• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

more on high the benefits of high intensity/volume training.

pumpiniron

New member
Adhering to Real World Principles: Understanding Max Load Training

Some time ago Aristotle made the salient point that although methods are many, principles are few. What a seminal point. But what I see is that these “methods’ are so varied that they are violating key fundamental principles. The result is that you the trainee are not getting results from your gym time by following questionable methods that fly in the face of real world principles. And this is the frustrating thing for me. I train people in the real world. I’m not sure what is being taught at certification courses these days, but what is interpreted as “principles” is faulty at best. In this article I want to use a real world example for those of you training to gain size, muscle, and thickness, and have the mistaken belief that this is accomplished with “max weights.” This is another term I have trouble with as it is quite misleading, as we will see.

The other day I received an e-mail from a client who was a little confused. While training, a personal trainer walked by and advised that my client lighten the load substantially, and do 4/4/1 tempo "to get more out of it." Say what? My client was confused because I had advised to lift explosively, regardless of rep range. So, who is right?

Well, let me pose a theoretical situation and some questions. I lift 100 lbs for 5 reps, and you lift 100 lbs for 5 reps. I do 5 reps in about 5 seconds, and you use the tempo above and take about 30 seconds to lift it. Here are the questions: Who demanded more power from that set? Who had more metabolic demand from that set? The answer to both is me. Power, folks, is a rudimentary principle expressed in many ways, but is essential to training for size, strength, thickness, etc. The simple basic premise is that it takes more power to move a weight in one second than it does to move it in two seconds. Over the course of a workout this is seen as an expression of more work in the same amount of time, or the same amount of work in less time. These are all expressions of the principle of power. Notice the above “method” of tempo violates that principle. Simple.

Next question. In the above example which one of us achieved the most overload? The answer is that it is a trick question. If that 100 lbs is a weight we are used to performing, then neither of us achieved overload for that set. Therefore, the advice of lightening a load you can already do explosively, and take 4 times as long to do it, is faulty logic that does not follow basic principles. It means negating max load, and therefore negating the overload principle in general. This is just one example of a “method” being faulty at best.

Now if you follow this so far then you may be thinking that max load is therefore the way to abiding in the Overload Principle. Well yes, and no. Max load is not max weight!!!! This is the fault of the industry that details external cues as the be all and end all of performance. How much you “can” lift is not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is how much stress a muscle endures as overload. These are entirely different things, as I will explain below and use a real world example.

First, let’s understand these basic principles in more concrete terms. Power is an expression of force with speed. There are several types of power. Of concern to us here are Explosive Power, and the Power Expression itself. Explosive Power can be defined simply as force over time. It can also be defined as the time it takes to get to max force output. Or it can be expressed as recruiting fibers for strength performance in a context of speed. So simple explosive power is expressed as f/t. Force is defined as load or strength within this context. This is where all the confusion on the gym floor begins. Inexperienced trainers and trainees seem to think that the above solution means to use a “max load” as in weight, and be explosive. This is untrue for forcing an adaptive response. The example below illustrates my point and I’m sure if you look around your gym you will see many people making this same mistake.

At one of my former gyms where I was training I happened to be in close proximity to one of the gym’s trainers and his client. I had seen them before so I watched as they repeated a familiar scenario. It was obviously deadlift day for them. Because I was training in the same area I witnessed their classic training mistake. The trainee was a kid of average size. I watched as he did a warm up set (I presume) at 225 for 10 reps, and at a fairly explosive speed. I then watched him do a set of about 5 reps at 325 still trying to be explosive but with the bar moving more slowly even though the intent was explosive. Here is where the disaster took hold. They moved the weight up to 365 lbs and rested a long time, then after a lot of yelling and screaming he performed two very slow reps that were agonizing to watch. Everyone yelled and cheered and high fived each other. Finally, they put four plates on the bar for 405 lbs. He did one very difficult rep that seemed to take forever. The two of them were screaming and a few on-lookers seemed impressed by the effort. After he put the weight down the trainer wanted to make sure everyone saw that and actually came up to me for comment. He said, "Did you see my guy pull 4 plates? Isn’t that great?" I said to him, “well that depends on what your purpose was for this session.” He said, “Oh we’re training for size and thickness” So I replied honestly, “then you just wasted about 30 minutes of gym time.” He huffed at me, “Well, that’s your opinion!” And I replied, “No, that’s a matter of fact, if you understand the principles”

So let me explain to those of you with open minds why that kind of ego training is a waste for adaptive response. Let’s examine the power equation in more detail shall we? Most of you have probably heard the power equation of force X’s distance over time: f X’s d / t. If we examine the above example with that formula principle, then we will see what a waste of time his “max loads” sets were. For the sake of argument let’s say for this guy the distance of his dead lift from floor to lock out was 2 ft. So if we address the loads used over that distance and the time it took to deliver them we can illustrate the power equation and why he did indeed waste a crucial amount of gym time.

At 225 lbs, he lifted that weight over 2 ft, and he did it explosively in under a second, lets say .8 of a second. Therefore for that set he lifted 225 X’s 2 divided by .8 seconds. This yields a total units of force produced to be 562.

At the next set he lifted 325 lbs X’s 5 reps. As I said, the weight moved a little slower but still with ample explosive power. So let’s say each rep took a full second. Therefore we have 325 X’s 2 ft divided by 1 second. So this yields a total units of force production to be 650. At this point, looking at the numbers it seems his progressive overload is right in line with an adaptive response. (But I will come back to that.)

His next set was 365 lbs and as I said there was a noticeable slow down in how long it took him to hoist that weight. It took at least twice as long each rep as the previous set. Let’s call that two seconds. So here are the numbers. He lifted 365 X’s 2 feet, but it took two seconds, so we divide that by 2. That number yields a total units of force produced to be 365! How can that be? His max load was increased yet his power output or overload response decreased substantially. I will come back to that again.

Finally, he performed his last set at 405 for one max rep. This rep took forever, and in my mind I did a slow three count while watching him. So the numbers are 405 X’s 2 feet, divided by 3 seconds. (Remember force times distance divided by time.) So his final number here on his “MAX LOAD” set was actually only 270 total units of force! How can this be? This elicited even less adaptive response than did his warm up set at 225!

Take a look at this graph of the TEP of Power:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wHZg-WkPL8g/Tl_PCAYHBNI/AAAAAAAAAAQ/nkKZqTY9QcM/s1600/image.png
(The vertical line of the graph is the amount of force used, and the bottom line is the time expression.)

As you can see by graphing this performance, his actual peak performance sets were way before his max loads sets. Now lets go back and look at those again and reassess, considering the reps.

In set one at 225 lbs he performed ten reps. So with his calculated total units of force at 562, and we times that by ten reps, we get 5,620 units of force demanded during that set.

At set two we addressed that the total units of force produced was 650. He did that set for five reps so if we multiply the 650 X’s 5 we see a total units of force demanded of 3250.

His next set was 365, and the total units of force we calculated were exactly the same as that. Yet even with this max load he lifted only two reps. Therefore his total units of force produced is 365 X’s 2 or a measly 730 total units of force demanded. So his “max weight” sets are starting to show more ego training than adaptive response.

Finally his last set was 405 lbs for one long rep. We already showed a total units of force production at a rather pathetic 270. And when we multiply that by his one rep, we therefore get the same number, 270.

So to sum it up, if we follow the training principle of power his max loads sets were not the heaviest sets in terms of load on the bar but rather the sets previous to that:

  • 225 lbs yielded 5620 total units of force demand
  • 325 lbs yielded 3250 total units of force demand
  • 365 lbs yielded 730 total units of force demand
  • 405 lbs yielded a paltry 270 units of force demand
Lessons

So the lessons learned here are great. First we learn that max loads have little to do with how much weight is on the bar. Max loads are relative only to performance of those loads. Next we learn that for this particular case the trainee would have been better off doing all of his sets somewhere between 225 lbs and 325 lbs. Sets done in that rep range would have elicited a greater adaptive demand and response.

Within that context, is where programming expertise takes over. If the goal is size and thickness as stated then more sets would be cycled through a program toward the heavier end of the proper rep range but still dropping down for some explosive work near the lower end of the rep range. Again, this would all take place over the time of a properly designed program.

If we go back to the graph, we can see that anything left of the 225 lb sets would be too little overload, as in not enough weight. This illustrates the fault with slow tempos, which no one in their right minds would use for an explosive lift to begin with.

But the greater lesson is that to the right of the 325 lb set, there is not nearly enough duration of overload in order to accomplish an adaptive response. All of this brings in line the whole idea of what “max loads” even means. How many times do I have to say how much is on the bar is only relative information; it is incidental. It is amazing to me how many bright people that know the principles intellectually, do not follow them in their “methods.” Maximum strength training methods do not lend to maximum size, strength, or thickness. (See also Behm 1996)

What this above example illustrates is the Training Efficiency Percentage of Power. The definition of Training Efficiency Percentage is the “number of reps in a given set of performance, that force an adaptive response.” If we look at the above graph then it is obvious that all training loads should be somewhere between 55% and 85% of maximum performance loads in order to produce an adaptive response. Therefore, how much you “can lift” is not very significant in terms of how much you “should lift” within a course of programmed training. Of course there is much more to this that can make the above equation either more or less effective, depending on training approach.

Innervation Training protocol addresses in more depth such performance parameters. Toward the Innervation Training “principles” it is important to also remember that “there is differential Innervation of specific muscles or parts of muscles in different or specific ranges and planes of motion.” This contributes to another principle that is known as TAP (Total Activation Potential) I will address that in another article.

Conclusion

So what this means in terms of load selection should be obvious now.

What it means in terms of cadence should also be pointed out. There are only two relevant cadences in bodybuilding training. Explosive, and continuous tension. Sequencing of exercises becomes paramount to training if you understand what max load training really is, as well as in relation to explosive and innervation training, in terms of selected ranges, planes of motion, and so on.

I hope this article explains to you that although methods may be numerous, if they don’t adhere to parent principles, then much can be lost to the trainee.
 
Today marks the 8th year since the first time I purchased a gym membership. In that time I have read (and, for the most part, later dismissed) many fitness articles, I have read several fitness books, I have done a two-year diploma of fitness, I have done multiple short courses to maintain that qualification, and prior to today I have never encountered power as a major principle for bodybuilding. For strength training? Yes. For athletic training? Yes. For bodybuilding? Never. I'm sure it's involved, but I can only imagine it's a matter of there being pros and cons to different cadences.
 
and prior to today I have never encountered power as a major principle for bodybuilding. For strength training? Yes. For athletic training? Yes. For bodybuilding? Never. I'm sure it's involved, but I can only imagine it's a matter of there being pros and cons to different cadences.


I have ALWAYS argued power is important for body building. If the core to any body building program is Squats/bench/Deads/Overhead then it stands to reason that power would be an important aspect of these.
 
Personally i deadlift a 16kg (35lb) kettlebell 2 feet 100 times at 0.2 seconds per lift, this gives me a total of 35,000 units of force demand which obviously canes the examples above....
 
I have ALWAYS argued power is important for body building. If the core to any body building program is Squats/bench/Deads/Overhead then it stands to reason that power would be an important aspect of these.
Could you please elaborate on that reasoning? I've always understood those exercises to be valuable in bodybuilding because they work, and thus develop, a shitload of muscle mass. I don't know of any reason why those exercises need to be done as fast as possible for them to also be as productive as possible in a bodybuilding context. So again, could you please explain or justify why power would be important in bodybuilding?
 
Top