Periodization[1]

8/3/2019 Periodization[1]

1/63

www.ExerciseCertification.com

International Association of Resistance Trainers 1

Periodization:A Critical AnalysisBy Brian D. Johnston

Copyright 2001

Special thanks to William J. Ambruzs for his challenges on various points


2/63


International Association of Resistance Trainers2

Introduction

Everything has a reason for its existence. Anything of worth must have

validity. The application of ever-changing exercise modalities, for example,

is beneficial in order to keep the body progressing and from stagnating intoover-adaptation to the stimuli. The demands must also be properly cycled to

prevent mental burnout from too intense training performed too often.

The general concept of periodization is 100% valid in that respect allowing

both easy and intense training periods as well as variety to sustain motivation

and to best disrupt homeostasis. Similarly, the I.A.R.T. promotes the

concept of cycling training demands, exercises, and methods of execution,

etc., all for the same fundamental reasons.

It is the internal structure of (USA-based) Periodization, however, that isflawed with gross vagueness mystical terms and application that have never

been validated, nor can be validated. It contains potentially dangerous

recommendations as well, from plyometrics to explosive lifting.

Periodization includes variable application that does not reflect reality that

unless trainees were told what they were doing (by the authors), would not

know the difference (i.e., youre now training for strength, power, or

hypertrophy).

There are several models of Periodization, ranging from the works of Bompa,Koch, and Poliquin, among many others. Consequently, and to focus more

narrowly on the subject, this report deals solely with the book Periodization

Breakthrough! by Steven J. Fleck, Ph.D., and William J. Kraemer, Ph.D.,

two world-renowned experts in exercise science, past associates of the

NSCA, writers for Muscular Developmentmagazine, contributors to peer

reviewed research journals, etc., etc. It is the problems and weaknesses

within their version of Periodization that will be critiqued (along with the

many characteristics that also reflect other versions of Periodization).


3/63



Many Russians think negatively about the artificial classification of various

micro- and meso-cycles in the form of exact number of days, or weeks, as

per Western periodization ideology. They also disagree with linear

succession of arbitrary, non-linear, non-discrete building blocks of

subjectively chosen exercises, weight load percentages, et al. Zhelijazkovindicated that the technology of periodization modeling, application, and

management exhibit certain serious qualitative limitations.

Verkhoshansky has criticized any text that extols so-called periodization

breathkthroughs. He states, the body is not an exact, controlled,

deterministic system... but its subsystems are attracted to and deviate from

approximate states of balance which show continual variation to ensure long-

term efficiency and health, as is being confirmed by more and more research

into the nature of fractal, fuzzy, and chaotic processes in biology.

Having studied chaos theory (the study of orderly disorder), at least at the

level of an amateur scientist, it became apparent to me that it is impossible to

prescribe accurate long-term training for any individual or athlete based on a

rigid mental model. So many factors can occur and disrupt protocol,

causing peaks and valleys in response and performance. Although continual

change of protocol is necessary, application must be established in

accordance to individual needs at the time and not simply to produce peaks

at specific junctures, i.e., to coincide with competitions.

To better understand the concept of chaos theory, in the book Chaos, JamesGleick states: ...physiologists have also began to see chaos as health. It

has long been understood that nonlinearity in feedback processes serves to

regulate and control. Simply put, a linear process, given a slight nudge,

tends to remain slightly off track. A nonlinear process, given the same

nudge, tends to return to its starting point. Christian Huygens, the

seventeenth-century Dutch physicist who helped invent both the pendulum

clock and the classical science of dynamics, stumbled upon one of the great

examples of this form of regulation, or so the standard story goes. Huygens

noticed one day that a set of pendulum clocks placed against a wallhappened to be swinging in perfect chorus-line synchronization. He knew

that the clocks could not be that accurate. Nothing in the mathematical

description then available for a pendulum could explain this mysterious

propagation of order from one pendulum to another. Huygens surmised,

correctly, that the clocks coordinated by vibrations transmitted through the

wood. This phenomenon, in which one regular cycle locks into another, is


4/63



now called entrainment, or mode locking. Mode locking explains why the

moon always faces the earth, or more generally why satellites tend to spin

in some whole-number ratio of their orbital period: 1 to 1, or 2 to 1, or 3 to

2. When the ratio is close to a whole number, nonlinearity in the tidal

attraction of the satellite tends to lock it in. Mode locking occursthroughout electronics, making it possible, for example, for a ratio receiver

to lock in on signals even when there are small fluctuations in their

frequency. Mode locking accounts for the ability of groups of oscillators,

including biological oscillators, like heart cells and nerve cells, to work in

synchronization.

It is the disruption through training that causes alteration in homeostasis. It is

the constant regularity of the same training stimulus (or disruption) that

permits the body to remain in stasis, never to change or improve in actual

function or lean muscle mass (see Heavy Duty: A Critical Analysis). ChaosTheory is proof that training needs to constantly change in order to optimize

and allow for improvement (and to allow for recovery when necessary).

However, the change must be logically prescribed in accordance to individual

requirements, on both a physical and psychological basis (accounting for

mental and physical stress, needs, and goals) and not a fixed treatise on

paper that cannot account or predict those factors.


5/63



Periodization Defined

Fleck and Kraemer define periodization as a training plan which changes

your workouts at regular intervals of time. This is a bit weak sincealtering your workouts monthly to coincide with the latest muscle magworkout would constitute periodization. Regardless, the authors direction is

the manipulation of variables such as the number of repetitions and sets, the

exercises you perform, the amount of weight lifted, and the rest periods

between sets. Apparently everyone can benefit from periodization, although

the focus constantly shifts to the preparation of some competition and

competitive athletes.

Typical Periodization Concept

Phase 1 Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V

Hypertrophy Strength Power Peak Recovery

Also, the authors claim you wont get bored and give up on exercise if you

follow their recommendations That wont happen with a periodized

plan. The phrase wont happen means exactly that... it will never happen

to anyone... ever. Is this an accurate statement?

Boredom refers to the dullness perpetrated by tedious repetition. This can

transpire although a resistance training program constantly changes since

certain factors do remain constant in any routine including the existence of:

Repetitions,

Sets,

Workouts,

Frequency, Muscular contractions, and

Exercise movements.

...regardless of their measure.


6/63



What also remains constant are the regular trips to the gym, putting forth

effort, sweating, experiencing fatigue and deep muscle burn, aches, andsoreness. All these factors can wreak havoc on an individuals motivation

and ability to sustain an exercise program.

The authors then define periodization models to variations in training that

have yielded proven results in increased strength, power, muscle

hypertrophy, and athletic performance. Many training modalities that donot fit neatly into Fleck and Kraemers ideology of periodization have also

proven to enhance those particular aspects among athletes. Simply ask one

of the many high-intensity strength coaches, including Mark Asanovich, MattBrzycki, Ken Mannie, Dan Riley, Tim Wakeham, Tom Kelso, Jim Kielbaso,

or Mike Gittleson.

Or ask the successful sports teams that train or have trained in a high-

intensity, non-periodized manner, including the Arizona Cardinals, the Tampa

Bay Buccaneers, Minnesota Vikings, Cincinnati Bengals, Philadelphia Eagles,

Carolina Panthers, San Diego Chargers, Pittsburgh Steelers, and the

Washington Redskins.

And dont forget the Pittsburgh Penguins when they won the Stanley Cupfrom 1990-1992 or the US womens basketball team when they won the gold

medal at the 1996 Olympics.

Or how about the very successful long distance runners from Africa,

particularly from Kenya whom never implemented periodization. Moreover,

the Soviet and British runners pre-1980 did not improve performance based

upon periodization and actually declined in performance when basing their

loading on Matveyevs block periodization plan.


7/63



Application of Periodization

Although the authors claim anyone can undertake periodization, the focus is

constantly on phases that lead up to a competition. It is vaguely suggested

that a competition can be replaced with a goal of any kind, but the goals

would have to follow the goals of the authors and not of the individual.

Periodization, as we have come to know it in North America, consists of 4-5

stages, being

Hypertrophy

Strength/Power (these may be two distinct stages)

Peaking

Active Rest (an oxymoron if there ever was one).

What if the individual only wanted to train for hypertrophy? Sorry, thats

not periodization and you must alter YOUR goals to coincide with Fleck and

Kraemers ideals as to what proper training should be (to also focus on

phases of strength, power, and peaking... and recoverywhether you need it

or not or are ready for it or not). More will be said about each individual

phase later in this report.

In essence, the concept of periodization mentally conditions and psyches the

average individual into believing they too can be like star athletes byundertaking a similar regimen (of extreme volume). Athletes, however, are

not representational of the average population. They are athletes because

they are unusual and above average. They have superior ability, in both

function and recovery. They can tolerate form of exercise that would break

the average individual. Does this archetype represent you?

Many athletes also take drugs to enhance these abilities. Many others

succeed in spite of their training regimen and would likely do better on a

more rational and abbreviated strength-training program than what manystrength coaches advocate.


8/63



Variation Principle

A principle is a fundamental primary, or general truth, on which other truths

depend. A principle is an abstraction that subsumes a greater number of

concretes. In other words, principles are very general and describe the

nature of what must exist for a concrete concept to exist. For example, for

an exercise program to exist you must take into account certain factors

(which make up the Theory of Prescribed ExerciseTM

):

1. Intensity of effort

2. Volume (repetition, tension time, sets)

3. Frequency (rate of occurrence of training the same and other musclegroups)

4. Specific adaptations to imposed demands (SAID)

5. Overload (an increase in weight, repetitions, or tension time)

6. Diminishing Returns (cost-benefit ratios and concomitant variables, whichhas a bearing on the next principle)

7. Individualism (the tolerances, preferences, needs, and goals of a person)

People often use the term law, principle, or fundamentals to give

credence to their plight to create an aura of authenticity to avoid having to

validate their ideas. Consider the myriad of Weider Principles and you will

see that many are not actual principles at all (viz., they do not need to exist

for a properly structured exercise program to exist), but are training

modalities of derivative aspects, such as:

Forced rep principle

Pre-exhaust principle

Retro-gravity (negative rep) principle Flushing (pumping) principle... ad nauseum.


9/63



Similarly, Fleck and Kraemer bastardized the term principle to support the

notion of constantly changing application, via variation, within a periodizedplan (of course). Hence, the Variation Principle, which supports the change

of training goals from hypertrophy, to strength, to power. These factors do

not need to exist for proper exercise application to exist. The manipulation

of weights loads, reps, and sets are derivative factors that make exercise

more interesting and more effective (if properly implemented). But change of

these factors need not exist to produce an effect or for practical exercise to

exist as a concept.

Relative to the Principle of Individualism (see next), the authors concept of

variety remains within a canned structure. Although always dictating variety

(which is important), variety remains within their confines, from rep and set

prescriptions, frequency, and even modality of training. They state, Little or

no plyometric training would be included during the beginning of a

training phase. As the end of the phase approached, a greater

volume of plyometric type training would be included.

They base this recommendation, so it seems, on strength power sports

and team sports to perform more power-oriented exercises. Yet they donot indicate what the average person or non-strength power sport athlete

should do.

Even the term strength power sport is redundant. Every dynamic activity

you perform requires the use of power. Every activity requires strength, even

standing, sitting, and lying down (certain muscles constantly remained fired

during rest, which is the demonstration of strength within a limited capacity.


10/63



Also, how does one differentiate or determine when a sport is strength and

power oriented and when it is not? There are times when a short burst of

maximal effort is required in tennis, hockey, soccer, and nearly every other

sport that may be viewed as having a large component of endurance.

Moreover, the specificity of power and demonstration of strength within

sports is highly specific and unto itself and are not specific to plyometric

exercises. How can one non-specific activity improve the skills and ability

of a different set of neuromuscular movement patterns? Compare this to the

skills of walking, then to running, and running to dodging back and forth in azig-zag fashion. Each must be trained specifically and exactly in order to

obtain maximum proficiency.

Performing explosive power cleans and plyometric jumps will not enhance

running or dodging abilities. You will simply become good at power cleans

and jumping (and to a limit). Training specificity is later addressed in more

detail.


11/63



Individualization Principle

Periodization is all about meeting specific training needs. If this isthe case, as it should be, then consider the following statements:

The peaking phase is undertaken right before a major competition.

The volume is very low and the intensity very high (1-3 repetitions per

set). The goal is to prepare the athlete for the truly maximal efforts

needed for an actual competition including epic struggles like

Olympic weightlifting and grueling throwing events in track and field.

...the typical training pattern is to increase intensity and decrease

training volume as a competition nears.

When planning a one year training schedule, Write the month in which any

major competition of the year occur...

...then, Working backwards from the major competition, fill in the

dates and names of the minor competitions or if the sport has a

season fill in the starting date and ending date of the season.

Does this sound like your training? Does it reflect you in any way? Do you

plan on competing in any athletic event, either in the long-term or several

times leading up to a major competition (as if were all headed to theOlympics)? Do you desire to perform sets of only 1-3 repetitions with

maximum effort? Do you enjoy increasing your training poundage RM or

want to decrease volume below x? If you answered no to any of these

questions, then you wont be able to experience the epiphany of

periodization. But youre not alone... even athletes are left in the dark. The

authors state:

...the number of sets per exercise, repetitions per set, choice of

exercise, and training sessions per week would be varied to meetthe strength, power, and local muscular endurance needs of the

particular sport.


12/63



How is this to be done? What effect will the removal or addition of only one

set be to a sporting event that does not demonstrate the lifting of weights?No answers, no strategies and no clues are provided. Its a hit-and-miss

strategy at best; a vague philosophy the authors hide behind like a shield

against any criticism to their approach. Do whatever you think is right. From

alpine skiing to bobsledding, from archery to field hockey, do whatever you

think is best for you regardless of your lack of knowledge in proper exercise

prescription (which likely accounts for 99% of athletes and most strength

training coaches).

And, again, what about those not involved in athletics or competition? No

answer is given, although it is concluded the average person can draw

parallels some how. Fleck and Kraemer then include bodybuilding (i.e.,

regular gym training as most of us perform) as a sport in order to fit it neatly

into their periodized model.

However, why would a bodybuilder be focusing on strength and power

phases if his or her focus is on mass building? (Yes, additional mass does

lead to greater strength and power, but the argument is being limited to the

authors vocabulary and proposed phases of training). Or how about a

bodybuilder not interested in peaking or entering a competition what use isa peaking phase?

What of athletes who dont want to gain any more muscle mass (to stay

within a weight category): Should they not avoid the hypertrophy phase and

always work for maximal strength and power (with the odd week off for

systemic recovery)? This is not considered with Fleck and Kraemer or any

model of periodization currently in vogue.


13/63



The authors continue, The training plan outlined consists of three

major training cycles separated by two-week recovery periods. Each

major training cycle consists of four training phases, each four weeksin length. The major goal of the first two phases in each of major

training cycles is to increase muscle size. Etc.

No need to understand what they are saying. The point is: Individual needs

and differences (and preferences) are not taken into account for optimization.

Fleck and Kraemers recommendations are ideal for clones, not unique

individuals unique factors that vary across a broad spectrum. Variables

such as stress levels, catastrophic events, and other factors that change from

day to day and week to week amongst individuals.

Nor is optimization a key with pre-planned periodization structures. This is

concluded by the authors when they said, This plan should meet the

goals of the general fitness weight trainer in more than adequate

fashion. How do they know? What is adequate fashion, and why is theconcept of optimization avoided and substituted with that of adequacy of

mediocrity?

If a program is to be truly individualized, it must take into account that

some people (including non-athletes) are aiming for optimization and that the

best plan possible should be in place to reflect not only the goals, but the

NEEDS of an individual. A person may have a goal to bench press 300

pounds, but they may need to work on specific weak links, past injuries, etc.

This direction is avoided by the authors entirely perhaps because it takes

into account too much complexity and individualism, making it too difficulty

to offer up canned programs so trainees dont have to think for themselves.


14/63



Then there is the statement that Choosing to do two to five sets of an

exercise per training session allows the individual to tailor the

regimen to meet their needs. If the trainee prefers to emphasizemaximal strength development in one or two exercises such as the

bench press and squat, then they might want to emphasize these

heavy-duty exercises by going for five sets, and doing as few as two

sets of other exercises less optimally related to their strength training

goals. There are a few problems with these recommendations:

Primarily, it is not a recommendation but a vague assertion that people will

know exactly how many sets to perform based on goals. Most people will

likely pick the higher number since many believe more is better. To squirm

their way out of the dilemma, they offer a broad recommendation. (Barringonly one set per exercise since that more closely reflects high-intensity

training. Ironically, on page 93 of their book, and as stated in this report on

page 50, the authors do suggest as little as one set during the power phase).

The number of sets must be based not only on goals but tolerances, needs,

and intensity of effort. Rather than have the trainee focus more effort in two

sets, for example, they recommend performing more sets to produce an

effect. For those whom train extremely hard, five sets of an exercise may be

overkill, but the volume is (apparently) appropriate based on the philosophiesof Fleck and Kraemer and not on their knowledge of your body.

These factors do not exactly point to the principle of individualism although

the authors endorse the concept. In fact, the authors direction is very similar

to so many personal trainers who claim to design custom programs for

each client, but who end up dishing out the same canned routine based on the

trainers philosophy and preferences (with a few irrelevant modifications to

make it appear unique and individualized).


15/63



Injury Prevention

Fleck and Kraemer state Another major reason to switch to periodized

training is to prevent injuries. Were you ever at a stage in yourtraining where you were making good gains, and continued to train to

the point of injury? A main reason the injury may have occurred was

because you continued to push as hard as you could and your body

couldnt take the stress. It was clearly a time for a less intense

training period... With periodized training, intense and less intense

training periods are planned so the stress does not accumulate to

the point of adversity.

They also state, The goal of the in-season program (peak phase) is to

maintain all the gains made during the previous training phases and

to prevent injury in competition circumstances.

These paragraphs are loaded. Fundamentally, injury refers to either macro

(acute) or micro (chronic) trauma to the soft tissues. Micro trauma (constant

tissue degradation) can often lead to macro trauma, slowly weakening the

tissues until the forces exceed structural integrity (forces that normally could

have been tolerated if the tissues were allow to remodel).

Doing too much, too often will usually lead to microtrauma, such as tendinitis a common affliction among those who exercise regularly and intensely or

too much. Periodization is no exception; it does not prevent micro trauma

from occurring, regardless of the change in intensity of weight load from one

phase to another.

One periodization phase even has the trainee performing up to 60 sets per

workout (remember, it is the volume and frequency that causes overuse

injuries just as much as the intensity of effort or the magnitude of the weight).

And once you get tendinitis, reducing volume and workloads in the next

phase will not permit the malady to retreat or heal. It can sometimes reducein severity, but complete rest will be necessary (or at least working around

the injury).


16/63



Exerting too hard, as with heavy repetition maximums, or performing

explosive or ballistic movement, can exceed tissue integrity and cause macro

trauma, such as tissue sprain or strain. Both Fleck and Kraemer endorse

heavy maximum lifts, plyometric movements and explosive actions, such as

power cleans and jump squats. These movements guarantee the highest rate

of force possible and the greatest likelihood of injury. Moreover, you dont

need a heavy weight to produce high forces; lighter weights (or body weight)

at fast speeds (viz., speed training) can do the trick quite nicely.

When is explosive training safe and not safe? Unfortunately, it is impossibleto know when an injury will take place until it is too late when you exceed

the structural integrity of the soft tissues. Many world-class athletes,

including Olympic lifters, injure themselves by performing explosive

plyometrics and Olympic lifts. A trainee does not hurt him or her self (i.e.,

acute injury) by moving slowly, with a moderately heavy weight and while

remaining in the confines of proper mechanics. Certainly many athletes

undertaking ploymetrics and explosive movements do not intentionally train

to become injured. They believe they are training within safety constraints

(not thinking they would become injured).

The focus of contention is these are EXPERIENCED athletes who had years

of knowledge and application with this training methodology and often under

the guidance of a coach. But that is the risk they decided to take, as many

plyometric and explosive experts conclude; a risk that is necessary for

Olympic lifters (since they must practice Olympic lifts), but unacceptable and

unnecessary for Joe Average. Now Fleck and Kraemer want Mr. Average to

read their book and undertake the same hyperbole!


17/63



Intensity

It is important to understand that Fleck and Kraemer define intensity as theaverage weight lifted (which is somewhat confusing as it relates to the

term intensity) and a percentage of the maximal possible weight that

can be lifted for one repetition (1 RM) or any other number of

repetitions.

The latter definition is different from how the I.A.R.T. defines intensity, being

the percentage of possible momentary muscular and volitional effort exerted

or the magnitude of effort (both physical and mental), regardless of the

weight load. The I.A.R.T. refers to the amount of weight lifted as the

magnitude of the load.

Consider a trainee performing one repetition with 100 pounds, although he

can perform three reps. Next, he performs eight repetitions with 85 pounds

to muscular failure, shaking and straining on the last possible repetition. The

first set, according to Fleck and Kraemer, was more intense because the

weight was heavier.

Intensity, according to Websters dictionary is defined as the degree or

extent to which something is intense with intense being defined asstrenuous or earnest, as activity, exertion, diligence, or thought. (Look

back to their first definition and try to draw a correlation!) Hence, would it

take more mental and physical exertion to complete one repetition when three

reps are possible (or completing the prescribed three when four or more reps

are possible), or completing any number of repetitions to utter failure? Its

the latter, of course, and regardless of the weight load.

Interesting, you will find that if training to muscular failure on both three and

eight repetitions, eight repetitions are more demanding since they make

greater metabolic inroads into function. A heavier weight for three repetitionscertainly feels heavy and taxing, but the muscle will weaken even more as

you increase repetitions (within reason and up to the point of avoiding a

focus on endurance).


18/63



Regardless of semantics, and how you choose to define intensity, a common

theme throughout the entire book is lack of recognition of effort.Fundamentally, how hard one exerts is never addressed by Fleck and

Kraemer, or many other periodization proponents, which has a significant

bearing on exercise tolerance (ability to sustain sets and frequency), the

magnitude of muscular inroading, and exercise prescription.

It appears that to address intensity of effort would bring about a conflict in

their definition of intensity as it pertains to how much weight one lifts. By

avoiding the issue, Fleck and Kraemer do not have to provide a dual

definition a term to mean two different concepts.

The best one can conclude is that once reaching a rep goal (that the authors

dictate) you increase the resistance. It may happen that you will sometimes

reach muscular failure in an attempt to complete the final repetition within the

rep goal, but not always.

Neither is it considered that if a person were to train really hard on a handful

of sets that not all 24-60 sets (!) per workout can be completed; a set

prescription as established by the authors. It is highly unlikely that anyone

can perform 60 sets to muscular failure on a regular basis, thus necessitating

reduced and lower quality effort. What should a trainee do if he or she does,

in fact, train very hard or like to train as hard as to achieve muscular failure?

No answer is provided, and the Principle of Individualism is once again

ignored.

Moreover, as Mel Siff stated, A big issue is that periodization (being so

complex a system) uses only the volume and intensity of load to calculate its

training system. This does not recognize the interdependence lifting skill

and technique has with load. Certain aspects of training do not exist

within a vacuum. If you base training prescription on two factors, you mustfurther base it on all factors that affect the stimulus, pre- and post-workout

response, short-term and long-term adaptation (days, weeks, months), etc.

Why wouldnt you? Doing so makes the process of concretizing a plan

much more complex, demanding than Fleck and Kraemer seem to realize.


19/63



Physiology of Training Phases

The phases of periodization include Hypertrophy, Strength/Power, Peaking,

and Active Rest. These phases do not make physiological sense, although

devised by proclaimed exercise scientists with a Ph.D.

The authors state, The goal of (the hypertrophy) phase is to develop

muscle mass and size (or hypertrophy) to support the development of

strength and power in subsequent training phases.

Suggesting to develop muscle mass and size is redundant, as if muscle

mass and size were two different entities (assuming the authors are not

focusing on fat increase during the hypertrophy phase). Its obvious that if

you increase the mass of a muscle, you also increase the size of the muscle.

Moreover, a larger muscle is a stronger muscle due to its greater cross-

sectional area. It does not support the development of strength and power

but produces it. More muscle produces more force.

This does not mean a more muscular individual will be stronger than a smaller

individual (pound for pound, at least), but that both individuals will increase

strength if they increase muscle size. An increase in muscle size will likewise

increase power.

In the next two phases, being Strength/Power, there is a suggestion that theemphasis is placed on these two aspects rather than hypertrophy although the

authors conclude that hypertrophy can exist, but not as much how they

make that conclusion is unknown, nor is it detailed. Some people do

respond better (i.e., the acquisition of muscle) by training with heavy

poundages. Regardless, they state, The goal of any strength phase is

not only to increase strength but, to some extent, muscle size as

well.

The authors further conclude, The goal (of the strength phase) is to

develop basic strength and serve as a transition between the

hypertrophy phase and the power phase. What is basic strength? Isthat different from strength?


20/63



Likely, Fleck and Kraemer are drawing differences between strength of the

body in general and the strength demonstrated or developed by performing

specific athletic skills. This does not make sense since strength is strength...

being the demonstration of the force generated by muscles despite a specific

action or skill.

The power phase was designed to optimize the development and

expression of true maximal strength and power. True maximalstrength as opposed to false maximal strength? What happened to basic

strength?

Power is defined as force x distance time, or the time rate of doing work.

In other words, how much force you can generate (strength) in as little timeto cover distance x. For example, if you could lift a 100-pound barbell in

two seconds, then later lifted the barbell in one second that would

demonstrate greater power. Your strength did not change only the

demonstration of strength and how much force you physically and

volitionally generated in each instance.

The distance remains the same, so it is force (strength) that must alter in

order to change the time value (to balance the equation). How do you

generate greater force? Obviously by increasing lean muscle mass.

Remember, the larger a muscle becomes, the more FORCE it generates.You can also increase strength without increasing lean mass, but this has

more to do with improving lifting proficiency within a skill (neurological skills

that do not transfer over to other exercises or activities) as opposed to the

force generated by a greater cross-sectional area of muscle.

But, then, there is also volitional effort, or mental focus. Quick reaction and

the neurons that fire off muscle fibers are controlled by the central command

center (the brain). Being explosive is more mental than physical, although

improving upon specific physical skills can improve that aspect. (This factorrefers to skill acquisition, or the constant practicing of a particular

neuromuscular pattern; the more conditioned you become to an activity or

exercise, the more confidently you can push the envelope in force

generation.)


21/63



Hence, the more you focus, the more you practice, and the larger your

muscles become, the stronger and more powerful you become (within

reason, and relative to ones genetics and the activity in question).

Consequently, why wouldnt an athlete simply focus on hypertrophy (if

weight category is not a concern), together with the actual skills of the sport,

rather than arbitrarily altering repetition, volume and weight load values to

coincide with obscure phases? No answer was provided.

Moreover, and this extends to the ISSA and other organizations and

individuals whom promote ill-defined terms such as:

speed strength

explosive strength explosive power

anaerobic strength

aerobic strength

general strength

maximal strength

reactive strength

strength endurance, ad nauseum...

...what happens physiologically to a muscle during activity and rest(compensation) during any one of those training modalities that is different

from the other modalities? How does a muscle contract differently during

hypertrophy training than during power or speed training? How do the

neurons fire differently in any of the above types of strength or power?

If you look at any number of scientific studies on strength training or

bodybuilding, you will notice one commonality: Although various modalities

are compared (such as explosive movement versus slow movement) NONE

of the above modalities have actually been studied. They cant, simply

because there is no way to quantify their existence. How do you isolate andmeasure speed strength versus starting strength? These are simply

descriptive terms that have no bearing on actual performance or exercise as a

science.


22/63



Now, it can be argued that there is a difference between generating force and

the speed of muscle contraction, viz., f = m (g+a) vs. its inertia or f = ma.

The problem with using formulas to prove something is that the formulas

exist within a vacuum, not taking into account other physical phenomenon

(i.e., many experiments ignore the effect of friction since it is impossible tomeasure in most dynamic instances). Nor can they be isolated from each

other (all matters of physics are inter-dependent and intertwined).

Regardless, some periodizationists claim that training must include "context

dependent strength" (e.g., demonstrating strength with speed, i.e. speed

strength, or strength-speed [when loads are heavier]). For example, consider

a pitcher throwing three balls:

wiffle ball

baseball

10-pound lead shot

Of all three, the baseball will travel fastest since the shot-put is so heavy

(difficult to generate force quickly enough), whereas the wiffle ball is so light

(insufficient opposing force) that insufficient force is generated by the body

to produce sufficient acceleration. This reflects Newtons third law, as

addressed on page 37.

Now, it is further argued that in the case of the lead shot, the degree ofstrength has importance since not much speed can be generated against such

a heavy weight (i.e., strength-speed). Conversely, speed (the rate of muscle

contraction) has importance when throwing the wiffle ball since it is so light

and strength is not a huge factor (i.e., speed-strength); thus technical skill of

activating the muscles is the critical factor.

Although these factors are true, there is a problem in its application toward

resistance strength training primarily, the bifurcation of force and how the

force is applied. They are not separate entities, particularly considering that

one must generate force to even consider speed or the nature of said force!


23/63



Second, the application of any weight training movement is non-specific to

any athletic (or non-athletic) activity. You cannot blast a light barbell quickly,

expecting it (greater speed ability from practicing that movement) to transfer

over to a baseball, wiffle ball, or shot-put throw. The velocity of ball

throwing is different and unique to a particular weight of ball. The mechanics

and skills are also much different, and any specific application of weight

training will not improve ability (i.e., speed) outside the specific application

of said weight training. Its no different than suggestion focusing on speed

with the wiffle ball and focusing on strength with the lead shot will transfer

over quite nicely to the baseball.

Another question is: How is supercompensation amongst the modalities

different aside from greater function and adaptation to the activity in question(i.e., practicing plyometric jumps will make you good at jumping)? Consider

the inability to quantifiably state: You have improved in explosive strength...

here is that type of strength under the microscope, and it is larger than

before... but your starting strength and aerobic strength seems to have

remained the same size. Any concrete existent can be measured... except,

apparently, the various (and nebulous) forms of strength and ability in the

human body.

Adaptation to the activity in question is vital to understand. The skills of

weight training do not cross over to the skills of other activities. Being agood guitar player does not make you a good violin player, although both are

stringed instruments. Or, for you guitar players out there, play an electric

guitar for a few years, then lend your hand to a classical guitar. The width of

the neck, thickness of the strings, and action of the instrument makes it

difficult to extend your skills until you get used to the new instrument and

develop those skills.

Analogously, being explosive at power cleans will not make you explosive at

sprinting or tackling in football (unless also practiced). You must practicethose skills and use the muscle tissue that exists (while optimizing mental

focus) to demonstrate explosiveness in any particular activity.


24/63



Some periodizationalist conclude that power cleans are very similar in

execution to rising off the line and blocking in football... almost identical.Almost and very similar are not exact, and the skill patterns are, likewise,

different. The practice of safer, lower force exercises, together with the

practice of actually and specifically exploding in football (i.e., generating

power from the upper and lower body) will produce the intended results.

However, for the sake of argument, assume that performing power cleans

produces a better explosive effect than slow and strict bench and shoulder

presses. For the average person, being explosive from a squat to near

standing position is irrelevant in every day life. Consequently, only a handful

of athletes could benefit from the specificity of power cleans, such as

football players.

Considering the repetitive injuries Olympic athletes incur from such lifting

practices (experts in the lifts), is it worth the risk of injuring a valuable athlete

in the hopes being 5% more explosive? This point is especially noteworthy if

considering skill (and how force is applied on the playing field) has greater

importance than the optimum explosive force ability by the athlete. The

strongest, fastest, or most powerful athlete does not necessarily mean the

best athlete on a team or at a particular playing position.

It is interesting to note that athletes whom undertake explosive weight training

(to build power) likewise practice the skills of their sport, becoming more

efficient at those skills in question. Many also perform traditional weight

training with moderate to heavy loads while moving slowly. Strength coaches

then conclude that it was the explosive weight training that improved the

athletes ability to be explosive without considering the concurrent mental and

physical skill training of the sport, hypertrophy through traditional weight

training modalities, etc.


25/63



If it is impossible to determine the cost-benefit ratio of plyometrics and other

explosive exercises, and their effectiveness compared to other modalities, or

the actual mechanism that triggers growth, how can the experts conclude

that plyometrics were effective when performed concurrently with sport-

specific skills and other training methods? It would be further interesting to

test athletes who give up completely on sport skill training and traditional

weight training and do nothing but explosive weight training and plyometrics

THEN conclude how effective the cross over is!

James J. Dowling, Ph.D., is an explosive and plyometric proponent. Yet heconcludes that: Exercise scientists still do not know the exact mechanisms

that cause increases in performance and are even less sure of the training

stimuli that trigger these mechanisms into action. I believe that the benefit

is real (with plyometrics) but the degree of its superiority over other

training methods for jumping, sprinting, and throwing have not been

quantified.

In the first statement, Dowling confirms that we are not certain of the

mechanisms that increase performance, yet he chooses to endorse apotentially dangerous method of exercise, indicating the benefit is real. (Any

method of overload and specificity can enhance ability. Consider that the

testing measurement of plyometrics is jumping... the exact same skill that is

being trained. Doesnt it make sense that jumping ability would improve?

But that skill is far removed from the skill of sprinting, or dodging tactics in

basketball, for example.)


26/63



Both Fleck and Kraemer likewise choose to include explosive and plyometric

exercises in their philosophy. And they are so bold as to suggest altering

reps, sets and weight loads will have near-isolating effects on hypertrophy,

strength, and power as if they were separate entities that can be developed

almost independent of each other. If the mechanisms cannot be isolated,

how can it be determined whether an alteration in a program of a few reps,

sets, and weight load percentage will focus more on strength or power or that

strength and power is not a concern or possible during hypertrophy?

Dowling states this about plyometrics (as well as most whom endorse the

activity), All athletes and coaches are responsible for selecting a level of

acceptable risk. When the benefit is not clear and the risk is also not well

known, it makes the decision even more difficult.

Exercise for the vast majority is about enhancing function, not running the

risk of injury or increasing that risk. Weight training is about injury

prevention and physical improvement.

Should Joe and Jane Average incorporate explosive and plyometric exercises

if it means increasing the risk of injury to (supposedly) increase power?

Should athletes worth millions of dollars do likewise? Ask baseball

professional Alex Rodriguez (Mariners shortstop) that question after he

injured his left knee in 1999 while performing box jumps under the guidanceof a qualified strength coach who believed explosive training to be ideal.

*** ***


27/63



When addressing the power phase, Fleck and Kraemer state, Most multi-

joint sporting activities require the development of power. This

would include jumping, throwing, and running. It follows that mostly

multi-joint power type exercises are used in this phase. The

emphasis is on accelerating the weight throughout the entire range ofmotion of the lifting phase of every exercise (where this can be done

safely). There are a number of problems with these statements:

It does not follow that one must perform NON-SPECIFIC multi-joint

weight training exercises in order to increase the power of SPECIFIC athletic

activities. It is uncertain how they came to that conclusion except to suggest

that multi-joint movements are more time and cost effective (they offer the

biggest bang for the buck).

But in regards to specificity, squatting is not the same as jumping. Overheadpresses are not the same as throwing a baseball. And lunging is not the same

as running. Heck, even the improved ability of the flat barbell bench press

does not cross over very well to machine or incline dumbbell presses. And

there is a lot more similarity between execution and speed of movement, etc.

amongst those movements than between free-weight exercises and sporting

skills. To be good at a machine press or dumbbell incline presses requires

you to practice those movements specifically.

Further, how can an activity that is much slower in acceleration and speed(e.g., plyometric jumps) improve the explosiveness, acceleration and speed

of a sporting activity (e.g., sprinting)? In order to become faster and more

explosive at throwing a baseball, does it make sense to explode a barbell or

dumbbell that moves much slower? The athlete should be focusing on the

skills of throwing a ball while building strength and muscle generally and

safely in the weight room.

Next, consider the last phrase where this can be done safely. Again, asstated previously, the safe limit is unknown when attempting to take your

muscles to the edge, by optimizing force output with explosive action. Howcan a trainee know when these practices are safe? Have you ever injured

yourself and was surprised that you did injure yourself (believing it was safe

to push that hard)? Most of us have been down that road, and may take

another walk down that road repeatedly whenever challenging the upper limits

of the body. The upper safe limit is never known until it is too late.


28/63



Fleck and Kraemer then state, All the exercises performed during this

training phase (strength/power) are multi-joint power or multi-joint

strength type exercise. Huh? Why cant a single joint exercise increasepower or strength (which they can)? What function would a multi-jointexercise have if not to increase function (i.e., hypertrophy, strength, and

power)? in other words, these are unnecessary neologisms.

And if you consider that a muscle cannot be trained throughout a full range

of motion without the inclusion of single-joint exercises (for reasons based

on mechanics, see Prescribed Exercise), it should be evident the importance

of single-joint training and the erroneous statement made by Fleck and

Kraemer.

Some periodizationalists may offer up the quality versus quantity argument.

Primarily, single joint exercises impose extra sets, extra time, and extra

recovery requirements. The goal is to build a basic foundation of strength

with time, energy, and recovery to spare for other sport specific activities.

Multi-joint movements give the biggest bang for the buck.

All right, that is a fair argument, which has nothing to do with the average

trainee (since they dont perform sport-specific activities), but athletes. The

same argument, however, can be applied in favor of single-joint movements.

If your goal is to optimize the effect, development, and function of aspecific muscle group, it is not an issue of quantity, but quality, which brings

us back to the benefit of single-joint movements to better isolate a muscle

that requires optimum loading, inroading, development, etc.

Moreover, not all muscle groups need be subjected to single-joint movements

(only those you wish to focus attention). Adding 1-2 sets of single-joint

movements (in a program already based on a minimum of 24 sets) will not

suddenly lead to overtraining. And there is nothing stating that you cannot

delete a multi-joint movement to make room for a single-joint movement ifdoing so increases the quality of the workout goals in question.


29/63



Regardless, to give such titles as multi-joint power and multi-joint

strength to exercises is pointless and endeavors to show the authors in afavorable light of authorities (viz. using impressive sounding terminology).

Dazzle them with BS. Moreover, the act of making up names (and

meaningless names at that) helps to instill confusion, poorly defined terms,

and vagueness in the sciences, which also helps to cloak the authors

mysticism and errors in reasoning.

What is strange is that the authors claim Power training must be

performed at relatively high intensity to be effective. Yet, a heavy

weight (high intensity) can only be moved slowly since it is so heavy. Youcan move a lighter weight much faster, obviously. Consequently, how can

the slow moving heavy weight of the bench press transfer to greater power in

throwing a ball, for example, at much faster velocities?

If the connecting (physical) factor is relative to the overload of the weight

(and the increase in strength/force output), does that not indicate the

importance of overload in general, regardless of the speed of movement

that building strength and hypertrophy are the governing factors behind

power? An elementary understanding of physics should dictate as much.

Yet Fleck and Kraemer promote moving a weight (during theconcentric/positive phase of a movement) as quickly as possible. Doing so

magnifies the forces and potential for injury.


30/63



More on Training Phases

Vagueness does not stop with the concept of hypertrophy versus strength or

power. Fleck and Kraemer define General strength training as weight

training that develops all the major muscle groups and bolsters

overall strength capabilities. This type of training begins during the off-season and early pre-season (or preparation phase of competition). It falls

just after the hypertrophy phase.

What is perplexing are the prescriptions offered within the book.

Hypertrophy requires 3-4 sets per exercise whereas strength and power

requires 3-5 sets. Why cant hypertrophy include a fifth set, or stop at two

sets per exercise? What is the physiological reason for an extra set for

strength and power? No explanations are provided except the possibility ofkeeping total work numbers up, i.e., reduce reps and increase sets.

The repetition counts are also arbitrary, suggesting that hypertrophy training

should be 8-20 repetitions, whereas strength is 2-6 and power is 2-3. Why

cant power also include repetitions four and five? No answer is given. In

fact, no answers can be given for any of these assertions, only that

something had to be different in order to differentiate one phase from the

others, so lets choose reps and sets!

Then there is the issue of weight loads, wherein hypertrophy training is low inintensity (between 60-80% of a 1 RM). Why not 85% or 95% in a rest-pause

fashion (a highly useful training variable used amongst high-intensity

enthusiasts, including the late Mike Mentzer and Ray Mentzer)? No answer is

given.

The recommendations for arbitrary repetitions, sets, and weight loads do not

take into account an individuals cadence choice (how fast or slow the

resistance will move) or an individuals tolerance to stress. For example, if

you were to move 4 seconds up and 4 seconds down (nothing too slow, butfar from explosive), a set of 8 repetitions would last 64 seconds. But a set of

12 repetitions would last over 90 seconds far too long for muscles that

have an abundance of fast twitch fibers and are quick to fatigue (a tension

time that can eventually lead to overuse atrophy if abused). And some

muscle groups may respond optimally to only 1-2 sets, so why perform 3+

sets?


31/63



Although Fleck and Kraemer indicate the value of tracking data by including

an entire chapter on the topic, they neglect precision of record keeping by

ignoring repetition cadence relative to the number of repetitions performed.

Then you have Charles Poliquin, another periodization proponent, on the

other side of the fence, suggesting impossible cadence measurements such as2.1 seconds! How do you measure that?

Fleck and Kraemers inexact approach is further exemplified by suggesting:

You can determine any RM weight from 1 to 25 RM by following

these steps:

1. Warm up with five to 10 repetitions using 50 percent of an

estimated RM (How do you know what 50% is? No answer. If youpretty much knew this information you wouldnt need to continue the

experiment).

2. After a minute or two of rest and some stretching, use 70 percent

of that estimated RM to perform the desired number of repetitions

i.e., if youre looking to find your 1 RM, do one rep; if youre

looking to find your 10 RM, do ten reps (Same problem arises).

3. Repeat step two, only now youre using 90% of the estimated RM.

4. After two minutes or so of rest, repeat step two, this time using

100 to 105 percent of the estimated RM.

5. If step four is successfully completed, repeat step two, rest

included, this time using one to five percent more weight than you

used in step four.

6. If you successfully completed step five, repeat the entire cycle

after at least one full day of rest, starting with a heavier weight in

step one.

Theres a better way... simply get into the gym and fake it. If youre looking

to complete a certain number of repetitions, you will quickly discover your

goal weights within a few workouts. About as much time to estimate the

periodization way.


32/63



Moreover, this testing does not take into account a muscles rate of fatigue

or the relationship of various muscles within a multi-joint movement. Triceps

that are quick to fatigue, for example, would produce a test that concludes a

much lower RM than what actually exists yet the pectorals and deltoids

may not be optimally fatigued. This scenario easily happens with any muscle

with an abundance of fast twitch since the more sets you perform trying to

find your RM, the faster you fatigue and the more skewed the data becomes.

The test, simply, is a waste of time for beginners and irrelevant to those who

have been exercising for some time and have been tracking data (as they

should be).

Then the authors move onto sport-specific weight training, indicating that

such exercise trains the muscles in a fashion similar to how theyll be

used during the actual competitive situation. Thus, for many sports

this would mean power-oriented training. And this is where they make afundamental error believing moving explosively or using heavy weights in an

exercise will make the muscles more explosive in a particular sporting skill.

And that attempting to duplicate a sporting skill in the weight room under

different conditions will improve an athletes ability.


33/63



Sport Specificity

Including specific resistance training exercises to enhance sport specific

movements is utter absurdity, regardless of the recommendations of Fleck

and Kraemer. There are no degrees of specificity... either something is

entirely specific or it is not either a physical movement is completely

specific or it is not. Specific means explicit, particular, or definite, not sort

of or similar.

For example, throwing a baseball that is ounces heavier than the ball you are

used to and then eventually returning to the original ball weight is no longer

specific and will definitely hinder the accuracy of your pitch if continued.

This phenomenon occurs since the nervous system controls the muscles,

producing a particular pattern and firing rate participation of themotorneurons and skill acquisition in accordance to the practiced movement

in question.

The inter-task transfer, or the ability for the skills of one activity to improve

that of another unrelated activity, typically finds that the transfer is small or

negligible. If the tasks are more similar, the transfer tends to be higher yet

still typically small. An example would be a badminton player taking up

tennis. Because of this athletes past experience, the skills of badminton may

help in learning the game of tennis. However, a proficient tennis player willnot become a better tennis player as a result of learning badminton skills.

Never has a world-class tennis player become a world-class badminton or

table tennis player. The skills may appear similar, but they differ greatly as a

result of play area, racket weight, air resistance, ball/birdie weight, and kinetic

characteristics such as speed, delivery, and return.

Strength training is analogous in this regard but to a much greater magnitude.

The skills of a power clean cannot transfer to the skills of sprinting and

dodging in football, or a slap-shot in hockey, although many strength and

conditioning coaches believe otherwise. Strength is general and contributes

to any activity. The applied demonstration of strength is specific, however,

and applying strength to any activity, such as football, requires skill training.

And the only way to produce specificity in a sport is to practice the sport

skills themselves not something that appears to be similar.


34/63



Being more explicit, in football there are many positions, including running

back, quarterback, and wide receiver. Being good at one position does not

make that athlete good at all positions. If this were the case, a running back

could take the quarterbacks place if the quarterback became injured during

the game. It should be obvious that the skill acquisition is much differentfrom one position to another. Likewise, Olympic lifting is even more far

removed, not offering any direct transference of skill nor producing any

better gains in strength or power than a sound program of strict, hard

exercise characterized by safe, low-force, non-ballistic movement.

Since resistance exercises (regardless of their apparent duplications) are not

specific to the speed, gait and force produced in athletic events, they are

useless for increasing a specific skill and an inappropriate way to contribute

to a skill. Even the use of parachutes during sprinting has not been proven to

optimally improve running speed since it is non-specific to the speed,mechanics, and gait of sprinting without a parachute. Those who make

modest gains from such training do so because the stress overload on the

muscles caused muscular strength and growth to occur. They could have

received better results from a sensible strength training program and without

disrupting the specifics of their natural gait (requiring even more practice

under normal conditions in order to sustain or improve in those skills).

Negative Transfer

Attempting to duplicate a sport specific movement with unaccustomedmovements and loads results in the athlete learning two methods or styles of

performance, thus causing a negative transfer. Multiple motor memories

adapt, which inevitably leads to confusion. Competitive performance will

either suffer or not benefit in any manner as a result.

Similarly, it is not uncommon for a strength athlete to be very strong in the

bench press, yet be relatively weak with the incline or decline bench press (if

s/he did not also practice those movements) due to different motor learning

patterns. Try it yourself, utilizing a totally new exercise, and you will

discover a comparable weakness to that of a seemingly similar exercisemovement.


35/63



Arthur Jones relayed an excellent example of a small stone or grain of sand in

a sock. Did you notice how your gait changes in order to accommodate thediscomfort? That small grain of sand, although it felt huge, was enough of a

change to alter the specificity of your gait. Can you imagine what attempting

to duplicate a sport specific movement with added resistance could do to

your learning curve?

To relay another example, operating a transport truck will not affect your

ability to operate a small compact car since the two particulars and

characteristics of these vehicles are so far removed. But drive a small

compact for several years, then suddenly a Lincoln Continental, and you will

find the task more arduous, especially when parallel parking or moving in

tight spaces. The close relationship between the two cars makes observation

and perception more difficult than that between a small car and the transport

truck. Furthermore, and as Arthur Jones personally observed, piloting a

plane and driving a car is even more non-specific, having no detrimental

effect on the two skills.

The ideal strength training routine for an athlete is to simply select common

exercises, such as the bench press, squat, calf raise, bent row, chin-up, etc.,

and leave the skill training to the sport in question. Despite the importance ofincluding exercises that are geared toward the primary muscles of your

sporting event (e.g., squats for sprinters, deltoid work for tennis players),

exercise movements designed to be specific to a muscular movement found

within a sport is a grave error.


36/63



Explosive/Speed Training

For the past few years, speed and explosive training has become the newrave within the fitness industry; neatly fitting into the periodization model for

supposed optimum conditioning. Whether youre talking about speed

training or explosive training, the concept is to move or accelerate the

resistance as quickly as possible (speed training usually implements lighter

weights, around the 60% of a 1RM, for example). Questions remaining

include: 1) Will moving quickly develop quicker muscles? 2) Will moving

quickly produce better results, i.e., the ability to mover faster, than moving

slowly? 3) Is it safe to move quickly?

Quicker MusclesConsider that some authorities whom promote speed training also contend

slow movement (e.g., 3-4 second concentric or slower) makes you slow, or

at least will not improve speed. There are several problems with this

reasoning, some of which were addressed previously but deserve reiteration.

Primarily, it is force that enables you to move faster. Simply try to move

faster without exerting greater force. If you discover a method to the

contrary, share it with the automobile industry and become wealthy. Now

consider elementary physics that moving a resistance from point A to B(distance) requires force and a magnitude of time to complete the lift. Add it

all together and you have the prescription for power, which is force x

distance time, or the rate of doing work.

By increasing force (i.e., muscle strength), and not speed, you become more

powerful and faster. Speed is merely the resultof force. As Isaac Asimov

stated in his book, Understanding Physics,

...a force is that which can impose a change of velocity on a material

body; (a force is) that which imposes a change in speed of a body, orits direction of motion, or both; without a continuous force, there

would be no continuous acceleration.


37/63



It is a fact that a stronger athlete (relative to his or her own previous ability) is

a more powerful and faster athlete but within reason and limitations. Those

who compete with light implements, i.e., tennis or Ping-Pong players,

increase the speed of their swing and delivery by skill practicing, mental

focus, and drills to increase reaction time. Exerting against a light implementsuch as a racquet, air resistance, and a ball cannot provide sufficient

opposing force (Newtons Third Law) to allow greater muscular force up to

a certain limitation... no matter how strong you become.

As an analogy, try throwing a small pebble versus a stone 3-4 times the

pebbles size. The stone can be thrown much further since it is heavy

enough to produce a sufficient and greater force against the working muscles

(again, a reflection of Newtons Third Law). But too heavy, and the

opposing force of the stone will exceed or challenge the muscles in excess.

Hence, athletes who do require high speeds against low resistance are at the

mercy of their reflexes or nervous reactions (factors that are genetically

predetermined), as well as their volitional effort and focus. Speed weight

training will NOT help.

Next, consider the idea that regardless of how fast you move a resistance, it

is nowhere near the potential speed that is possible. For example, a rapidly

moving barbell (e.g., 50+% of your 1RM) may travel at 200 per second

perhaps a bit faster. However, a sprinters limbs, unobstructed by a

resistance (excluding gravity, ground friction, and air), can move andaccelerate several times faster.

How can a slower speed, while using resistance, increase the speed capability

of muscles that contract much faster and under 90ms especially

considering one pro-speed argument is that moving slowly in weight training

will not build speed and that you must move quickly or explosively?

If lighter resistance is more specific to increasing maximal speed, as so many

coaches advocate, then why not train with air resistance for maximal speed

development? It may be argued that some resistance is necessary, which

suggests the importance of muscular inroading via an overload to build

strength/force. This, then, contributes to greater speed development and that

the speed of movement during exercise is irrelevant or at least the speed of

any weight training activity is non-specific to an athletic activity.


38/63



Realize that the speed you demonstrate power is with specific and dependent

on the sporting activity or movement. The speed of movement at which you

build power, however, is unrelated and independent of the speed at which

you demonstrate power. If you play a particular sport requiring fast

movement, you should attempt to move quickly when practicing theparticular sporting skills, thus demonstrating power, but not when exercising

to build power.

Better Results

If you consider the reasoning above, fast movement is not superior to slower

movement in producing quick muscles, power or explosion. Moreover, the

faster you move, the greater the acceleration and momentum. That means a

quick blast out of the starting gates resulting in high forces at the

commencement of movement. What follows (if not injury) is muscular

unloading for part of the range of motion as the resistance propels upwardand until gravity slows the weight down. How can muscular unloading be

beneficial if the concept of strength training is to train (not relax) the muscles?

Also, what mechanically transpires during fast movement that does NOT

transpire during slow movement? Speed proponents are unable to respond

rationally often substituting mystical terminology, gut hunches, beliefs, and

hypotheses for fact. Muscles contract period. Whether you move quickly

or slowly, their job is to generate or resist force (resisting force via

contraction), regardless of speed. And, as stated, it is force that producesspeed and acceleration.

EMG studies do indicate a difference in the rate of fiber recruitment with

faster speeds (within reason and before momentum takes over). However,

on a cellular basis:

Fibers still contract, and they contract in the same manner regardless ofhow slowly or quickly you apply force.

The rate and quality of recruitment patterns are different with a weight

training movement than a sport specific movement (and being able to turnon more fibers during an explosive lift does not automatically mean

turning on as many or more fibers [or the same fibers in the same order]

during an athletic activity that requires different movement patterns).

The issue of safety (and comparing cost-benefit ratios) must beconsidered with explosive movements.


39/63



Safety

The faster you move the greater the risk of injury. Moving a light weight

explosively is just as dangerous as moving a 1RM slowly (although

producing maximum force to move the 1RM as quickly as possible). Speedproponents, at least, concur that there remains risk of injury during explosive

movement.

Exercise, however, should not increase any risk. Rather, it should increase

functional ability to help prevent injuries. It is understandable that Olympic

lifters and powerlifters run the risk of injuries due to the high forces of lifting

a 1RM, but that should not apply to the remainder of the population. Many

professional athletes have injured themselves from high-speed training, and

they are genetic superiors who can better sustain such rigors. If they run the

risk of injury, what does that indicate about the norm?

Most importantly, it is vital never to have the elderly lift explosively,

regardless of what some NSCA proponents recommend (i.e., Mr. Juan

Carlos Santana). There should be near-zero risk when training frail

individuals. Obviously, the more haphazard the training approach with the

elderly, the greater the risk of injury and possible legal action.

Moreover, it is erroneous to propose that speed training will make the elderly

faster, apart from the arguments presented thus far. The elderly are often

slow in movement due to deconditioned bodies, crippling diseases, and

sometimes laziness (they may not value exercise or have the motivation to do

so regularly), thus further affecting condition, posture, etc. Their lack of

speed in daily movements is unrelated to avoiding fast and explosive actions

as they age.

In that vein, how much speed does a 70-year old man or woman need? They

require strength to live with dignity to get out of bed or lift them selves off

the toilet, not to wind sprint to the corner store. If you still believe speed

training has value, keep it in perspective and prescribe it to those who canbest tolerate high forces the young and strong (and quick to heal), not your

grandparents!


40/63



More on Specificity

Consider that Fleck and Kraemer promote variations of the snatch, clean,jerk, and certain plyometric type exercises to inculcate good technique in

these exercises, which makes sense. If you want to be good at thosemovements (endorsed by two past Olympic lifters), then you need to

practice them very important for OLYMPIC LIFTERS. Yet they continue

by suggesting, and in part to start to develop the power necessary to

be successful in a power type activity such as shot-putting or discus

throwing. Whats wrong with practicing shot-putting or discus throwing?How will developing skill in the Olympic lifts help a person shot-put two

different skills with two different neurological patterns, rate of forceproduction, speed, etc.? No answer is given.

If you carefully read the preceding section on specificity, it should be

neurologically evident why performing Olympic lifting and other explosive

movements will not enhance an athletes ability to shot-put or throw a discus.

If those movements increased lean mass (which they can), then the ability to

generate force improves.

If explosive weight training helped these athletes, why havent any world-

class Olympic lifters broken any shot-put or discus world records? Becausethey dont have the SKILLS necessary to execute those movements and

possibly not the proper mechanics, i.e., lever lengths. Shot-putters and

discus throwers become explosive at their chosen activities by practicing

those movements and building muscle and strength through strength training

in general. Explosive movements in strength training are unnecessary it is

the explosiveness of skill specific activities that is vital, based on mental

focus, quick reaction and a lot of practice of those skills.


41/63



Regardless, Fleck and Kraemer continue by stating, Periodization is all

about meeting specific training needs. As an example, if the sport

being trained were not a true strength power sport, but a strength

endurance sport -such as the 400-meter event in track and field

the same general pattern of training intensity and volume could bemaintained with changes in the number of sets, repetitions, and

training days per week. For an event such as the 400-meters in track

and field, the first mesocycle could consist of 15-20 repetitions per

set and 2-3 sets of each exercise; then progress to 5-8 repetitions

per set with 2-3 sets of each exercise.

Its uncertain what the relationship is or why training needs to reduce

dramatically from 15-20 repetitions to 5-8 repetitions or why the trainee

should bother with 15-20 repetitions in the first place. Endurance of asporting activity is acquired by practicing the sporting activity! Being good

at endurance weight training will not allow you to run a 5K race or complete a

triathlon.

Consider one Super Slow Exercise training advocate who reported to me

being winded running bases in softball although he regularly performed full

body, high-intensity workouts 1-2 times a week, while getting his pulse rate

up to 180 or greater. The endurance and ability he acquired did not transfer

to another activity. The neuromuscular skills required in softball (sprinting)

were new and made great metabolic demands. He had to practice 40-yarddashes to become efficient at the required demands. The same holds true for

any sport in that practicing 15-20 reps of an exercise will not produce greater

endurance for a particular activity other than performing 15-20 reps of that

exercise.

Moreover, Fleck and Kraemer recommended 15-20 repetitions during the

hypertrophy phase; now the rep range has become the endurance phase (?).

What happens if these endurance athletes build too much muscle, thus

affecting the cost-benefit ratio of ability versus size? No answer is given.


42/63



Another factor that must be considered is: If the demands (set and rep

requirements) remain constant during a periodization phase, but the trainingpoundages increase and muscle mass remains constant, it is lifting

proficiency within select exercise movements that are improving. This does

not mean greater power or strength that can be demonstrated in a sporting

activity.

The reason strong men practice stone lifts, odd lifts, etc. prior to the

Worlds Strongest Man competition is based on specificity and that the

strength they build bench pressing, squatting, etc. does not carry over. They

are limited by the amount of muscle they obtained through traditional weight

training (i.e., bench pressing and squatting), followed by skill practicing (i.e.,

stone lifts) to obtain lifting proficiency in the lifts in which they are to be

tested.

Hence, in order to increase strength and power that extends to any activity,

muscle cross-sectional area must increase (and the skills specific to the sport

must be practiced so the strength and power that does exist, via the muscle

development of the person, can be demonstrated).

Just as the skills of one sport do not transfer to the skills of another sport,neither will the proficiency skills of lifting weights transfer to football,

hockey, or any other activity. It is the actual architectural change of tissues

(hypertrophy) that results in greater function relative to any activity.


43/63



Rest and Recovery

There are three recovery periods within the total training year. Whyis this? No reason is given. It is not the individuals needs and goals, nor his

or her schedule and ability to coordinate recovery periods that are taken

into consideration. Perhaps more recovery periods are required maybe

less. Rather, the fixed program forces each individual to train in accordance

to the schedule created by the authors, as if our biological clocks and cycles

run in accordance to the (their) calendar regardless of individual stress

levels and experiences.

If you recall at the beginning of this report, the authors claimed you wont get

bored and give up on exercise if you follow their recommendations That

wont happen with a periodized plan. However, they never consideredthe dropout rate based on the inability to adhere to a fixed regimen that does

not coincide with the trainees schedule, preferences, conveniences, or

tolerance to exercise.

...rest and recovery is vital to optimal progression, states the authors.Few would argue with this sentiment, although Fleck and Kraemers concept

of rest and recovery is far removed from what the terms actually mean (to be

addressed shortly).

The power phase allows the individual to recover physiologically from

the previous high-volume training and to prepare psychologically for

the maximal and near-maximal efforts necessary for this mode of

training.

Moreover, The goal of the recovery periods is to allow the athlete to

REST UP from the previous training phase and prepare their body

for the next training phase. All the recovery periods are comprised

of moderate volume and low-intensity training. There is little weekly

variation in either volume or intensity in any of the recovery periods.(Emphasis mine).


44/63

www.Ex

Documents

Periodization[1]