to a study I blogged about here, the closer we are to failure (indicated by loss of velocity) the higher the neuro-muscular fatigue. Hence, by monitoring last rep velocity we might produce different levels of fatigue in a given set. 

I am interested to see if this prediction holds true across loads (or reps-per-set), or if I have 2 reps in the tank with 12RM load would the velocity be same as when I have 2 reps in the tank with 5RM load? Since I don’t have data for this, I ought to digitalize the data point from the graphs in this study. Here is what I got for bench press

And for squat

What is interesting to note here is that number of reps done with same %1RM is higher in squat than in bench press. 

What I had to do to test my hypothesis (that the velocity for the same number or reps left in the tank across %1RM is similar) is to re-organize this table and visualize it. Here is what I got for bench press and for squat

As you can see from the graphs this relationship between reps left in tank and velocity is sound (it is beyond me how to quantify magnitudes for this – my statistic knowledge is medium); average SD for velocity across reps left in the tank is 0.02 and average %CV is around 5% for both squat and bench press.  

What this means, and is VERY INTERESTING, is that we can estimate proximity of failure based on rep speed (taking into account that the effort to lift fast should be 100%). Not with 100% accuracy, but pretty close. 

I have mentioned that velocity drops a lot faster across reps for bench press than for squat. This is important since certain authors in velocity-based strength training circuits recommend using % drop as a threshold to stop a set. For example, they prescribe starting velocity (e.g. 0.5 m/s) and velocity drop of 10% (stop doing set when velocity drop for more than 10%, and in this case that is 0.45 m/s) for both bench press and squat. Based on the data I have presented I think this is not that smart (I have tried it also, with me and with some players once). It works for bench press, but for squat you might end up doing a lot more reps (especially if there is a bit of bouncing in the hole). Over aprox. 75% 1RM velocities for squat are faster (see bench vs squat load-velocity graph), his velocity drop across reps is slower and hence using % is not the way to go. 

The solution might be prescribing absolute velocity stop. For example starting with 0.45 and finishing when velocity reach 0.4 m/s. 

There is still a lot of practical trial-and-error left to be done, but here are some recommendations

Estimate load-velocity curve for each individual and each core lift when you do 1RM testing Estimate MVT (or velocity at 1RM or last rep) for each individual and each core list If you perform 3-5RM test, estimate the slope of the velocity curve – this might be used later to predict proximity of failure and velocity stops (when to stop the set).   Use associated velocity with certain nRM and/or %1RM (e.g. 0.5m/s for 5RM or 85% 1RM; 0.3 for 1RM or 100% 1RM) and use the velocity to prescribe instead of nRM or %1RM because it is more reliable plus you get a lot more other benefits To manage fatigue in the set, prescribe velocities stops (should I put the trade mark on this one?) for certain reps-left-in-the-tank.  Manage volume (number of sets) by time allotment (e.g. 20min for squats); or by comparing the average velocity of the sets across reps (need to ‘research’ this approach); or by prescribing number of sets based on cycle; or by allowing certain drop in reps from set to set.   When doing multiple sets, one could stick to the weight associated with certain velocity intensity and velocity stops (in this case that might result in drop in reps across sets) or one might decrease weight to maintain starting velocity. I am clueless what method to use – might depend on the cycle or be rotated from time to time.  So the prescription might be something along these lines: 20min time allotment slot for squats (or prescribed number of sets) Starting velocity 0.4m/s  Keep that weight across sets Velocity stop 0.35 m/s If your first rep is equal to or less than 0.35, stop completely even if time is still available Damn, I am becoming to sound like DB Hammer

Anyway, I urge coaches to try velocity-based approach. Make sure to check the best LPT system on the market today – GymAware. Data collection and analysis is walk in the park, along with the setup. 

Periodization confusion – Slides from WindSprint 2013

I had a pleasure to be one of the lectures at WindSprint 2013 held in Sundsvall, Sweden. I have finally met French sprint coach Pierre Jean Vazel who I know for years from Charlie Francis forum.

Among other presenters were Aki Salo (great presentation on relays), Takanori Suyibiashi (Japanese sprint methods), Roland Lööv (his presentation was on Swedish, so I didn’t understand much).

My presentation was probably too meta-physical, but I have tried to cover some theoretical/philosophical aspects of periodization. This was the first time I was presenting, and I did it on English language, so I was a bit nervous (plus being on stage form me is everything  but walk in the park). Anyway, I was pleased by the reception even if could definitely done it better. Maybe next time J

I have covered a lot of topics/concepts and it was hard to go into details on each. The goal was to present the bigger picture and to provide different framework to think about things.

Here are the slides

Annual Plan for Team Sports v1.0

Annual Plan for Team Sports v1.0

This is the Excel workbook aimed at helping team sport coaches setting up the annual plan and weekly/monthly calendar. 

The workbook is organized in couple of tabs. Two main tabs are Annual Plan and Training Sessions. All other tabs are related to components of the annual plan and include drop down lists and weighting factors used to calculate training load.

The worksheet utilize some VBA code for estimating training load. For example, if one uses 1x4x4’ R:3’ small sided game (4v4), that represents doing one set of four reps of 4 minutes interval with 3 minutes rest. VBA code is used to parse the data from the string and calculate load in A.U. (arbitrary units). Using weighting factors one could assign different weight to different components and calculate total load.

Visualizing workloads using sparklines is a neat way to see the progression (overall, or within the components – use check boxes to select what you want to be calculated and visualized) in load over time and see the differences between weeks. The formula for load in A.U. is quite simple: it is Load = Work_Time * Density, where Density is Work_Time / Total_Time. Not perfect, but get's the job done. For this reason it is crucial to assign different weighting factors for different drills within each training component (strength, speed, power...) and for each component in the total load. I have set up a table for Strength, Specific conditioning and General conditioning tab where one could see calculated loads. Using Solver tool (add-in) in Excel or Goal Seek one could select certain drills to have certain load. I will cover this in one of the how-to videos. 

The annual plan (Annual Plan tab) and daily calendar (Training Sessions tab) are connected in a way that you can see key constraints (games related data, camps, travel, vacation and testing) devised in the annual plan in the daily calendar for a given week. This allows for easier planning of a given week (microcycle).

The basic version is set up to be used in soccer, but by modifying the names of the boxes in the Annual plan and drop down lists for each training component one can adjust if for their own needs and their sports. 

On the bottom of the page I posted four instructional videos on how to use the Annual Plan for Team Sports v1.0, although I believe that most of it is quite intuitive especially for coached used to plan/work in Excel. 

Because the whole Excel book is not protected, that means you can customize it anyway you want, but it also means you can screw things up. Thus, I suggest making a copy of the workbook as soon as you download it.

For further customizations of the workbook please be free to contact me.

I am offering the Annual Plan for Team Sports workbook at  $45

Instructional videos - please use full screen and HD option

NOTE: If you do not receive the file immediately after the purchase please be free to contact me on my email. PayPal is supposed to work, but I had couple of customers reporting not getting the file. 

MMA training classification using Bondarchuk system

I decided to publish the following tables that I have created to guide my planning/programming for one  friend of mine and MMA athlete that asked for my advice last year.

I have utilized Bondarchuk approach in classifying the drills for each training component (and goal) as I did in my Physical Preparation for Soccer manual and Periodization Confusion article.

I honestly believe that this is the most comprehensive approach for classifying the training modalities/methods/means for each training component/goals within your training system. This is my work-in-progress table, so don't take it to your heart: if you have any comments, critiques, suggestions please be free to post in comments.

Anyway, I hope that coaches working in MMA might find this useful and modify it to suit their needs.

Classification of the training means/methods

Name of exercise/method	Description
Competitive (CE)	Exercises that are identical or almost identical to competition event
Specialized developmental (SDE)	Exercise that repeat the competitive event in training but in its separate parts
Specialized preparatory (SPE)	Exercises that do not imitate the competitive event, but train the major muscle groups and physiological systems
General preparatory (GPE)	Exercises that do not imitate the competitive event and do not train the specific systems.

Exercise classification based on work of Dr Anatoly Bondarchuk and UKA Exercise Classification Hierarchy

Name of exercise/method	Description	Content
Competitive (CE)	Exercises that are identical or almost identical to competition event	MMA match; MMA sparring with competition intensity & duration; strategy/tactics development
Specialized developmental (SDE)	Exercise that repeat the competitive event in training but in its separate parts	Skill: Sparring in individual components (stand-up, wresting, ground, cage); Sparring like drills Physical: Specific conditioning (sparring – MMA, parts); partner drills
Specialized preparatory (SPE)	Exercises that do not imitate the competitive event, but train the major muscle groups and physiological systems	Skill: Technique drills (drilling); Mitt-work; bag-work; Physical: Special conditioning (mitt, bag, dummy); Explosive strength; Reactive strength; Maximum Strength; Power Endurance; Complexes/minute drills
General preparatory (GPE)	Exercises that do not imitate the competitive event and do not train the specific systems.	General strength & aerobic capacity; general conditioning; muscle endurance;  warm-up; flexibility; core; recovery procedures; pool; bike…

Skill training

Name of exercise/method	Content
Competitive (CE)	MMA match; Full MMA sparring with competition intensity & duration; strategy/tactics development
Specialized developmental (SDE)	Sparring in individual components (stand-up, wresting, ground, cage); Sparring like drills (aliveness)
Specialized preparatory (SPE)	Technique drills (drilling); Mitt-work; bag-work;  No ‘live’ resistance
General preparatory (GPE)	Footwork; flow drills (w/ & w/o partner); warm-up movements

Strength training

Name of exercise/method	Content
Competitive (CE)
Specialized developmental (SDE)	Partner carries & drills (wrestling, ground); Unstable objects lifting (heavy sandbag)
Specialized preparatory (SPE)	Heavy sled push/pull; basic barbell, dumbbell and kettle bell exercises
General preparatory (GPE)	BW drills; corrective exercises (prehab, rehab); DB/MB circuits

Explosive and Reactive Power (alactic power & capacity)

Name of exercise/method	Content
Competitive (CE)
Specialized developmental (SDE)	Conjugate exercises (technical moves loaded and unloaded)
Specialized preparatory (SPE)	KB, DB & BB Explosive training; Explosive jumping; Explosive MB throws; Sled pushes; Hurdles; Hammer Swings; Weight vest; mitts; bag
General preparatory (GPE)	Hill sprints; Flat sprints

Muscle-Endurance & Explosive endurance (lactic power & capacity)

Name of exercise/method	Content
Competitive (CE)
Specialized developmental (SDE)	Sparring w/specific goals/constraints & combined
Specialized preparatory (SPE)	Mitt work; bag intervals (punch-out drills); Partner drills; Dummy drills; BW circuits/exercises; strength circuits/exercises endurance (tempo method); explosive repeats/throws; rope drills; prowler/sled; alactic-aerobic exercises (intensive)
General preparatory (GPE)	Running intervals; bike intervals; pool; cardio machines

Aerobic Power

Name of exercise/method	Content
Competitive (CE)
Specialized developmental (SDE)	Sparring w/specific goals/constraints & combined; extensive & intensive technique work
Specialized preparatory (SPE)	Intermittent & interval. Mitt work; bag intervals (punch-out drills); Partner drills; Dummy drills; BW circuits/exercises (minute drills); strength circuits/exercises; explosive repeats/throws; rope drills; prowler/sled; Alactic-aerobic exercises (extensive)
General preparatory (GPE)	Running intervals; bike intervals; pool; cardio machines; intermittent & interval

Aerobic Capacity

Name of exercise/method	Content
Competitive (CE)
Specialized developmental (SDE)	Sparring w/specific goals/constraints & combined; extensive technique work
Specialized preparatory (SPE)	Continuous & Interval. Mitt work; bag intervals; Partner drills; Dummy drills; BW circuits/exercises; strength circuits/exercises; rope drills; prowler/sled;
General preparatory (GPE)	Running intervals; bike intervals; pool; cardio machines; combinations w/general strength; continuous & interval