Educación sexual desde la perspectiva de la LOGSE

Most coaches do not choose a system of training; it seems to choose them. Coaches tend to either follow the crowd or, follow their own training preference. I am going to advocate that you do neither. Instead I will discuss the evolution of training systems and provide some insights into the pros and cons of each. The key is to take pieces where applicable to form a workable system.

Set and Rep Schemes

For beginners, much too much has been said about sets and reps.

Programming is not nearly as important as execution. My experience is that many high school and college coaches have excellent sets and rep schemes that are then implemented with poor attention to technique. This is a mistake. KISS. Keep it simple S_ _ _ _ _. We should be strength and conditioning coaches, not computer geeks. I love Excel spreadsheets as much as anyone but, the continuing trend of good programming done poorly is disturbing.

You are only as good as the technical proficiency of your athletes.

The Simplest Method: Progressive Resistance Exercise (PRE)- The simplest method of progression for beginners is to simply add five pounds per week to the bar as long as the athlete can perform the exercises with perfect technique. For more experienced lifters add 2 1/2 pounds per week to the heaviest set. This is a simple system advocated by the Hardgainer crowd. Stuart McRobert is the publisher of Hardgainer Magazine and has written an excellent book called Brawn that is wonderful in its simultaneously innovative yet, simple methods. I’m a huge fan. Many so-called big time

strength coaches would reject this type of program as too simple but, I will confess that the PRE program formed the basis of almost all of the training for our college freshmen athletes. Periodization

was minimal and we employed PRE almost exclusively. The advantages of a simple progressive exercise program are evident:

• the system works extremely well with beginners, and may be all many of you need

• PRE can be combined with other methods for a simple periodized program

Generally we would perform 2-3 sets per exercise after warm-up sets. The sequence is as follows - warm-up set first, heavy set second, heavy set plus or minus 5 to 10 pounds third. With the third set the coach would decide whether the athlete would go up, go down or stay at the same weight.

By simply following a simple program of progressive resistance exercise you could improve 260 pounds per year with this method. I realize that no athlete will make five pound increases for an entire year but, most athletes would be happy with much smaller gains than 260 pounds in any lift. In theory an athlete who was able to Front Squat an unloaded 45-pound bar for 10 reps would be

squatting 95 lbs for 10 reps by week 10. By week 20 they would be squatting 145 for ten reps. Some of our female athletes have become incredibly strong by using just this system this system.

Obviously after the first training year this system must be replaced by a periodized system but, because of the rapid gains in strength in year one, we found that a percentage based system actually resulted in us holding back some of our athletes

20 Rep Tests

One method we often use after the first three weeks of training to determine whether we are using appropriate loads is what we call a 20 rept. In week three of the program we would take the set two weight ( the heaviest set) and tell the athlete to do twenty reps in as few sets as possible. This weight should correspond to a 10 RM load but we want to know the actual numbers. Ideally the athlete should take this set to technical failure (the point at which they can

not complete reps with proper technique). Loads for the next week would then be recalculated based on the number of reps done. The following chart illustrates how this is done.

.

Weight Adjustments for 20 Rep Scheme - Percentage Based

100 103 105 108 110 113 114 118 120 123 105 108 110 113 116 118 119 123 126 129 110 113 116 118 121 124 125 129 132 135 115 118 121 124 127 129 131 135 138 141 120 123 126 129 132 135 137 141 144 147 125 128 131 134 138 141 142 147 150 153 130 133 137 140 143 146 148 153 156 159 135 138 142 145 149 152 154 159 162 165 140 144 147 151 154 158 160 165 168 172 145 149 152 156 160 163 165 170 174 178 150 154 158 161 165 169 171 176 180 184 155 159 163 167 171 174 177 182 186 190 160 164 168 172 176 180 183 188 192 196 165 169 173 177 182 186 188 194 198 202 170 174 179 183 187 191 194 200 204 208 175 179 184 188 193 197 200 206 210 214 180 185 189 194 198 203 206 212 216 221 185 190 194 199 204 208 211 217 222 227 190 195 200 204 209 214 217 223 228 233 195 200 205 210 215 219 223 229 234 239 200 205 210 215 220 225 229 235 240 245 205 210 215 220 226 231 234 241 246 251 210 215 221 226 231 236 240 247 252 257 215 220 226 231 237 242 246 253 258 263 220 226 231 237 242 248 252 259 264 270 225 231 236 242 248 253 257 264 270 276 230 236 242 247 253 259 263 270 276 282 235 241 247 253 259 264 269 276 282 288 240 246 252 258 264 270 275 282 288 294 245 251 257 263 270 276 280 288 294 300

Use 200 pounds in the far left column as the example weight. If our athlete does 200 pounds for 14 reps instead of the expected 10, the weight for the next week would be adjusted to 225 for 10 reps instead of the expected 205 pounds. This system allows us to insure that no athlete is drastically underachieving in a situation where we are not prepared for actual max testing. This is in fact a repetition max test that is then used to adjust weight

Linear Periodization

Linear periodization takes our PRE scheme and simply adds linear repetition variation over a series of weeks. Periodization is a

European concept that has been practiced in the US for most of the

‘80s and ‘90s. At the time it was introduced, it represented a

significant improvement over methods used previously. What linear periodization does is build a system of gradually decreasing volume ( usually measured by total number of reps done on the major lifts) and gradually increasing intensity (measured by the weight on the bar) over the length of the training cycle. Linear periodization was made widely popular in the strength and conditioning community through Mike Stone’s NSCA Journal article “The Theoretical Model of Strength Training”. Mike Stone and John Garhammer were instrumental in the ‘80s in bringing advanced concepts to strength and conditioning through their work with the NSCA. This system was once considered advanced but, may in fact be too simple for the advanced athlete. Phases in linear periodization were generally four weeks long and consisted of three heavy weeks followed by an unload week. A basic periodization diagram appears on the next page.

Phase 1 Intensity Volume Phase 2 Intensity Volume Phase 3 Intensity Volume

Reps 3x10 60-77% 30 3-5x5 80-87% 15-25 4-6x3 90-97% 12-18

Tempo Not generally dictated in American systems

One of the drawbacks of any form of periodization with beginners was that the percentages used were basically guesswork. The athletes generally had not been tested yet and even if tested the athlete would generally progress so rapidly in the early weeks that percentage projections quickly became inaccurate. For this reason we simply use PRE for all of our beginner programs with a 20 rep test at the end of week three. This lets us see if the prescribed loads have been too light and to make adjustments.

Bodybuilding Method

Luckily for us the bodybuilding method has rapidly fallen out of favor over the last decade as education in the field of strength and conditioning has progressed. Generally coaches using a

bodybuilding method to train their athletes were ex-bodybuilders who were simply using what they had learned in their own training to train athletes. This is an extremely inefficient method for athletes since bodybuilding, like powerlifting and Olympic lifting, is in fact a sport more than an actual training system. Bodybuilding is

characterized by high volume workouts generally broken down by body part. (i.e chest and back, legs and shoulders etc.)

Bodybuilding has very little athletic application and is often time consuming due to a multi-angular approach. Bodybuilding frequently results in misplaced emphasis as the aim of a

competitive bodybuilder is improved appearance, not improved

performance. Bodybuilding can also be extremely

counterproductive in those looking to lose weight as the high volume workouts will result in muscle hypertrophy. However,

bodybuilding may be helpful to athletes who need to gain additional mass.

Undulating Periodization

Undulating periodization was popularized in the US by Canadian strength coach Charles Poliquin. Poliquin published two very similar articles in the early eighties describing Undulating Periodization.

One article was titled, ”Five Steps to Improving Your Football Strength Program” and was published in the NSCA Journal.

Poliquin also published a similar article under the name “Variety in Strength Training” in a newsletter. The article content was nearly identical and quickly established Poliquin as an expert in the area of periodization of training.

The program described by Poliquin took the Stone model one step further. In the Stone model of linear periodization volume

decreased in a linear fashion while intensity increased in a linear manner. In the method Poliquin advocated, volume and intensity undulates over the course of the training cycle. Poliquin simply described the phases as either an Accumulation Phase ( i.e an accumulation of volume or time under tension) or an Intensification Phase ( increase in load). The Intensification Phase generally consisted of more sets, less exercises and reps in the 1 to 3 range.

The accumulation phase generally had more emphasis on variety and tempo. As a general rule of thumb, athletes would perform no more than six exercises per day done in three pairs. Workouts were designed to be done in one hour or less to limit cortisol build up.

Undulating periodization was characterized by three week phases with no unload weeks.

Poliquin was also the first strength coach in the US to popularize the concept of exercise tempo. Poliquin brought this concept from Australia according to some observers and wrote extensively about the concepts of tempo and time under tension as they related particularly to the Accumulation phase. Put simply, Poliquin stated that a ten rep set could be done in 20 seconds using a one second eccentric contraction and a one second concentric contraction. This would mean that the set generated 20 seconds of time under

tension for the muscle. Time under tension is simply a measure of how long the set lasts. This would be described as10 reps at a 1-0-1 tempo. One second down, one second up with no pause. Poliquin also correctly stated that any set could be made to generate

hypertrophic responses simply by increasing the time under tension. In other words 5 reps done at a 2-0-2 tempo would produce the same result as 10 reps done at 1-0-1. These articles were the first time that concepts like Undulating Periodization , tempo, and time under tension were introduced to the American strength and conditioning coach. The work of Stone and Poliquin caused quantum leaps forward in the world of strength and conditioning.

Four Phase Undulating Periodization

Phase 1 Intensity Volume Phase 2 Intensity Volume

Reps 3x8 60-77% 24 4-6x3 90-97% 12-18

Tempo varied, Eccentric/ Pause/ Concentric Ex. 3/1/1

Phase 3 Intensity Volume Phase 4 Intensity Volume Reps 3-5x5 80-87% 15-25 4-6x3 90-97% 12-18 Tempo varied, Eccentric/ Pause / Concentric Ex 3/1/1

Poliquin’s work in the ‘90s caused me to rewrite all of my workouts.

After contemplating the concept of paired exercises, the conclusion was obvious. Paired exercise sequences make better use of time.

In the Poliquin Method, practicality becomes an issue due to equipment availability. Care must be taken to make sure that athletes are pairing the correct exercises. More on that later.

The West Side System

In the current strength and conditioning world the favored system of the masses seems to be a Louie Simmons, West Side Barbell, approach centered around powerlifting style training. Although Mr.

Simmons has made some wonderful contributions to the field I cannot for a varied number of reasons advocate most of the methods. The reasons are simple:

• Although Mr. Simmons presents his training as evidence based and results based it may in fact be neither. There is no independent research I have seen which validates the training concepts advocated by Mr. Simmons.

• In fact most of the evidence that Mr. Simmons repeatedly points to is tainted by the use of performance enhancing drugs.

• The WestSide system is designed to produce powerlifters, not athletes. Powerlifting is a sport consisting of three lifts:

the squat, bench press and deadlift. The essence of the WestSide system revolves around improving these three lifts. The not-so-logical conclusion is that improvement in the three powerlifts leads to improved sports performance.

Although in a simplistic sense the improvement of force production will lead to some changes, our knowledge of functional anatomy leads us to conclude that training for sport must be more specific and improve strength quantities unique to the single leg nature of most sports.

On the other hand Simmons, like Stone and Poliquin, must be recognized for pushing the envelope and redefining the sport of powerlifting. Simmons’ ideas about speed of movement and

variable resistance were the first advances in training for strength in a long time. My objection to the variable resistance methods

proposed by Simmons does not lie in my belief that the methods don’t work but in practical concerns. Simmons’ two most significant contributions are in the use of bands and chains for variable

resistance. The chains are a great concept but are expensive and somewhat time-consuming. In simple terms, heavy chains are attached to the bar so that as the bar is lowered the chain gathers on the floor. In other words as the bar is lowered, the weight is being reduced by the amount of chain accumulating on the floor. As the bar is raised the weight increases as the chain comes off the floor. This is an ingenious concept of applying variable resistance to a free weight environment. This allows the load to more closely match the strength curve and allows the lifter to accelerate the bar.

However, for groups this can be impractical and somewhat expensive.

The other Simmons innovation is the use of heavy elastic bands to provide resistance that is again similar to the chain idea. Bands are anchored to the Power Rack and then placed around the bar ends.

As the load is lowered, the band decreases in elastic energy and the load becomes lighter. As the lifter raises the bar the load again increases due to the tension placed on the band. Again a free weight is used in a variable resistance environment. This is also a stroke of genius but requires a coach to not only purchase bands but more importantly to monitor the condition of the bands. A broken band in this situation could be disastrous. Simmons’

methods are brilliant but besides being empirical in nature they can be costly, time consuming and in the case of bands potentially dangerous. This does not discount the brilliance of the man but does make these methods somewhat questionable from a practicality standpoint.

The idea of using one sport like powerlifting or Olympic Lifting to train for any other sport is a well intentioned idea but, probably not a totally sound concept. Coaches may take some concepts from the WestSide Barbell school of thought to help an athlete improve in the bench press and may utilize concepts from the training of Olympic lifters to help an athlete improve in the hang clean, but all of these concepts must eventually meet to help the athlete to better produce and reduce force on one leg. A program of Olympic

weightlifting or powerlifting will not provide the proper musculo-skeletal stresses necessary to truly improve sport performance.

The critics will say that this is not true but I would rather say that it is half true. Athletes need to work in single leg environments unlike those contested in sports like Olympic lifting or powerlifting to most efficiently and effectively improve sport performance. Lifts like the squat, bench press and hang clean are part of the solution but, must be complemented with specific exercises to develop the single leg extension patterns of the hip and knee.

Olympic Lifting

Much like the West Side system, some coaches have adopted a philosophy based on the sport of Olympic weightlifting. Athletes are again taken and trained for another sport to hopefully improve their ability in their sport. This is no different than the West Side

approach. Olympic lifting is a sport and attempting to train athletes like Olympic weightlifters is often like putting a square per in a round hole. As I have often said, what makes a good Olympic weightlifter from a lever system standpoint may not make a great lineman or power forward.

High Intensity Training-

I’ve included some information about high intensity training because at other points in the book I have referred to it by name. High

intensity training or HIT, as it has come to be called, is the

brainchild of Nautilus inventor Arthur Jones and is an extremely interesting phenomenon in the world of strength and conditioning.

Although the system appears to have a limited basis in exercise physiology as I understand it, high intensity training has an extremely long history and a very loyal and dedicated following.

There are a few varieties of high intensity. Proponents range from professional strength and conditioning coaches who believe

strongly in the original Nautilus philosophy of one set to momentary muscular failure done on a circuit of 12 to 15 machines to guys like Ken Leistner and Stuart McRobert who advocate a similar

philosophy based around basic free weight movements. What all of the proponents of HIT share is a belief that less is more. I probably have more in common with these folks and have been more heavily influenced by them, than I would like to admit. The proponents of HIT believe in very hard, very brief work. The problem with this type of system is that there is a zeal that borders on fanaticism. HIT is in my mind a small but interesting splinter group in the world of

strength and conditioning that should be investigated before it is totally discounted. There is clearly a mental benefit to asking athletes to work to complete failure. I believe that the HIT system will work well in team sports settings where intrinsic motivation is an issue. My major point of disagreement with the proponents of HIT lies in their stance on power development. In HIT no power work is performed. Proponents believe that moving a load with speed is inherently dangerous. As a result neither plyometrics or Olympic lifts are used in HIT. My feeling is that the work of exercise

physiologists in the area of stretch-shortening cycle and the force velocity curve make this stance difficult to defend. Proponents of HIT believe that you lift for strength and then simply practice sport skills and that there is no neurological midground. Some

proponents of HIT, particularly in the college world, are beginning to utilize plyometrics to develop the stretch shortening cycle, although many of the early proponents saw no need for stretch-shortening exercises.

The reality is that no one system provides all the answers. I believe that a sound training program will take strength ideas from

powerlifting, power ideas from Olympic lifting, speed ideas from track, and injury prevention concepts from physical therapy. The integration of all these disciplines may lead to the ultimate program.

In any case the most important point in program design is to choose a system that you understand and choose exercises that you are comfortable teaching.