The modern fitness era has brought a host of wearable technologies that can track extraordinary amounts of biological and physiological data. Perhaps the most commonly measured variable we see today is one’s heart rate.

This is certainly nothing new, as brands like Polar and Garmin have been around for decades providing wearable chest straps and watches for their users. We have always taken two fingers to locate our carotid (our neck) or radial (our wrist) pulses with ease.

Today, nearly everybody wears some Apple watch or Fitbit around their wrist to track changes in their pulse whether they are working out, sitting at their desk, or just asleep.

Heart Rate Affects Health and Performance

Understanding one’s heart rate can be rather useful, both from a health and performance standpoint.

• Resting heart rate can provide medical professionals insight into one’s health status for age and gender.
• In contrast, increases or decreases in exercise response provide fitness professionals feedback on one’s general fitness levels.
• Furthermore, we can use heart rate to set training zones and prescribe programs for increased aerobic fitness.
• Perhaps the most difficult part of the entire equation is understanding the maximum heart rate (MHR).

Even when wearing technology, MHR must often be manually entered to set proper training zones moving forward. It will track your heart rate and tell you if you’ve established a new MHR through training.

But it is extremely strenuous to train at or near MHR, and you can never be sure that the numbers provided aren’t some anomaly.

Source: The Redline: Getting Comfortable With Being Uncomfortable

Find Your Maximum Heart Rate?

The most commonly used method to determine MHR is by taking 220 and subtracting your age.

If you are 40 years old, then your estimated MHR would theoretically be 180 bpm.

Although some technologies are implementing more advanced methods for determining this variable, many still rely on this simple equation to predict.

While it is useful in the sense that it provides a quick and no-cost method to predict MHR, it does have some issues.

It does not account for one’s:

• Training status
• Body composition
• Health history
• Gender

People often get frustrated with this estimate because it does not align with their training or expectations of how their bodies should be responding when exercising.

Still, in reality, they should use it as a guiding compass. It is not the end all be all. In fact, there are other ways to estimate MHR.

Measuring Tools for MHR

The most accurate way to determine MHR is through a VO2 peak treadmill test, but unfortunately, it is rather time-consuming, and not everybody has access to that technology.

Fortunately, some other methods and equations appear more accurate than 220 minus age for the MHR estimate.

A 2012 research study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research¹ compared the relative accuracy of three equations against a VO2 peak treadmill test in overweight or obese adults, including three equations:

1. 220 – age
2. 208 – 0.7 x age
3. 200 – 0.48 x age

The researchers found that the 220 – age equation overestimated MHR by an average of 5 bpm, while the 200 – 0.48 x age equation estimated MHR within 2 bpm, and the 208 – 0.7 x age equation proved most accurate.

We must understand that although the research I’ve discussed used a relatively large sample size (n = 132), it is only one study and did not look at athletic populations, therefore it is still difficult to say which equation is the best one of all.

There are methods to determine training heart rate (THR), such as the Karvonen method, and we know that a VO2 treadmill test will provide us with the best results of all, but we must accept the fact again that these are all estimates.

MHR and Response to Physical Training

My suggestion to anybody struggling to nail down their MHR truly is to use multiple methods and monitor your training results.

One formula may prove to be more accurate than another in your case, but how you respond to training will give you the greatest insights into your aerobic capacity and unique heart rate.

Lastly, if you are still truly interested in being as accurate as possible, research nearby exercise physiology laboratories and see if you can schedule an appointment to do a treadmill test.

It could be worth the investment.

Reference

1. Franckowiak, Shawn C., Dobrosielski, Devon A., Reilley, Suzanne M., Walston, Jeremy D., Andersen, Ross E., “Maximal heart rate prediction in adults that are overweight or obese,” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: May 2011, Volume 25, Issue 5, p1407-1412.

The post Understanding Maximum Heart Rate appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

When it comes to high-rep hypertrophy and endurance training, the body will ultimately discontinue work due to your intolerance to bear the high level of hydrogen accumulation or the accumulation of lactic acid.

A common misconception in strength training is that every set must be taken to muscular failure to yield a positive adaption.

When it comes to high-rep hypertrophy and endurance training, the body will ultimately discontinue work due to your intolerance to bear the high level of hydrogen accumulation or the accumulation of lactic acid.

This is a natural process, as the body is protecting itself from excessive muscle damage.

When it comes to low-rep, maximal-strength work (1-3 reps), the body discontinues work due to the inability to recruit muscle fibers for the job adequately.

In certain situations, carrying sets of exercises to repetition failure are advantageous, such as 1 rep max testing or short microcycles that aim to increase one’s maximal strength.

In most cases, however, training to failure is both unnecessary and detrimental to performance.²

Rarely, if ever, do I have my athletes or clients go to failure when training a heavy compound multi-joint movement.

Should You Train to Failure?

Unfortunately, the notion that training to failure is necessary for performance gains has surfaced over the last several decades.

Advocates of this style often cite that it is necessary to drive adaption and push the limits, paying homage to the old no pain no gain adage.

This couldn’t be further from the truth, and the most effective methods are often less complicated than one is led to believe.

The issue with training to absolute failure in maximal strength is that it causes neural fatigue and disruptions in resting hormonal concentrations.¹

I see most 1 rep max tests from novices, intermediates, and even some advanced athletes. Their performance deviates far from anything I’d consider technical.

The range of motion often shortens dramatically, and they often end up looking like more of a survival attempt than a lift.

Athletes who push themselves to the point of failure, session after session, set themselves up for the inability to properly recover and repeat high performance over the next few days.

In a phase where one seeks to gain strength, they will become fatigued and weaker if they consistently push to failure weekly. Additionally, this can lead to injury and retraction from strength training altogether.

The label that lifting heavy makes them stiff, tired, and hurt when, in reality, they never followed a properly structured plan.

When seeking hypertrophy or muscular endurance, reaching absolute failure is less detrimental from an injury, hormonal, and neuromuscular standpoint; however, it is still unnecessary.

It can lead to overuse, excessive muscular damage, and other similar peripheral issues.

Train Smarter

If you resist the urge to bury yourself and always push for that last rep, you will find the results rather pleasant.

• The most effective method of training is the incorporation of the idea of RIR, Reps In Reserve.
• This means that when you are working at a percentage of your 1 rep max, say 85%; you should theoretically complete four reps with a fifth attempt failing.
• Rather than pushing for four reps at 85% of your 1 rep max, the idea should aim for two or three technically sound reps.
• This is a continuum that can be implemented with nearly any rep range.

In 2011, the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science for Sport and Exercise presented a study³ that displayed two subjects doing squats at ~80% of their 1 rep max.

• Subject 1 quit squatting with the weight when his movement velocity decreased by 20% (leaving more RIR), and Subject 2 quit squatting when his movement velocity decreased by 40% (leaving less RIR).³
• These two subjects followed the program for several weeks, and the results were astonishing.³ Despite Subject 2 completing more overall work and pushing himself closer to failure; he sustained a significantly lower gain in strength than did Subject 1, who quit each set earlier to failure.³

This means that strength training should always be performed with technical proficiency and that in most cases, pushing to failure is unnecessary or even detrimental.

Obviously, certain situations will be different in novice versus experienced trainees; however, the general takeaway is the same.

How to Structure Training:

Once you can accept that going too heavy too often is a recipe for disaster, you are likely left wondering what to do instead.

Training with extremely light weights and low intensities is certainly not the answer either, as you will make no progress and eventually regress.

Training hard while training smart is what I preach to my athletes and clients.

Maintaining a disciplined schedule with perfect technical execution and a strong emphasis on recovery will yield the best results.

Training Programs

One of my favorite ways to layout training is through a method developed by Dr. Mike Stone of East Tennessee State University.

To keep his volume and intensity checked with his programs, he implements a system of loading prescriptions on a very light, light, moderately light, moderate, moderately heavy, heavy, and very heavy termed basis.

These terms are certainly not arbitrary, and instead, have a direct correlation to a range of load percentages as follows:

Dr. Stone then uses these numbers to lay out his program weekly, with each day being labeled appropriately to correspond with what the overall intensity for each lift will be that day.

Click the chart below:

As you can see in this picture, each week is displayed directly under each exercise, as well as the number of sets and reps that correspond with it.

• For example, taking the incline bench press, you can see that three sets of ten reps are prescribed at a moderately lightweight on week one.
• In this case, the person would perform the lift with a load equivalent to 75-80% of their 10-rep max, resting two minutes between sets.

This method does cater to the RIR paradigm previously discussed and allows the individual to work with a 5% range for that given exercise on that given day, depending on how they are feeling.

Furthermore, the intensity shows a steady increase over the course of three weeks, peaking at a moderately heavy intensity and unloading on the fourth week at a light intensity.

This is only one way to organize your training, but it is certainly a fundamental pattern to programming using a periodization strategy.

Remember to train intelligently and understand that sometimes the adage less is more can still reign true.

Training is not meant to break you; it is a tool to increase your capacity to perform.

There is a time and place to empty the tank and display your absolute end degrees of strength; however, nobody ever wins a weight room training championship.

They let it all out on the court or field.

Think about what your current training looks like and how you can implement a better strategy. Be honest with yourself and question whether you may be going too hard and falling prey to the pain and gain trap.

Train hard, but train smart.

References:

1. Ahtiainen, J. P., & Häkkinen, K., “Strength Athletes Are Capable to Produce Greater Muscle Activation and Neural Fatigue During High-Intensity Resistance Exercise Than Nonathletes.” The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2009, 23(4), 1129-1134.

2. Martorelli, S., Cadore, E. L., Izquierdo, M., Celes, R., Martorelli, A., Cleto, V., Alvarenga, J., & Bottaro, M., “Strength Training with Repetitions to Failure does not Provide Additional Strength and Muscle Hypertrophy Gains in Young Women.” European Journal of Translational Myology, 2017. 27(2).

3. Sanchez-Medina, L., & González-Badillo, J. J., “Velocity Loss as an Indicator of Neuromuscular Fatigue during Resistance Training.” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2011. 43(9), 1725-1734.

The post Are You the One Sabotaging Your Gains? appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

A misconception is that weight training and weightlifting (yes, these are two separate entities, more on that later) are dangerous activities and are to blame for several injuries that occur in the gym.

From a young age, parents will often elect safer activities for their children to participate in over resistance training for fear of a traumatic injury occurring. Even worse, individual coaches and athletes well into their professional and collegiate careers opt-out of resistance training for fear of it, making them too slow or bulky.

Unfortunately, abstaining from resistance training ultimately does the body more harm than good, and is not the culprit. There isn’t any question that poor exercise technique can result in injury; however, the chances of that occurring are unlikely, particularly with proper instruction.

Don’t miss out on the extraordinary performance benefits that lifting provides because of the fear of a rare injury. Every day that you drive your car, you run the risk of getting into an accident, but that doesn’t stop you from driving. It also applies to weight training and weightlifting.

Taking the proper steps to learn sound techniques will enhance athletic performance at low risk.

Safety Rankings

To be clear, weight-training is any resistance training that takes place with machines, implements, or weights, while weightlifting is the Olympic sport that includes the snatch and clean and jerk explicitly.

Both modalities include a wide array of exercises, but together they cover resistance training.

Regarding the safety of these two activities, they are some of the safest sports in which one can participate. Weightlifting, as previously mentioned, is a sport in itself, but weight training includes powerlifting, bodybuilding, or any other type of exercise to improve physical fitness.

A 1994 research study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research¹ examined the relative safety of both weight training and weightlifting in comparison to many sporting activities, including:

• Rugby
• Football
• Tennis
• Cross country
• Soccer
• Volleyball

The results showed that per 100 participation training hours, weight training had the second-lowest injury rate and weightlifting had the lowest, an amazingly low 0.0035 and 0.0017 rate, respectively.¹

The aforementioned safer option most parents elect to place their children in, soccer, topped the list at 6.2 injuries per 100 training hours.

Unfortunately, individuals are so quick to write off any type of resistance training due to unjustified fear.

While I still believe children should participate in a wide variety of sports, this evidence demonstrates that children and adults, for that matter, should by no means avoid any resistance training unless clearly stated by their physician.

Do You Have Self-Imposed Limitations?

One of the most significant issues I am confronted with when training a new athlete or client is the limitations they bring to the table before our first meeting.

• They may have heard that squatting is bad for their knees.
• They refuse to lift anything heavy because they believe it will injure them despite the data demonstrating otherwise.

My absolute favorite quote to that point is by Brett Contreras, who once said,

“If you think lifting weights is dangerous, try being weak. Being weak is dangerous.”

– Brett Contreras

While I digress, he does make a fantastic point. Previous injury, health issues, and paranoia are no excuse to avoid resistance training altogether.

Now I must preface this by saying that your doctors and medical health care providers always know the best way more than somebody like myself, so please listen to them first.

The point I make is that if you have a fused spine and they tell you to never back squat again, that doesn’t mean to never squat again in any capacity. (Unless explicitly stated by your doctor. Also, listen to them, not me). It merely means do so in a more intelligent way.

Giant newsflash, you will have to squat to get up and down from a chair or toilet at some point in your life again, might as well learn how to do it right. Falling prey to the assumption that herniated discs and torn ligaments are imminent when undertaking lifting modalities is close-minded.

Everybody should be able to:

• Squat
• Hinge
• Press
• Pull
• Carry
• Lunge

They should be able to do each of these functions with some type of resistance at any age, especially if high-level athletic performance is the goal.

Barbell Squats

Take the barbell squat as our example; it is undoubtedly the king of all exercises, but it is not always appropriate for everyone. It’s important to remember that we are loading this movement pattern to facilitate a particular adaptation in an athlete to prepare for their sport.

If one variation does not match up with what they are physically capable of, find another way.

Here are three significant variations.

1. The Goblet Squat

Goblet Squat: Once an athlete can demonstrate the sound technique in the squat pattern with their body weight, they can quickly move on to the kettlebell or dumbbell goblet squat.

Those who need to refrain from axial loading due to a previous injury or being relatively a novice can gain a lot from this movement as the anterior load forces one to maintain an upright posture.

2. The Front Squat

Front Squat: If an athlete demonstrates the sound technique in the front squat and requires more significant loading than what the goblet squat provides, another great variation of the squat is the barbell front squat. Similar to the goblet squat, it forces an athlete to use proper core stability to ensure they are maintaining posture.

3. The Zercher Squat

Zercher Squat: This squat variation is a significantly underused one. It serves as s great substitute or a workaround to the front/back squat variations when one may have a wrist injury or something similar.

Athletes who cannot physically grip a bar will often fall behind in their training because they can’t do any of the big three conventional movements:

1. The back squat
2. The deadlift
3. The bench press

Supplementing this issue with the Zercher squat can make a huge difference.

Age and Safety

I’ve worked with clients well into their 70s, 80s, and even 90s that can move more weight than they did when they were young because they put in the effort to improve themselves.

Athletes who come to me as freshmen in high school and can’t squat correctly with more than their body-weight often cap their senior year by squatting double their body weight.

With the right programming and a little discipline, significant gains can occur.

The earlier one incorporates training into their life, the better off they’ll be, mainly when they are young and can pick skills up quickly.

Most people wish they would have learned a foreign language as a child when it quickly becomes second nature, but unfortunately, every year that goes by, it becomes increasingly difficult.

The same applies to movement and training; learning to lift young and lift often ingrains healthy habits into your life that reach well beyond athletic performance.

If an athlete hears that they could take a pill guaranteed to increase their athletic performance while reducing their relative risk for an injury, I can’t imagine one that would not take it.

When it comes to resistance training, that is what they are getting, yet some still refuse to engage.

I believe that this comes from a severe lack of misinformation and a lack of guidance.

If you are a coach reading this, help your athletes understand the massive benefits that a good training program can have, and if you are an athlete reading this, make sure you train, you’ll thank your coaches later.

Reference:

1. Hamill, B. P., “Relative safety of weightlifting and weight training.” J Strength Cond Res, 1994, 8(1), 53-57.

The post How Does Resistance Training Rank in Terms of Safety? appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

Most people are somewhat familiar with the association between exercise reps ranges and their targeted effect on the body during resistance training. The heaviest load one can lift at a given weight correlates with maximal strength, while anything one can do above 20 times or more clearly signifies muscular endurance.

Somewhere between these two ends of the spectrum, however, lies muscular hypertrophy. Some coaches and trainers contend that ten reps are the magic number, while others believe a range of 8-12 is more accurate. So, what is it? Will I grow huge biceps if I do 4 sets of 8 or 3 sets of 12?

Quite honestly, it doesn’t matter, there is no magic window, and the answer is more complicated than one may think.

How Does One Gain Muscle?

While you might already be scratching your head wondering why rep ranges aren’t as big of a deal for gaining muscle as you’d previously thought, it’s important to understand how muscular hypertrophy occurs in the first place.

There are three main ways that one can enhance muscle protein synthesis via the mTOR pathway resulting in an increased muscle cross-sectional area.¹

1. The first way is through increased muscular tension, which occurs through using a heavy load while performing an exercise through a full range of motion. As a muscle spends more time under a given weight, and then the load increases, this increases the time under tension (TUT).² Through the use of slower tempos, pauses, and increased weight, one can dramatically increase their TUT in a given exercise.
2. The second method to increasing muscular hypertrophy is through muscular damage, most often associated with severe soreness or the delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) one feels multiple days after a hard training session.²
   This soreness occurs because of small micro-tears within the muscle fibers themselves, especially during eccentric and concentric muscle contractions. When given adequate time to recover and proper nutrition, the muscle fibers repair themselves and allow one to handle a slightly more significant stimulus the next time around.
3. The third method with which muscular hypertrophy occurs is through metabolic stress. This stress often occurs through the use of lighter weights at a higher given rep range and is associated with the burning sensation one feels while lifting.²
   As the muscles continuously contract and relax, blood pools and muscle cell swelling occurs.¹ This metabolic stress restricts blood flow and ultimately induces muscle hypoxia, which in turn, allows for the metabolites, such as lactate and hydrogen ions, to build. These metabolites induce an anabolic effect, which leads to molecular cell signaling for increased hormonal responses on the body.

Each of these three methods plays off of one another and should be used in a complementary fashion to yield the best training results possible.

What Matters

Understanding what drives muscular hypertrophy from a physiological standpoint easily explains why subscribing to an arbitrary rep range is sub-optimal for training.

Through the manipulation of the three previously mentioned variables, one can control the volume load they are training with, which is perhaps one of the most important considerations of all when seeking muscular hypertrophy.

Volume load is a simple formula that you can calculate as:

Sets x Reps x Load = Volume Load

Increasing volume load through a properly periodized program will ensure that more significant stimulus is being placed on the body and ultimately driving adaption.

Take, for example, the previously mentioned reps/sets count of 4 x 8 or 3 x 12. If I lifted 4 sets x 8 reps x 100 lbs, that would be 3,200 lbs versus 3 sets x 12 reps x 100 lbs, which would be 3,600 lbs.

My 3 x 12 would likely yield more significant results with all things being equal, such as tempo and TUT, because it’s a larger stimulus.

Now imagine that I did 4 sets x 8 reps x 150 lbs = 4,800 lbs, versus 3 sets x 12 reps x 120 lbs = 4,320 lbs. Theoretically, my 4 x 8 would be better for muscular hypertrophy.

You can see that the rep range is only one factor in the equation, meaning that increased volume load can be achieved in a variety of ways with no magic rep range genuinely existing.

What is interesting, however, is that somewhere in the 8-12 rep range still appears optimal for inducing muscular hypertrophy because it strikes a balance between moderate weight at a reasonably high rep range.³

Attempting to do 50 reps with 10 lbs will only result in a 500 lbs volume load, whereas 5 reps at 100 lbs could achieve the same result in less time.

Conversely, it would take 10 sets of 1 repetition at 300 lbs to reach 3,000 lbs.

In contrast, 3 sets of 10 repetitions at 100 lbs would equal the same volume load despite it requiring a much more extended rest period between sets for the 300 lbs single repetition sets.

Remember, however, that this relates to muscular hypertrophy. Volume load, while necessary for muscular strength, does not play nearly the same role as it does for gaining muscle.

Additionally, one can only handle so much volume before one will inadequately recover. That is another article for another day.

All in all, I hope that you have a greater understanding of how muscular hypertrophy occurs and how you can manipulate your training. You mustn’t get stuck in a dogmatic routine following an arbitrary rep count simply because that’s what you’ve always thought was best.

Doing a little research and digging for more in-depth answers is vital if you truly want to get a grasp on how training works. Thank you for reading, as always.

References:

1. J Jones E, Bishop P, K Woods A, and Green J. “Cross-sectional area and muscular strength: a brief review.” Sports Medicine (Auckland, NZ) 38: 987-994, 2008.

2. Hornsby WG, Gentles JA, Haff GG, Stone MH, Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, Bell ZW, Abe T, and Loenneke JP. “What is the impact of muscle hypertrophy on strength and sport performance?” Strength & Conditioning Journal40: 99-111, 2018.

3. P. Loenneke J, Dankel S, Bell Z, Buckner S, Mattocks K, Jessee M, and Abe T. “Is muscle growth a mechanism for increasing strength?” Medical Hypotheses 125, 2019.

The post Is There a Magical Rep Range for Hypertrophy? appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

Effective training plans are founded on layers of intricate planning, preparation, and implementation. It is not enough to simply throw a template program at a group of athletes and walk away in hopes that after eight weeks, they will somehow magically improve. Coaches must take the time to assess what is happening along the way as well as to make the necessary changes as they see fit.

Anybody can be the artist of a program that smokes their athletes, but the best coaches serve as the guiding compass to steering the program in the right direction and provide the optimal stimulus. Monitoring techniques are unquestionably essential to the framework of any high-level sports performance program.

Why We Monitor

To understand why it is critical to monitor your athletes and their training, it is helpful to ask yourself what would happen if you didn’t watch? No monitoring means no understanding of how athletes are responding to training from an analytical standpoint, period.

Some coaches believe they can use their coaching eye and assume what is going on with their athletes, thus monitoring is seen as a waste of time. While I do believe it is important to use some intuition and get a deep understanding of your athletes, planning your programming around perceptual techniques is a recipe for disaster.

Monitoring allows us to evaluate stress responses to individual training sessions or a series of sessions (more on this later). Furthermore, it provides us with information that can help drive decision making and guide the training process. We can get an idea of how hard an athlete is working, what their recovery looks like, and even their potential risk for injury.¹

Not only does monitoring guide training and provide information about our athletes, but it also validates the approaches and methods we use. By testing and monitoring performance, we can determine if our programming is working and netting positive performance gain.

Besides game day performance, this is one of the only other ways we can validate ourselves as performance specialists, sports coaches, athletic directors, and athletes alike so that we can maintain a job. It is a competitive environment out there, and if you can’t prove that you’re getting better, then many will just assume you’re getting worse.

What To Monitor

It can’t go without saying that when it comes to monitoring, more is not always better.

One should not collect data for the sole purpose of doing so with zero intention of utilizing that data. The monitoring must enhance the effectiveness of the training, make logical sense, and provide reliable information related to the specifics of the athlete’s training.

It must be specific to the age, sex, sporting event, training age, performance level, and injury status of the athlete. It must also be easy to present to coaches and athletes.²

There is simply not enough time to collect data for the sake of doing so, as it can become very distracting and take away from valuable training time when inappropriately applied. Implementing the least amount of monitoring for the most maximal results is paramount.

Monitoring the training and performance of athletes can fundamentally be broken into two categories:

1. Internal load
2. External load

The internal load represents the athlete’s physiological and psychological responses to the physical stimulus, whereas the external load is simply the applied training stimulus.¹

It is important to note that the training load reaches far beyond the sets and reps we prescribe in the weight room. It encompasses all of the athlete’s training session from sports practices to competitions, and conditioning sessions.

Within the training load paradigm, we have a dose-response relationship that can be classified under:

• Acute training effects – Acute training effects can be conceptualized as instantaneous or immediate effects such as a spike in heart rate during a sprint.
• Immediate training effects – Immediate training effects are those that occur from an individual training session, such as a change in the testosterone to cortisol ratio post-workout.
• Cumulative training effects – Lastly, cumulative training effects are the physiological or motor/technical responses one gets from a series of training sessions or a training plan.

It is important to understand what each piece is and what it entails because they all assist in creating an effective athlete monitoring program.

How To Monitor

Once you understand the different pieces that come into play regarding athlete monitoring, you can begin collecting data. As previously mentioned, it is important to gather information on both the internal training load and the external training load.

If we do this, we can determine what effect our external training load is having on the internal training load of our athletes.

External Training Load

There are dozens upon dozens of variables that we can choose to monitor when looking at external training load. For example, we can track the number of:

• Jumps
• Sprints
• Distance covered
• Weight lifted
• Velocity
• Power
• Speed

The key is in choosing the right variables to track specific to the athlete with which you are working.³

A soccer player may benefit from GPS monitoring that tracks the distance they cover, and a total number of accelerations during a game, whereas that would be rather useless for a competitive weightlifter.

Having an idea of the global training stimulus is key, but when it comes to the weight-room, we can certainly get a little more specific.

One of the keys to building a successful resistance training program is via tracking the volume load that occurs. The most basic form of doing so is by taking:

The Sets x Reps x Load = Volume Load

Different equations exist that look more specifically at a percentage of repetition maximum. Still, the real key is to consistently use one equation and use it across all strength training sessions to track the total amount of work being done.

Employing this method allows coaches to correlate the amount of work their athletes are doing with the overall goal of the training week or month.

It is easy to see why blindly prescribing reps and sets is a recipe for disaster, as a targeted amount of work is what will consistently drive adaption. Sometimes it’s more, sometimes it’s less, but it oscillates, which allows athletes to train, accumulate fatigue, recover, and repeat.

Internal Training Load

Similar to external training load, there is quite a vast array of variables one can measure to gather detail on the internal training load.

Heart rate (HR) and heart rate reserve (HRV) are two extremely common methods as they are easy to gather, Adversely, blood lactate and hormonal responses can be a little more challenging to assemble.

Internal training load paints a beautiful picture of how an athlete is responding to training and their recoverability. We can generally assume that the higher one’s heart rate is during aerobic exercise, the harder they are working. Similarly, HRV has been popularized as a method to determine training readiness and recovery.

While I am a fan of tracking internal load measures when appropriate, a major problem arises when we try to use one method across multiple training modalities.

Using heart rate as a measure of work and fatigue on a tempo run may be an excellent choice, but a heavy squat session with short intermittent bursts of work is quite different.

A method that has been popularized and used to combat this issue is Session Rate of Perceived Exertion or sRPE. sRPE allows athletes to rate a session on a scale of 1-10 in difficulty, which, then, allows us to go back and multiply that by the duration of the session and derive a score. If, for example, an athlete did:

• A 30-minute conditioning session at an RPE of 5, they would have a training load score of 150 arbitrary units (AU).
• If they then had a 60-minute weights session later that day and rated it as an RPE of 8, that would give them a training load score of 480 (AU).
• Adding those together would display that for the day, their training load score was 630 (AU).

This method is quite helpful because it synchronizes multiple methods of training and makes them somewhat compatible in terms of our understanding of the way they are affecting the athlete. We can look at things such as their acute to chronic workload ratio and determine how they are responding to the intended training stimulus.

While I do use this method with some of my athletes, I’ll be the first to admit that it has some flaws. It is somewhat subjective by nature, and some athletes do not have enough experience to rate the difficulty of their sessions accurately.

Different personality types will rate sessions differently depending on the mindset and motivation of a given athlete. While not perfect, it certainly offers an alternative method for tracking internal training load.

Wrap-Up

We know that training is a revolving door of numerous variables, some of which we can control and others we cannot. It is vital to have a firm understanding of not only how to implement a training plan, but also how to track and change it over time.

Implementing monitoring into your athlete programs will ensure that you are steering things in the right direction and making the appropriate changes when necessary. Remember to only track what’s needed and get rid of what is not. Use monitoring as a means to enhance your programming, not detract from it.

References:

1. Haff, G.G. “Quantifying Workloads in Resistance Training: A Brief Review.” Professional Strength and Conditioning 10. Autumn (2010): 31–40. Web.

2. Robertson, S. “Red, Amber, or Green? Athlete Monitoring in Team Sport: The Need for Decision-Support Systems.” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 12 (2017): 73–79. Web.

3. McGuigan, M. “Monitoring training and performance in athletes.” Human Kinetics. 2017.

The post Keys to Monitor An Athlete’s Workload appeared first on Breaking Muscle.

The theory of periodization is rooted in Hans Selye’s General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS), which includes three primary stages: alarm reaction, resistance, and exhaustion.¹⁵

A considerable amount of research has been conducted on the concept of periodization and its function in organizing training programs, particularly for eliciting athletic performance gains.

The theory of periodization is rooted in Hans Selye’s General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS), which includes three primary stages: alarm reaction, resistance, and exhaustion.¹⁵

In line with the GAS theory, exercise stress induces an alarm reaction, promotes adaptation, results in a performance plateau, and necessitates rest prior to the introduction of further training.¹⁰

Continued training stress without adequate recovery periods, however, results in exhaustion and overtraining.¹³

Understanding these principles support that periodized programs are often superior in producing strength, power, endurance, and hypertrophy gains when compared to non-periodized programs.⁷

Cyclical variations in volume, intensity, frequency, and specificity allow trainees to reach peak levels of performance for athletic competitions.⁹

Periodization employs phases of general and specific dedicated training blocks subdivided into macrocycle (annual or quadrennial plan for Olympic athletes), mesocycles (a month or multiple months), and microcycles (a week or multiple weeks).

The manner in which these phases are systematically structured depend on the desired training outcomes, method of periodization chosen, and important competition dates.¹⁸

A number of strategies are often used in designing training programs including block strategies, concurrent strategies, concentrated strategies, and conjugate strategies, to name a few.²⁰

Unique terminology and overlapping philosophies within each strategy lead sports scientists, coaches, and athletes to debate the most effective method for training. It is essential that individuals understand the majority of these strategies are similar to one another and categorized as either traditional (linear), block, or undulating (non-linear) by nature.

Factors that influence the most effective periodization method to be chosen are the athlete’s capabilities, time availability, competition season, training resources, and sport profile.

The Role of Periodization

Periodization was cited in Eastern Europe for decades prior to integrating into Western culture as a foreign idea with limited prior research to support its application.^8,18

Seminal researchers and practitioners such as Boris Kotov and G. Birsin have subdivided training into general, preparatory, and specific training periods with the understanding that fluctuating volume and intensity is necessary to drive adaption.⁹

It was agreed early on that as major competition neared, training modalities should shift from general to specific and increased intensity coincides with decreased volume. Periodization is necessary to reduce overtraining potential, peak at an appropriate time for major competitions, and provide maintenance within sporting seasons.²¹

The effects that result from calculated resistance training methods are dose-dependent and must be carefully structured so that trainees functionally overreach, recover, and display new-found fitness levels.⁵

Progressive resistance training models that involve no periods of reduced volume, frequency, and intensity demonstrate serious risk for injury and burnout.¹²

A Medline search of literature from 1979 to 2009 discussing periodized and non-periodized methods of strength training, further demonstrates that periodized strength training plans are superior in performance outcomes when compared to non-periodized programs.¹⁶

The literature and conclusions based within them support that organizing resistance training through fluctuating volume and intensity is necessary to elicit the greatest performance gains.

The method of periodization employed in combination with the training experience of the subjects appears to greatly affect the results. The greatest strength gains seen from most periodized training programs do not take place until 8 weeks or more, thus the impact each model has cannot be fully understood until longer interventions take place.⁷

Furthermore, patterns and variants of training are greatly impacted by the level of athletes (e.g. novice or advanced) in combination with the time of year (e.g. wave-like patterns and in-season periods).³

Some research studies equate volume as well as provide control groups to make comparisons across methods while others do not, thus the recommendations one can get in the literature can be confusing.

Strategies used to manipulate the volume and intensity of training by Rosenblatt (Table 1) can be particularly useful. ²⁰

The Traditional Method

The traditional method of periodization develops one physical quality after another in a sequential process, progressing from general to specific and high volume low intensity to low volume high-intensity phases.²⁰

Typically, this is seen by moving through extended linear periods of training, targeting physiological qualities such as hypertrophy, strength, and power in succession for extended periods of time.

Ultimately coaches attempt to peak their athletes for a major competition which is accepted as the most important part of preparation. Leading into the major competition, coaches will taper their athletes by dramatically reducing volume and intensity in order to recover.²⁰

An advantage to this methodology of training is that it is predictable and an obvious training progression of physical development is present.²⁰

It is one of the earliest forms of organized training and has been used by coaches for decades. Numerous coaches contend, however, that this model is not optimal for athletes who require multiple peaks within a competition season and negative interactions may occur from non-compatible workloads inducing conflicting training responses.¹³

Additionally, training that is 3-4 weeks of continual exhaustive and intensive linear weeks can induce significant stress responses that are difficult to recover from when athletes are at or near their upper threshold of biological adaption.¹³

Thus, this method may not prove to be efficacious for elite level or highly trained athletes.

Several studies support that no differences between strength, hypertrophy, endurance, and power are seen when implementing traditional periodization interventions in comparison to either block or undulating methods.

However a research study in 2011 comparing traditional and weekly undulating periodized strength training methods in 42 recreationally active young looked at strength gains in the 10RM back squat and bench press over 8 weeks, 12 weeks, and at baseline finding that although both groups made strength increases, the traditional group was significantly stronger than the undulating group at week 8 and 12 of the intervention.²

The rationale behind this difference may be that undulating models promote extended periods of muscle soreness and accumulate fatigue at a greater rate than the traditional method, particularly with extended training periods.²

Although Vladimir Issurin contends that traditional periodization can lead to overtraining in advanced athletes, this did not appear to be the case within this study as subjects were recreational and the undulating model appeared to induce greater overall fatigue.¹³

Sweeping generalizations can be made neither for nor against the use of traditional periodization, due to the fact that mixed results occur within the literature and further research is necessary to fully understand the breadth of this method most appropriate use.

Undulating Periodization

Undulating periodization is represented by several different training modalities, most notably are the daily, weekly, and conjugate methods.

Daily undulating periodization (DUP) involves variety in training focus or stimulus day to day whereas weekly undulating periodization (WUP) targets a specific training goal per microcycle or week of training.²⁰

Conjugate training slightly differs in that it attempts to train several complimentary physical qualities (e.g. strength and power) at once or within a given microcycle.²⁰

This method was originally developed by Professor Yuri Verkoshansky and has continued to be altered over time by coaches such as Louie Simmons of Westside Barbell who employs the use of “maximum effort” upper and lower body days early in the week, followed by “dynamic effort” upper and lower body days later in the week in order to address both the force and velocity necessary to induce adaption for strength gain.²⁰

Globally speaking, undulating periodization methods tend to fall under the same scope of practice despite variance in each exact prescription.

What is interesting is that volume load is often higher in undulating models compared to block models, proposing that block methods are more efficient at producing strength gains.¹⁷

The majority of the research studies favoring undulating periodization are shorter in duration (6-9 weeks) compared to those that do not display a difference or find inferior results to other methods.

Early phases of training do not appear to be greatly affected by the chosen method of periodization, however, it is proposed that when training interventions extend beyond 8 or more weeks, accumulation of fatigue through the undulating model inhibits strength and power gains compared to other methods, ^{2, 6, 7, 11, 13, 19}

The underlying mechanisms behind this is related to excessive muscle soreness, hormonal fluctuations, and glycogen depletion.

While the research demonstrates mixed reviews on the efficacy of undulating periodization, it has been proposed as being beneficial for reducing training monotony and introducing training variety to a program.¹

Additionally, when time constraints do not allow extended periods of consecutive sequential training blocks, undulating periodization may offer athletes and coaches an opportunity to train multiple qualities at once.⁷

Employing undulating periodization for brief bouts, and at different times throughout the training year may be a viable option when appropriately applied. Its results appear promising in the short term, but careful consideration must be given prior to employing this method long term.

Block Periodization

Block periodization is a commonly used method of training that links sequential blocks of highly concentrated mesocycles.²⁰

It was originally developed to service athletes who require peaking multiple times throughout a competitive season, which can be extremely difficult.²⁰

Typically, it is broken into three distinct mesocycle which are accumulation, transmutation, and realization. Accumulation can be thought of as the phase which develops general physical qualities (e.g. hypertrophy and endurance) carrying long term residual training effects.²⁰

Transmutation follows the accumulation cycle, and uses concentrated doses of training to target sports specific qualities.²⁰

The final phase that follows transmutation is the realization phase, which sees significant reductions in volume and training stress in order to allow fitness to be displayed.²⁰

This method of periodization is founded on the residual training effect model, which allows athletes to develop a physical quality while maintaining the benefits of previously gained physical qualities in the prior training block, ultimately readdressing them before they become detrained.

As previously mentioned, the benefits of block periodization address the need for athletes to peak multiple times within a competition season as well as maintain physical qualities gained in the offseason.

Athletes in sports involving major competitions on a regularly scheduled basis benefit from block periodization due to the fact that programming can maximize expression of desired physical qualities at their highest levels when needed most with little interference from the training program and the fatigue that comes with it.¹⁴

An important note on training residuals is that concentration, load, age of the athlete, and duration of training directly correlate with the density and duration that the physical qualities will be held.¹⁴

This is key, as block periodization can be scaled to fit training time constraints and suit athletes at multiple different levels of training experience, particularly advanced athletes, who may suffer from conflicting metabolic and hormonal responses when altering training stimulus dramatically on a daily basis.¹³

Implementation

With literature to both support and dismiss the training effects associated with each respective periodization strategy, coaches should make informed and intelligent decisions when selecting a method to implement.

Various periodization models can be strategically sequenced across an entire macrocycle, thus subscribing to a singular model is unnecessary. Dr. Dan Baker has developed an informative article detailing the practicality of different periodization methods along with recommendations for proper implementation.³

It is extremely useful because each method is specifically broken down by rep schemes, intensity, and loading duration. He states that the linear model should include an approximate 5% increase in loading each week and is best suited for novice athletes or those who have less training experience. Less variation in intensity and stress allows for these athletes to focus on developing technique without the hindrance of substantial fatigue.

These blocks are typically long in duration lasting eight to twelve weeks at a time with gradual increases in intensity. The block model should contain three phases as previously mentioned that target strength endurance, then strength and power, and finally peak strength/power for example.³

This model is typically best suited for advanced or more experienced athletes due to the concentrated loading periods that provide the required stimulus these athletes need to elicit physiological change. Novice athletes will likely be unable to recover from the strenuous loads this model presents and it can even be deleterious to performance.

Furthermore, careful attention must be given to high volume concentrated blocks within the competitive season as the cumulative fatigue can disrupt athletic performance. Baker mentions that undulatory models are suitable for athletes who have grown accustomed to linear methods but may not be ready for the concentrated loads that block periodization provides.³

Shifting the training focus regularly provides variety and helps eliminate the boredom often associated with continuous traditional programming.

Two-week phases alternating in focus are the suggested model, that vary slightly from the daily undulating periodized model which alters training focus and intensity every single day.

This method may also be beneficial for athletes who must maintain multiple physical qualities for an extended period of time or cannot afford to have a decrease in any one quality. The risk for overtraining or excessive muscle soreness, however, is high in this model which can also be harmful to athletic performance if not carefully monitored.¹⁹

An uncommonly researched method that’s similar to the previously mentioned progressive resistance model is what’s called the accumulation/intensification pattern.

This is suitable for introductory programs and allows one to focus on increasing reps before increasing load. An example is an athlete who would choose a load they can do for three sets of ten reps, and not increase the weight until they are able to successfully perform three sets of twelve reps with weight.³

Interestingly, Baker also suggests that exercises can be integrated by applying different models of periodization to specific exercises within the same training program.

Specifically, he mentions that powerlifting exercises such as the squat, bench, and deadlift could be loaded using a block method while assistance exercises follow an undulatory protocol.

This caters to the specificity of an exercise, as accessory movements tend to be neglected when focusing on maximum strength and power development.

Despite the model chosen, each will employ a method of tapering to recover and ultimately express fitness gained over the training period. This can occur over a microcycle for athletes who compete on a weekly basis, or mesocycle for those who have fewer major competitions.²⁰

The difficulty in determining the precise taper duration is similar to that of the individual responses seen in training stimulus variability. Individuals will require different periods of unloading, seen by various levels of volume, intensity, and frequency reductions.

The general recommendation is somewhere between ten and fourteen days, with the understanding that periods lasting too much longer will begin to result in detrained athletic qualities.

Not every periodization method will offer the opportunity to peak multiple times, thus the method of organization must align with the given sport and training season.

Practical Applications of Periodization

Coaches should periodize resistance training for their athletes so that they recover properly, avoid overtraining, and adapt to programming in an optimal fashion.¹³

Understanding the key principles of Selye’s GAS theory support that periodized programs are often superior in producing strength, power, endurance, and hypertrophy gains when compared to non-periodized programs.¹⁰

Cyclical variations in volume, intensity, frequency, and specificity allow trainees to reach peak levels of performance for athletic competitions.⁹

Coaches should move from phases of general to specifically dedicated training blocks, subdivided into a macrocycle (annual or quadrennial plan for Olympic athletes), mesocycles (a month or multiple months), and microcycles (a week or multiple weeks) congruent with the anticipated competitions.

It is imperative to systematically structure the periodization plan according to the individual athlete’s capabilities, desired training outcome, time constraints, and important competition dates.¹⁸

Unique terminology and overlapping philosophies within each strategy lead sports scientists, coaches, and athletes to debate the most effective method for training, thus it is essential that coaches understand the majority of these strategies are similar with one another and categorized as either traditional (linear), block, or undulating (non-linear) by nature.

Furthermore, coaches may choose to sequence training so that particular periodization methods are used at different times of the year, or different athletes and exercises within the same cycle.³

Consideration of the individual athlete’s needs and training status should always take precedence when structuring a program.

Methods will vary substantially between the novice and advanced athletes thus training must be adjusted across the span of an athlete’s entire career as they move into a trained state.

Without proper periodization, coaches and athletes risk injury and the potential for overtraining or undertraining to a much higher degree than periodized programs.

References:

1. Alvar, B., Wenner, R., & Dodd, D.J. The Effect Of Daily Undulated Periodization As Compared To Linear Periodization In Strength Gains Of Collegiate Athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 24: 1. 2010.

2. Apel, J.M., Lacey, R.M., & Kell, R.T. A comparison of traditional and weekly undulating periodized strength training programs with total volume and intensity equated. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 25: 694-703. 2011.

3. Baker, D. Cycle-Length Variants in Periodized Strength/Power Training. Strength and Conditioning Journal. 29: 10-17. 2007.

4. Bartolomei, S., Hoffman, J.R., Merni, F., & Stout, J.R. A Comparison of Traditional and Block Periodized Strength Training Programs in Trained Athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 28: 990-997. 2014.

5. Bompa, T.O. Variations of periodization of strength. Strength & Conditioning Journal. 18: 58-61. 1996.

6. Fleck, S. Non-linear periodization for general fitness & athletes. Journal of human kinetics. 29: 41-45. 2011.

7. Fleck, S.J. Periodized strength training: a critical review. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 13: 82-89. 1999.

8. Gamble, P. Periodization of training for team sports athletes. Strength and conditioning journal. 28: 56. 2006.

9. Graham, J. Periodization research and an example application. Strength & Conditioning Journal. 24: 62-70. 2002.

10. Haff, G.G. Roundtable discussion: Periodization of training—Part 1. Strength & Conditioning Journal. 26: 50-69. 2004.

11. Harries, S.K., Lubans, D.R., & Callister, R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of linear and undulating periodized resistance training programs on muscular strength. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 29: 1113-1125. 2015.

12. Herrick, A.B. & Stone, W.J. The Effects of Periodization Versus Progressive Resistance Exercise on Upper and Lower Body Strength in Women. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 10: 72-76. 1996.

13. Issurin, V. Block periodization versus traditional training theory: a review. Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness. 48: 65. 2008.

14. Issurin, V.B. New horizons for the methodology and physiology of training periodization. Sports medicine. 40: 189-206. 2010.

15. Kiely, J. Periodization theory: confronting an inconvenient truth. Sports Medicine. 48: 753-764. 2018.

16. Lorenz, D., Reiman, M., & Walker, J. Periodization: Current Review and Suggested Implementation for Athletic Rehabilitation. Sports Health. 2: 509-518. 2010.

17. Painter, K.B., Haff, G.G., Ramsey, M.W., Mcbride, J., Triplett, T., Sands, W.A., Lamont, H.S., Stone, M.E., & Stone, M.H. Strength gains: Block versus daily undulating periodization weight training among track and field athletes. International journal of sports physiology and performance. 7: 161-169. 2012.

18. Plisk, S.S. & Stone, M.H. Periodization strategies. Strength & Conditioning Journal. 25: 19-37. 2003.

19. Rhea, M.R., Ball, S.D., Phillips, W.T., & Burkett, L.N. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. The Journal of strength & conditioning research. 16: 250-255. 2002.

20. Rosenblatt, B. Planning a performance programme. High-Performance Training for Sports. 247. 2014.

21. Stone, M., O’bryant, H., Schilling, B., Johnson, R., Pierce, K., Haff, G.G., & Koch, A. Periodization: effects of manipulating volume and intensity. Part 1. Strength & Conditioning Journal. 21: 56. 1999.

The post Practical Applications for Periodization Theory appeared first on Breaking Muscle.