Does Speed Work work? My response to Mike
Tuchscherer’s article
Part 2
Click here for the part 1 of this article.
INTENSITY, LOAD, EFFORT, EXERTION…
One thing I forgot to emphasize and explain in
Load-Velocity profile (from now on L-V profile or L-V trade-off) was that all
reps are done at MAXIMUM INTENT
to lift as fast as possible (within technical limit). In another words EFFORT of each rep, at each LOAD was
MAXIMAL. In some strength circuits this
is called C.A.T (Compensatory Acceleration Training).
I have created a graph to explain that submax weights
could be done with less than maximum effort.
 |
| Load-Velocity profile done with different effort levels |
Using the above example I could lift 120kg at 0.55 m/s
with maximal effort. With submax effort I will lift it slower (I have used
percentage of the maximal velocity for a given load as percent of maximal
effort, although this relationship might not be linear like this). Also, it
might not be possible to slow down certain loads too much (especially not 1RM)
due sticking points and TUT (endurance).
We use the word intensity
to refer to a given percentage of 1RM. Recent paper
by James Steele (thanks to Bret
Contreras for pointing it out) argues against it and you can quickly see why in
the above graph. I can lift submax load with maximal or submaximal effort.
Steele recommends using intensity of load, intensity of effort to make things clearer:
In RT, we could talk of the intensity OF load as
being the percentage of 1 RM or maximum voluntary contraction that is being
used. Or we might talk of the intensity OF effort involved during an exercise
with the caveat that we can only gain subjective measurement of the sense of
effort through RPE, and measurement of motor unit (MU) recruitment in RT provides
a physiological variable correlating with effort, with max MU recruitment representing max effort independent of load
--- Steele J. Br J Sports Med Published Online First
|
Up to this point we have talked about only single
rep velocity at certain load. Using less than maximal load one could
perform couple of reps until exhaustion
(technical or complete failure). On the following picture is the table by Dan
Baker for experienced trainers.
 |
| Repetition maximum continuum |
This is another fundamental concept in strength
training and it is called repetition
maximum continuum or Load-Reps trade-off.
Please note that there is no special reference
to the effort of those reps (or
speed) so they are usually done at self-selected pace. Also, there is an
important difference in L-R relationship between exercises, level of lifters,
etc. One could use Reps-till-fatigue to estimate 1RMs, although as said there
is a big difference between exercises, lifters, etc thus most coaches use
different tables.
In R-L continuum we are again talking about MAXIMUM
reps done at certain load (%1RM). Using submax effort one could perform lower
number of reps. If we say that lifting
for maximum reps athlete reaches maximum exertion
(or exhaustion), then lifting for submax number of reps one reaches submax
exertion.
This is one of the main principles of Mike
Tuchscherer’s Reactive Training System. Mike uses RPE scale (Rate of perceived
exertion) to quantify exertion for number of reps performed. You can
read more about it HERE.
Another table is relative intensity which I’ve picked
up from Donnell Boucher (click HERE).
I am presenting here one example of such a table:
 |
| Relative intensity table |
What is common to both of these tables is the concept
of quantifying how hard a given set was (in terms of exertion at the end of it).
This is useful for programming since all-out-sets demands a lot from the body
and demands more time for recovery.
I will visualize it by using Dan Baker table
 |
| Performing submax number of reps at certain %1RM |
Please note that this is not universal percent table –
it is only an example that you can use. For more info please refer to work by
Mike Tuchscherer. I have provided outline of his system
HERE
and
HERE.
As you can see there are two inter-related fundamental
concepts L-V and L-R. It is crucial to understand them, but it is also crucial
to understand the terminology issues. Thus we have
Intensity of load (%1RM)
Intensity of effort (lifting speed, intent to
lift fast – concentric only or concentric-eccentric; tempo)
Intensity of exertion (expressed sometimes as
5[10] which means 5 reps of possible 10 reps; one could use RPE system as well
or relative intensity table)
As you can see this is all related to one set.
Then we have more programing variables relating to volume aspects, like number
of sets, total number of reps, tonnage, rest between sets, etc.
The authors and coaches often confuse effort and
exhaustion (I have wrote about it HERE).
The example that James Steel gave depict the situation perfectly:
Along this vein of thought, however, we might also
consider the differentiation between sense of effort and the physical
sensations associated with exercise, which, considering the above definition
of intensity, would also be inappropriately labelled as such. Indeed, these
phenomena have also been recently called upon to be differentiated
appropriately within the articles published in BJSM.16 17 Smirmaul16 offers a
practical example appropriate to RT in this regard suggesting, “A short
maximal voluntary contraction for leg extension, for example, will induce a
maximal sense of effort while, initially, other unpleasant sensations will
probably be modest. Repeating this maximal contraction several times,
however, will increase these unpleasant sensations continuously, whereas
sense of effort will always be the same (ie, maximal).” Indeed, I and my
colleagues have questioned the use of RPE in RT to determine relative
effort.6 Shimano et al9 showed that, when repetitions were continued to MMF,
RPE was similar at 60%, 80% and 90% of 1 RM for most exercises;
|
* MMF – Momentary Muscular Failure
Why is all of this important? It is important to
differentiate between different methods and understand that a lot of authors
forget to describe all related parameters, so we end up not knowing what the
exact training was.
MOTOR UNIT RECRUITMENT AND SIZE PRINCIPLE
One analogy I like to make is the example of DC motor
with attached battery.
 |
| Battery = Nervous System, motor = Musculo-skeletal system; Both = motor system |
In this simple example motor is the muscle and battery
in nervous system. For a same level of voltage
motor will behave differently (in terms of angle velocity, torque, power) based
on the load at his axis (inertial, friction, air, etc).
This is pretty much along the lines with Load-Velocity
profile – velocity of the motor will depend on the external load, but also on
the voltage (and in this case voltage is effort).
|
| Effort = voltage |
Thus lifting with maximal effort is like lifting with
maximal voltage not matter what load is on the bar.
Another example might be lifting submax weights to
exhaustion/failure (RE method). Suppose that the motor can fatigue and decrease
his force/velocity output for the same voltage over time. You attach certain load to the motor which is
50% of his maximal torque and use 50% of voltage. He is going to rotate slowly
but as the motor get “tired” one needs to increase voltage to maintain rotation
at certain velocity. After you eventually reach the highest voltage and are
unable to increase more, the motor will stop.
This is along the lines of lifting submax weight until
failure. At the end it will result with you recruiting you maximal voltage.
To make things more confusing sometimes the battery
might get tired or reduce its voltage based on some feedback from the motor
(e.g. temperature) to avoid complete motor breakdown (for this one needs more
complex circuitry). Now we are talking about central fatigue as opposed to peripheral
fatigue (at the level of the motor). Usually they are both involved in
larger or smaller degree depending on what time frame we are talking about
(single set, workout, week, etc), exercise, intensity, etc. You can read more
about it in Cesey Butt article HERE.
Why am I saying all of this? Because according to Ralph Carpinelli it is
not only the intensity of the load (%1RM) that determines motor recruitment
(i.e. battery voltage):
…That is, the size principle does not support the
popular resistance training recommendation to use a maximal or near maximal
resistance. The size principle and interpolated twitch studies support the
contention that if maximal
motor unit activation is desired, a maximal or near
maximal effort at the end of a set of repetitions— regardless of the amount
of external resistance—will elicit maximal motor unit activity. Effective
resistance training does not require the use of a maximal or near maximal
force to stimulate the available motor units and produce significant
increases in muscular strength.
… Despite the plethora of opinions in the resistance
training literature, the specific
mechanisms of fatigue and exactly what constitutes an optimal stimulus for
strength gains are unknown. If a maximal— or near maximal—effort is
applied at the end of a set of repetitions, the evidence strongly suggests
that the different external forces produced with different amounts of
resistance elicit similar outcomes
…Despite the plethora of opinions in the resistance
training literature, the specific mechanisms of fatigue and exactly what
constitutes an optimal stimulus for strength gains are unknown. If a maximal—
or near maximal—effort is applied at the end of a set of repetitions, the
evidence strongly suggests that the different external forces produced with
different amounts of resistance elicit similar outcomes
|
So the things are not so simple. I am not sure I
completely agree with Ralph Carpinelli regarding the training recommendations (read
the whole article), but at least this shed up some light on the issue that it
is not only intensity of load (%1RM) that is important in increasing strength
and maximizing muscle recruitment. Lifting submax weights to exhaustion will
result in maximal recruitment as well.
I tend to believe that this is dynamic animal – there
is certainly a dynamic threshold in intensity of load (%1RM) that a given
trainee have to use and this might change over time. Also, there might be
fatigue limit to performing submaximal weights to exhaustion and this might
limit total work overall and thus limit strength gains.
I don’t want to turn this into discussion on lifting
to failure or not or single set vs. multiple set, since I believe both are
tools in your toolbox and needs to be done at certain periods for maximum
results. What is important to get from this is that for maximal motor unit
recruitment (according to Carpinelli) it might not be necessary to use maximal
loads or near maximal loads.
And in the end this is the static picture I alluded to in the first part. We know that the
goal is to increase 1RM, to increase battery voltage, to increase velocity
around circa maximal weights, to improve technique (efficiency). But we don’t
know what is the best method to come there. We know the destination, but we are
not sure what the best journey is.
Will maximum recruitment yield most improvements in
1RM over time or is it something else? Force output? Number of grinding
reps? Volume of lifts over 80%, over 90%? Total number of reps? At the end of
the day we still don’t know. That’s why
we have programs that yield same or very similar outcomes by using totally
different approaches – one might use low frequency of grinding reps (maximal
recruitment, maximal exertion) usually known as HIT; one might use high volume
and frequency of lower intensity of load (%1RM) like Sheiko. One might combine different methods like Westside
guys do to reach maximum recruitment in most things they do (ME for maximum
recruitment with highest intensity of load; DE for maximum effort with lower
intensity of loads for maybe maximum recruitment but with lower load; RE for
maximum recruitment as the fibers get tired). Key message is that even if we
know the static picture we still
don’t know what change that static picture over time. And there are a lot of
ways to skin a cat.
TALKING ABOUT THE JOURNEY
What Mike Tuchscherer believes [as far as I can tell
from his writings] that will bring these improvements is the following – (1) force
output during an exercises is very important stimulus and since force output
changes with increasing loads [I will cover this soon] then higher loads are
more important than lower, and (2) higher volume of work with this higher force
output and (3) technique similarity. This is his rationale behind ditching
lower intensity (50-70%) Dynamic Effort methods and putting more focus into higher
intensity of load (sets @8RPE).
Basically, even if there is maximal muscle recruitment
during Dynamic Effort method or Repetition Effort the force output is lower
than with higher loads (%1RM) and hence will bring less improvements over time.
I am not sure how correct this is, but I wanted to explore my Force output during
different loads. I am going to use my bench press (with pause) as an example.
Here is my force output during set with 60kg:
 |
| Gym Aware output with 60kg bench press |
Please note that the force is estimated using reverse
dynamics using position change of the barbell. Refer to this paper
for more info.
To understand the forces involved I will create a
simple mechanical model.
 |
| Simple mechanical model... |
What you can see on the above graph is estimated
Muscular Force. When the muscular force is over gravity force (in this case
60kg x 9,81 = 588N) then barbell will start accelerating. If the muscular force
is below gravity force the barbell will start decelerating, as you can see
happening during the last 1/3 of the concentric phase. If the muscular force is
below zero, that means I am actually pulling the barbell down (rowing) and as
you can see that happens during the last period of the lift. This happens
during the lighter weights (in terms of %1RM) and I believe in greater amount
during the bench press than squat (your feet are not bolted to the ground so
you can pull down actually).
Here is the table from Sanchez-Medina et al. Importance of the Propulsive Phase in Strength Assessment. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 123 – 129
where they showed relative contribution of the breaking phase in the bench
press.
 |
| Breaking phase over 20-100 %1RM |
According to this table - only loads over 80% 1RM
produce no breaking phase. This is one of the reasons for using chains and
bands when doing Dynamic Effort method – to extend the propulsive phase and
create more force.
Here is my force output with 100kg.
 |
| Gym Aware output with 100kg bench press |
This time I need to overcome 100kg x 9,81 = 981N to
get the bar moving. And there is not below zero force (no pulling the bar).
On the next table I have compared Peak Force output
during concentric phase against different loads when reps are done with maximum
effort (C.A.T.).
 |
| Peak force output over %1RM continuum in bench press |
Peak force is the highest force achieved during the
concentric phase. Using mean force output will yield weight of the barbell – so
I have used peak force.
As you can see there is a curvilinear relationship (I
have used polynomial equation on the graph and linear on the table, as you can
see R2 is higher on graph). Bret Contreras posted similar picture from
a study by Swinton et al. that is pretty much in line with this one.
According to my bench press data, to reach over 90% of
Peak Force output one needs to use loads over 82% 1RM. To reach over 80% of
Peak Force output one need to use more than 68% 1RM.
To make sure that this is also the case with squat I compared
my squat numbers with even jump squat.
 |
| Gym Aware output during squat jump with 20kg |
When I put everything in table this is what I get
 |
| Peak force output over %1RM continuum in squat |
According to this sample, loads needed to reach over
90% of Peak Force are over 84% 1RM and to reach over 80% of Peak Force one need
to use over 73% 1RM. Here is the table
% Peak Force
|
Bench
|
Squat
|
>90%
|
>82% 1RM
|
>84% 1RM
|
>80%
|
>68% 1RM
|
>73% 1RM
|
It seems that Mike Tuchscherer is right in this regard
– One cannot reach peak barbell force
outputs with submaximal loads even if he utilizes compensatory acceleration.
[Disclaimer: The forces
explained here are the forces acting on the barbell and not Ground Reaction
Forces. To estimate those I have added 100% of my BW to the load . This is what
I got:
 |
| Estimated GRF forces using 100% BW along with barbell weight |
As you can see, using 100% BW
into calculation I managed to produce the same peak force during the 20kg
countermovement jump and 160kg squat. Does this mean I need to work more on my
strength levels since I’ve utilized full its potential in the jump? I have no
clue – I would need more data and need to think more about this since I just
discovered it for the purpose of this article. Having a force plate might help
as well.
This is also an example of
result dependency on measurement method as I have alluded in this post
on power measurement. Anyway, according to this study
barbell kinematics should not be used to estimate barbell and body system center
of mass in the back squat. So using barbell velocity as a representative
overestimated barbell-body center of mass velocity and hence acceleration,
power and force.
Anyway, if I stick to squat
performance (without jump squat) to reach over 90% of peak GRF one need to use
more than 74% 1RM and to reach over 80% of peak GRF one need to use more than 54%
1RM – a lot less than when we consider only barbell force. The question now is
which one is more important – GRF or barbell force?
End of Disclaimer]
I believe that you are confused at this moment.
Welcome to the club. To summarize – Mike Tuchscherer is right when he says that
one can’t achieve peak forces with loads less than 80% 1RM when one take forces
applied to the barbell only. In the case with peak GRF (in squat; estimated
using LPT, but I would need force plate to be more certain) one needs loads
higher than 70%. Please note that
Dynamic Effort uses 50-60% 1RM raw loads.
One thing to consider is that my C.A.T. with submax
loads is NOT the same as Dynamic Effort. In Dynamic Effort one is performing
both eccentric and concentric parts explosively for 2-3 reps, plus add chains
or bands to the equation and the forces might be much higher than with my pause technique. But you also have
sitting on the box that might actually decrease it. Without measuring it I can
only speculate.
So even if Mike
is right when it comes to force outputs, does it means that force outputs are
key stimuli for strength improvement, or something else? Only the experimental
study could tell us this. And not done on college kids or weak coaches (point
taken), but on real powerlifters. Changes should be estimated using smallest
worthwhile changes. Anyone up for an experiment give me a call.
CONCLUSION
Conclusion is that the things are complex and there
are a lot of ways to skin a cat. I cannot say with any confidence that DE works
or not. Plus, one needs to take into account the whole training system and not
only one method the system uses It is only tip of the iceberg. This brings me
to my opinions that you should take with grain of salt.
I do think that Dynamic Effort is a little bit
overrated. I am leaning more toward Mike Tuchscherer’s side, but I am maintaining
my skeptical attitude. Mike is probably right when he says that force outputs
are lower in DE then when working with higher loads (not necessary to exhaustion;
in his system around 8RPE), along with different technique of execution which
might not bring transfer. But again, are these the sole things behind strength increase
stimuli? We don’t know.
One thing to consider is that DE might work for the
other reasons instead of developing explosive force for blasting through the
sticking point (this might be an interesting study to find out). When one works
with ME twice a week and really pushing it, then he is not left with much than to
do easier weights (50-60%) the next two day. This is similar to the polarization
of the training for endurance runners.
This is why it is important to take a look at the big
picture. Numerous champs are using this Westside, but numerous tall humans are
playing basketball which doesn’t prove basketball make humans tall. One could
use different methods during different phases.
This study
(although sketchy) showed higher improvements in bench press in group
performing it with C.A.T and before velocity drops below 80% of the best rep, even when doing less volume compared
to a group who did self-selected lifting speed to failure. I am very interested
in this velocity based strength training at the moment – and I believe there is
a huge potential in this approach.
One idea might be to utilize accumulation phase(s)
using higher number of sets, lower number of reps with relatively higher %1RM
(75-80%) with NO grinding at all and with C.A.T. (that is around 8RPE according
to Mike) before switching to more Westside program for couple of weeks/months,
where DE might be utilized as a complement to ME session.
I hope you have enjoyed this article without any confident
conclusion.
