Monday, March 8, 2010

Volume and intensity - inversely related

In 1999 I wrote, published and claimed copyright on this concept (bolding added now):

Most train hard and long, and with high frequency. Unless one is supported by a incredibly higher recovery system (natural or chemically enhanced), this approach will result in over-training and non-achievement of goals.

....I have very firm beliefs on this topic. Volume and intensity are inversely related. When one is up, the other is forced down. You cannot do a high volume workout (i.e. a high number of sets) and have as high an intensity as you would have with a lower number of sets. Many kid themselves on this, but you cannot avoid reality.

I was conducting research and I came upon the following exercise in a publication copyright claimed by another 'author' at a subsequent date (bolding added):

…but you cannot train hard and long. I agree with this statement. Volume and intensity are inversely related. When one is up, the other is down. Most trainers, quite honestly, seem unaware of this simple concept, or are perhaps in denial as regards this, but it is an irrefutable fact.

And I said to myself: “That looks familiar!” So I cross-referenced it and I said to myself: “Wow! No wonder that looked familiar!”

And I came upon this wording another one more times by the same 'author' in different publications - in the absence of credits or references to the origin or permission to use from the original author (myself), and that the 'author' claimed copyright....

NSCA history

In 2000 I wrote, published and claimed copyright on this concept (bolding added now):

As I understand it, in about 1978, a small group of people including Ken Kontor and Boyd Epley worked to create what was initially known as the ‘National Strength Coaches Association’ (NSCA). Again from what I understand, this group was formed in the mid-west area of America (around Nebraska), initially with the intent primarily to service college level strength coaches, employed at that time at the various educational institutions.

The next interesting development I highlight is the name change of this organization. In about 1982 they changed from being the ‘National Strength Coaches Association’ to being the ‘National Strength & Conditioning Coaches Association’. They were able to change the name, refocus it to include all aspects of ‘conditioning’, without needing to change the acronym of NSCA. And there you have it - the birth of the title ‘strength and conditioning coach’!

I was conducting research and I came upon the following exercise in a publication copyright claimed by another 'author' at a subsequent date (bolding added):

The NSCA started in  1978 and its called the National Strength Coaches Association – in order to expand its membership and attract personal trainers and physical therapists they moved to call themselves the National Strength and Conditioning Association just so they wouldn’t have to change the acronym – the NSCA……

And I said to myself: “That looks familiar!” So I cross-referenced it and I said to myself: “Wow! No wonder that looked familiar!”

And I came upon this wording another one more times by the same 'author' in different publications - in the absence of credits or references to the origin or permission to use from the original author (myself), and that the 'author' claimed copyright....

The concentric phase - the need for speed

In 1999 I wrote, published and claimed copyright on this concept (bolding added now):

Where I believe most get it wrong is this. For those concerned about power (rate of force development), I don’t recommend using anything less than a fast or attempted-to-be-fast concentric contraction for some 80-90% of total training time. A lack of awareness of the ‘need for speed’ (attempted acceleration) in the concentric phase in the power athlete may result in an adaptation to a non-specific rate of force development. This is the same non-effective and perhaps detrimental training effect that occurred when athletes first started using strength training and using the bodybuilding methods way back decades ago – a total lack of awareness of the need for a fast/attempted-to-be-fast concentric contraction. Therefore the power athlete cannot afford to spend more than 10-20 % (as a generalization) of their total strength training time using numbers greater than 1 as the third number.

I was conducting research and I came upon the following exercise in a publication copyright claimed by another 'author' at a subsequent date (bolding added):

As an important consideration however is the use of tempo with power athletes. For anyone concerned with power or speed, anything less than an explosive (or an attempt to be explosive) is not recommended for the bulk of your training. While it is fine for a general fitness client or an aesthetic driven client to use slow concentric it is largely determinantal for the explosive power athlete as it is non-specific to the development of power. So for the explosive athletes a rep tempo will either end in a ‘1’ or an ‘X’.

And I said to myself: “That looks familiar!” So I cross-referenced it and I said to myself: “Wow! No wonder that looked familiar!”

And I came upon this wording another one more times by the same 'author' in different publications - in the absence of credits or references to the origin or permission to use from the original author (myself), and that the 'author' claimed copyright....

Training age - influence on number of sets

In 1998 I wrote, published and claimed copyright on this concept (bolding added now):

The influence of training age on number of sets:

a beginner is not likely to need any more than one to two sets per exercise to gain a training effect. It could be argued that the more advanced a trainee becomes, the more sets required. I believe this is true up to a point. There is a point in time where further increases in volume (no. of sets) will not benefit, and the search for further training effects should be limited to increases in intensity.

I was conducting research and I came upon the following exercise in a publication copyright claimed by another 'author' at a subsequent date (bolding added):

Training Age: a beginner to strength training is unlikely to need exposure to more than 1-2 sets of a given exercise….. And clearly the more advanced trainee needs greater volume, however this is only true up to a point. There is definitely a point of diminishing returns when it comes to total sets, and at this point further progress can only be made by increases in intensity.

And I said to myself: “That looks familiar!” So I cross-referenced it and I said to myself: “Wow! No wonder that looked familiar!”

And I came upon this wording another one more times by the same 'author' in different publications - in the absence of credits or references to the origin or permission to use from the original author (myself), and that the 'author' claimed copyright....

Multiple work sets - anatomy of

In 1999 I wrote, published and claimed copyright on this concept (bolding added now):

In a nut-shell, if you are lifting the same load for say three sets of ten, it is unlikely it was your maximum in set one. In fact, if you are able to complete three sets of ten at the same load, even if you reach exhaustion on the tenth rep of the third set, it is unlikely that even the second set was at or near your maximum.

I was conducting research and I came upon the following exercise in a publication copyright claimed by another 'author' at a subsequent date (bolding added):

In a nutshell if you are still able to lift the same load for three sets, it is likely that you have selected loads based on the facts you are doing three sets – i.e. you didn’t use your maximum load.

And I said to myself: “That looks familiar!” So I cross-referenced it and I said to myself: “Wow! No wonder that looked familiar!”

And I came upon this wording another one more times by the same 'author' in different publications - there was an unusual exception in this copying however - some loose credit was given to Ian King....however the copied text was not placed in parentheses.

The third work set - anatomy of

In 1999 I wrote, published and claimed copyright on this concept (bolding added now):

The third and subsequent work sets - How you respond to the third and subsequent work sets may be influenced by many factors including:
• your entry level recovery (as reflected by your resting stores of metabolic and neural substrates);
• your level of specific conditioning (ability to tolerate this volume);
• nutritional/ergogenic effects on your rate of substrate/neural chemical replacement; and
• how close to maximum effort and fatigue you went on the prior two work sets.

I was conducting research and I came upon the following exercise in a publication copyright claimed by another 'author' at a subsequent date (bolding added):

A third set at the same load as sets one and two is becoming an exercise in endurance. It is influenced by recovery status, nutritional status, substrate availability and to be honest residual fatigue from sets one and two.

And I said to myself: “That looks familiar!” So I cross-referenced it and I said to myself: “Wow! No wonder that looked familiar!”

And I came upon this wording another one more times by the same 'author' in different publications - there was an unusual exception in this copying however - some loose credit was given to Ian King....however the copied text was not placed in parentheses.

The second work set - anatomy of

In 1999 I wrote, published and claimed copyright on this concept (bolding added now):

The second work set - This set is potentially the ‘best’ set. The second work set benefits from the first work set - in what can be described as ‘neural arousal’, or greater neuro-muscular innervation. Provided the rest periods between sets has been adequate (relative to your training goal), your nervous system iswoken up’ by the exposure to load in the first. The neural inhibition level (the loading level at which the body automatically shuts down to prevent injury) is raised. Psychologically, you have benefited from the exposure to the load of the first set - now you are ready, anticipating the load.

I was conducting research and I came upon the following exercise in a publication copyright claimed by another 'author' at a subsequent date (bolding added):

The second set however tends to benefit from the first set in terms of neural innvervation – the body isawake’ now. At the end of the second set, psychologically you now ‘own’ the weight.

And I said to myself: “That looks familiar!” So I cross-referenced it and I said to myself: “Wow! No wonder that looked familiar!”

And I came upon this wording another one more times by the same 'author' in different publications - there was an unusual exception in this copying however - some loose credit was given to Ian King....however the copied text was not placed in parentheses.