THE TRAINING DEFECT

It wasn’t too long ago a coach of one of the teams that I worked with came up to me to inquire (insert sarcasm here) about the protocol of one of my programs. He told me that the concern was that he thought the team wasn’t lifting heavy enough and that when he was playing that he had gotten stronger by lifting heavy. He also told me that my prescribed set, rep and percentage schemes were a little skeptical because from what he had been told they would have no training effect. Not having the patience or the inclination to repeat the explanation of the off-season program I asked that he give it a little more time before he and the rest of the staff assess the efficacy of the system.

In my experience this illustrates a common situation where one can focus on the training load and its misinterpreted training effect rather than the training potential of the loading and its long term, cumulative training effect. At the first mention of “strength” and “training effect” I should have asked the coach to clearly define each of the terms so that I could be sure of what he meant and how the program would be unable to achieve them both. Being the good guy I am I wasn’t about to humble his thoughts and was confident enough to let my athletes’ progress do the talking. To tell the truth I wasn’t upset with the questioning because it represents how the majority perceives lighter loads almost to the point of dismissal. Both strength and training effect are terms that have very complex and sometimes ambiguous meanings; just for a minute think of how many different forms of strength there are and how the training effect for an athlete should include much more than an increase in a maximum 1 rep lift. Lighter loads have a place in every training system that I build; do I prescribe them year round? No absolutely not, just as I would never advise a progressive overload system for 30 straight weeks, they should be inserted at specific points in the training cycle so that long term progress and effectiveness are maximized.

At the time of this I was dealing with a team with very raw and under developed physical attributes and dealing with time constraints that most collegiate S&C coaches face the decision to implement an undulated system based on loads that were roughly kept under 65% was an easy one. The first reason is that it teaches them how to correctly execute a lift and once technique is perfected then the weight will automatically increase. Try it with any athlete; ask him to squat at 50% and then at 90%. I guarantee there is a distinct difference. Reinforcing efficiencies of movement will be quite difficult if the lagging muscle groups are allowed to dictate the execution and will only impede their long term success if not addressed in the beginning of a training cycle. A coach must remember that because of the repetitive nature of lifting, conditioning an athlete to move incorrectly is unfortunately a very easy possibility. After correct postural alignment and technique reach proficient levels (which don’t take long) you can then focus on the speed of movement throughout the range of motion. There are a host of benefits from increasing the speed of execution when performing a lift but please keep in mind that form should never be compromised for either load on the bar or speed of the bar. With acceleration (both positive and negative) at its maximum more motor units will be recruited, which incidentally are the same motor units (Type II B) that are more apt for production of strength and hypertrophy gains. The coordination and synchronization of motor units during high speed lifts are also emphasized yielding enhanced efficiency on the neuromuscular level which will also contribute to all types of strength increases.

A complimentary aspect that I have found constructive is the set up of the rep schemes, I prefer to keep reps low for the bigger compound exercises in the range of 3-6 and aiming for total reps per compound movement around 24-30. The lower reps will support the concept of high speed movements and good technique which ensure the aforementioned advantages. This format allows convenient management of the athlete’s fatigue rate both in the short term and long term which if not accounted for can prove to be detrimental to the success rate of any athlete or team.

The idea that if you are not training heavy then you are not training hard is an obsolete mindset that too many athletes and coaches possess. The percent of load on the bar should never reflect the effort used to perform the lift, effort and intent should always be at its maximum. And maybe that is the most important quality that we can instill in all of our athletes: to approach, address and complete the task that lies ahead with everything we have.