Strength training 2005: from science to practice.

Strength training has been such a major part of the athletic scene for so long that you'd think everyone would know exactly how to go about it.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The truth is that the disparaging cluster of philosophies is so widespread that it is impossible to track.

There are always plenty of people who will be happy to tell you that everything you're doing in the weight room is all wrong and is thus responsible for many of your athletically related miseries.

Basically, there are three distinct groups:

The first group provides information backed with a valid portfolio of peer-reviewed studies.

Another group is basically winging it--incorporating a hodgepodge of exercises and techniques to assure you that they are not "missing" anything.

Finally come the self-proclaimed gurus with a fool-proof mouse trap that they would love to sell to you. They conduct all of their research with the conclusions drawn-up in advance.

Here's the kicker: Each group probably has something worthwhile to offer.

With all of the bickering about sets, reps, movement speed, etc., we often forget that the essence of strength training is a relatively simple affair: If you apply a gradual, progressive overload to the muscular system, it will adapt over time and get stronger and more powerful.

No argument there, as just about everyone accepts this as the gold standard of resistance training.

But the question persists: Is there a best way to do it?

Let's take a look at what the current research says on (1) the three most controversial issues in the field, (2) offer some practical suggestions based upon this information, and (3) allow you to formulate your own design.

HOW MANY SETS PER EXERCISE?

This has been and will most likely continue to be the most fiercely debated question in strength training. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be an unbiased, definitive answer indicating that any particular number of sets is superior to another. For that to be the case, it would have to be substantiated with a preponderance of the scientific literature. There are many opinions, but the burden of proof lies with those who state those opinions as facts.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

If you look closely at the broad spectrum of set recommendations, which can range from 1-5 or more, it can be difficult to ascertain whether the goal is to provide the neuromuscular system with the optimal level of volume for progress or to see how much it can tolerate.

Obviously, we should strive for the former.

There is a sizable body of research indicating that if the intensity is appropriate, limited set training can be as effective as higher-volume protocols.

An extensive review of the currently available literature (Carpinelli, et.al, 2004) indicates that there is no physiological need to perform an inordinate volume of sets to achieve the desired goals of increased strength, power, and size.

Note: The term "intensity" in this case refers to the level of effort put into the set, (i.e., performing the set with a weight that makes the last few reps very difficult to achieve with proper technique).

Another definition of intensity is ascribed to a percentage of a 1 repetition (or estimated) maximum (e.g., performing 3 sets of 5 reps with 80% of max).

Suggestions: We have always determined our number of sets by the emphasis for that particular period (i.e., off-season or in-season) or day, and by the total volume we want to perform within the workout. Another variable deserving consideration is whether you are performing a total body or split (upper only or lower only) affair.

For total body workouts, we suggest between 15 to 20 total sets. Assuming that the workout is preceded by a five-minute warm-up, each set lasts 20-45 seconds (depending upon the number of reps and the duration of each), and 90 seconds to 2 minutes are allowed between sets, the workout will last approximately one hour.

Assigning these sets to specific exercises is up to the coach and can be varied from day to day, week to week, or in any other fashion deemed necessary. Since coaches have divergent ideas on this matter, each one should be able to frame the workouts to satisfy his approach.

For the split plan, we suggest around 10-12 total sets. Again, the exercises and modes can be set by each coach. This format usually takes 35-45 minutes to complete, depending upon rep/set duration and the recovery allotment between sets.

In either case, the primary consideration is the number of different exercises you wish to incorporate. Obviously, more exercises dictate fewer sets of each. Conversely, fewer exercise choices can concede to more sets of each.

From an empirical standpoint, we have had success performing single sets of more exercises as well as executing more sets of fewer exercises. We have integrated both approaches for their variety attributes as much as for any other reason.

Science supports several different approaches in this area, with no one system showing a significant advantage over the others.

REP SPEED

Fast, controlled, slow, "super slow,"--just how fast should a rep be performed?

We know that it is important to create and maintain a certain degree of tension within the working musculature in order to recruit the optimal number of muscle fibers. This can be accomplished with a controlled movement speed (longer rep duration).

Some prefer a higher rep (shorter rep duration) speed and the movements that require a ballistic action to overcome inertia.

While there is a paucity of studies on this subject, most of those conducted have failed to find a significant advantage in executing a specific rep speed for optimal gains in muscular size, strength, or power.

Basically, you can lift a relatively light weight with high speed and make some notable gains.

Conversely, you can use a relatively heavy weight and--even though the "intent" to lift it rapidly is discernable--the rep speed will be inherently slower. Excellent gains will be made with this approach, as well.

Another approach is to use a relatively light weight and affix a predetermined, slower rep cadence to each rep. Example: Five seconds for the positive (raising) phase and 6-8 seconds for the negative (lowering) phase. Again, this can be a very effective approach, one we particularly like in rehabilitation circumstances.

Suggestions: Rep speed continues to be a topic of intense debate with little evidence supporting one definitive cadence. Coaches must determine the types of lifts they wish to perform, the amount of weight they want used on each, and then factor-in the techniques they want taught. Those variables in themselves will often govern rep speed.

Keep in mind that the "neurological intent" to move a weight quickly on the positive phase (i.e., attempting a rapid rep) can reap the same power rewards as rapidly moving a lighter weight. The difference, of course, is that the heavier weight cannot be moved rapidly. Some practitioners refer to this as controlled explosion.

This is what happens on the last few reps of a 6-8 maximal rep range set--an all-out effort (intent) to lift the weight is required. When done judiciously, progressively, and with attention paid to the proper mechanics of the lift in question, excellent results can be gleaned from this approach.

Note: Regardless of the rep speed you choose to initiate on the positive phase of an exercise, we recommend a more controlled negative phase (2-4 seconds), not only for its neuromuscular benefits, but for safety concerns, as well.

LIFTING MODES

What should you use--free weights, machines, or both?

The ubiquitous and superfluous dispute over which type of equipment is superior for gains in muscle size, strength, and power continues to be an annoying rant.

The claims for and against the vast array of equipment choices range somewhere between feasible and outrageous.

There is very little research comparing free weights and machines, and that which exists does not crown an indisputable winner. Both are able to progressively overload the neuromuscular system, albeit with irrelevant variations.

Suggestions: Remember this: Your muscles do not have the cognitive ability to discern whether the overload originates from a machine, Olympic bar, dumbbell, tree stump, or a sack full of returned Christmas gifts. Overload is overload, and it can be assimilated via myriad training modalities.

The notions that one mode provides unique advantages over the other in muscle growth, athletic balance, sport-skill acquisition, power development, or any of a host of other attributes that are specific to training paradigms outside the weight room, are speculative at best, unsubstantiated at worst.

Try to be open-minded about equipment. If nothing else, the variety will be welcomed by the athletes. After all, they are the ones who are subjected to all of this hard and sometimes monotonous work on a consistent, year-round basis.

Only your own prejudices can eliminate some very viable and innovative alternatives when it comes to equipment choices.

FINAL REP

A basic tenet of the scientific method dictates that an extraordinary claim must be substantiated with extraordinary evidence.

Opinions in this field are abundant, and they can certainly be effectual and worthwhile. However, when opinions are presented as facts without the solid underpinnings of unbiased, valid, reliable, peer-reviewed research, it borders on egregious.

An extensive review of much of the currently available scientific literature on strength training is referenced below. All of the issues discussed here, as well as many other pertinent strength training topics, are examined in great detail in this document. It can be obtained on-line: http://www.asep.org/FLDR/JEPhome.htm

Check it out and decide for yourself.

Reference

Carpinelli, RN, Otto, R.M.: Winnett, RA: "A Critical Analysis of the ACSM Stand on Resistance Training. Insufficient Evidence to Support Recommended Training Protocols."

"Journal of Exercise Physiology online," Volume 7, #3, 2004

Send your questions to: Ken Mannie, Michigan State University, Duffy Daugherty Building, East Lansing, MI 48824 or via email at [e-mail].

By Ken Mannie, Strength/Conditioning Coach

Michigan State University