Positive Health Online

Excerpt from Science and Development of Muscular Strength (Chapter 4) by Timothy J Suchomel

There are five primary training principles that strength and conditioning professionals should consider when designing training programs for their athletes: overload, specificity, variation, reversibility, and individualization.[see Table 4.1] The ability to understand and manipulate the variables associated with each principle may have a significant impact on the development of both maximal and rapid force production characteristics [8, 97, 116, 117]. Strength and conditioning professionals must also consider the organization of training through periodization to effectively integrate the five principles into the training process to optimize adaptations during specific time periods. This, in turn, may help manage fatigue and reduce the potential for nonfunctional overreaching and overtraining. The aim of this chapter in the book is to provide readers with an overview of training principles and how periodization may be used to promote strength adaptations.

https://www.human-kinetics.co.uk/9781718223660/science-and-development-of-muscular-strength/

Science and Development of Muscular Strength

Training Principles

Overload, Specificity, Variation, Reversibility, and Individualization are the five primary training principles that serve as the foundation of exercise prescription. The following paragraphs will provide an overview of these training principles and how they may be used to drive the strength adaptations of each athlete.

Table 4.1 Primary Training Principles

Principle        Description

Overload        Training stimulus that promotes and adaptation beyond an athlete’s baseline 
abilities

Specificity      Mechanical or metabolic similarity of an exercise or training method to a sport performance task

Variation       Manipulation of volume, int3ensity, set configuration, rest intervals, or exercise selection to remove linearity within a training program

Reversibility  Deterioration or loss of previously gained fitness characteristics due to the removal or reduction of a training stimulus or involution from monotonous training

Individualization      Design of a training program based on an athlete's unique sport, event, or position as well as genetic characteristics and training age

Hyperlink to: https://www.human-kinetics.co.uk/9781718223660/science-and-development-of-muscular-strength/

Overload

An overload may be defined as any training stimulus that promotes an adaptation beyond the baseline abilities of an athlete. In general, overload stimuli are used to drive specific adaptations (e.g., physical, physiological, psychological) during different phases throughout the training year. Examples of overload stimuli may include either increases or decreases in volume, intensity (absolute or relative), range of motion, speed, or duration. However, the introduction of a new exercise or training method may also serve as a unique overload stimulus for athletes. Although some overload stimuli are more easily quantifiable (e.g., volume and duration), other stimuli may not be (e.g., variable resistance, eccentric training); moreover, a combined training stimulus of different methods (e.g., resistance training, speed development, change of direction, conditioning) may further complicate the ability to quantify the overload stimulus. Thus, it is recommended that strength and conditioning professionals take a conservative approach when providing a progressive overload stimulus to their athletes to promote positive adaptations while managing fatigue.

From a strength development standpoint, it is important to provide a progressive overload stimulus that will benefit an athlete’s force production characteristics during different training tasks. For example, researchers have shown that additional volume[71, 99], heavier loads [106], greater ranges of motion[10], faster running speeds [90], and sharper change-of-direction angles[107, 109] may provide a more intense stimulus for developing force production characteristics. However, it is important to put each variable into context, because the training status of the individual and the phase of training may dictate how the stimulus may affect an individual’s strength characteristics.

Specificity

The principle of specificity is characterized by how similar an exercise or training method is to a given performance task regarding its mechanical or metabolic characteristics. Simply, greater program design specificity may lead to a greater transfer of training effect (i.e., degree of transfer to sport performance). Mechanical specificity refers to the similarity with the kinetic and kinematic characteristics of specific exercises and how they transfer to performances during athletic movement tasks: namely, the force, rate of force development, impulse, direction of force, range of motion, and movement pattern characteristics.

Related to the principle of specificity is the concept of dynamic correspondence, originally discussed by Yuri Verkhoshansky in the early 1990s (143). Dynamic correspondence provides a more nuanced version of specificity and includes five primary aspects: amplitude and direction of movements, accentuated regions of force production, dynamics of effort, rate and timing of maximum force production, and the arrangement of muscular work. While an overview of the individual aspects of dynamic correspondence is beyond the scope of this chapter, readers are directed to previous reviews that provide a thorough overview of each aspect (112, 122).

Variation

Variation aims to remove the linearity of training programs by manipulating both overload and specificity characteristics to promote performance adaptations. In this regard, strength and conditioning professionals may manipulate a variety of training variables, including volume, intensity, set configuration, rest intervals, or exercise selection, to benefit an athlete’s force production characteristics. Furthermore, planned variation may assist in preventing training monotony or strain and athlete staleness while also reducing fatigue and providing a wide spectrum of training stimuli.[30]

Reversibility

The principle of reversibility refers to the deterioration or loss of previously gained fitness characteristics, which may lead to a reduction in performance. These losses are typically caused by two factors: the removal or reduction of a stimulus that promoted the adaptation, or the involution that results from monotonous training or poor fatigue management.[119] First, athletes may experience a detraining effect following the removal or reduction of a training stimulus; for example, a loss in rapid force production may occur during a strength–endurance phase that is characterized by higher training volumes.[78, 121] In contrast, a loss in muscle size (i.e., muscle atrophy) may occur while training volume is reduced. [3, 4, 139] Thus, strength and conditioning professionals may consider that reversibility is a product of programming variation because different training blocks or phases emphasize specific adaptations while others are de-emphasized.

Individualization

Using the principles discussed earlier, strength and conditioning professionals must also consider the importance of individualization when designing training programs. The needs of each athlete within their sport, event, or position are unique, and the genetic characteristics and training age of athletes suggest that they may all respond differently to specific training stimuli. Although some sport coaches may be reluctant to use strength and conditioning services based on their impression that all strength and conditioning programs are the same regardless of the sport or event, it is important to acknowledge that training programs across the sports spectrum are more similar than they are different. For example, the demands of baseball and volleyball athletes are considerably different, especially when different positions are taken into account; however, upon close inspection, each sport requires similar movement patterns, such as triple extension and flexion of the hip, knee, and ankle joints (e.g., jumping, landing, fielding or receiving position, diving), hip and torso rotation (e.g., baseball throwing and hitting vs. volleyball hitting, serving, and passing), accelerations, decelerations, and rapid changes of direction. Thus, many of the same exercises may be used by strength and conditioning professionals to develop these athletes. Although it is not advisable to create “cookie-cutter” programs in which all the exercises, loads, volumes, and so on are identical, exercise selection for the aforementioned athletes may be 80% to 90% similar, with 10% to 20% comprising the individualized portion.

Stock Photo

Principles and Organization of Training Stock photo

References

3. Bazyler, CD, Mizuguchi, S, Harrison, AP, Sato, K, Kavanaugh, AA, DeWeese, BH, and Stone, MH. Changes in muscle architecture, explosive ability, and track and field throwing performance throughout a competitive season and following a taper. J Strength Cond Res 31:2785-2793, 2017.
4. Bazyler, CD, Mizuguchi, S, Sole, CJ, Suchomel, TJ, Sato, K, Kavanaugh, AA, DeWeese, BH, and Stone, MH. Jumping performance is preserved, but not muscle thickness in collegiate volleyball players after a taper. J Strength Cond Res 32:1029-1035, 2018.
5. Bosquet, L, Berryman, N, Dupuy, O, Mekary, S, Arvisais, D, Bherer, L, and Mujika, I. Effect of training cessation on muscular performance: A meta-analysis. Scand J Med Sci Sports 23:e140-149, 2013.
6. Bryanton, MA, Kennedy, MD, Carey, JP, and Chiu, LZF. Effect of squat depth and barbell load on relative muscular effort in squatting. J Strength Cond Res 26:2820-2828, 2012.
7. DeWeese, BH, Hornsby, G, Stone, M, and Stone, MH. The training process: Planning for strength–power training in track and field. Part 1: Theoretical aspects. J Sport Health Sci 4:308-317, 2015.
8. Krieger, JW. Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: A meta-regression. J Strength Cond Res 23:1890-1901, 2009.
9. Mangine, GT, Hoffman, JR, Wang, R, Gonzalez, AM, Townsend, JR, Wells, AJ, Jajtner, AR, Beyer, KS, Boone, CH, and Miramonti, AA. Resistance training intensity and volume affect changes in rate of force development in resistance-trained men. Eur J Appl Physiol 116:2367-2374, 2016.
10. Nagahara, R, Mizutani M, Matsuo A, Kanehisa H, and Fukunaga T. Association of sprint performance with ground reaction forces during acceleration and maximal speed phases in a single sprint. J Appl Biomech 34:104-110, 2018.
11. Pyne, DB, Mujika, I, and Reilly, T. Peaking for optimal performance: Research limitations and future directions. J Sports Sci 27:195-202, 2009.
12. Rhea, MR, Alvar, BA, and Burkett, LN. Single versus multiple sets for strength: A meta-analysis to address the controversy. Res Quart Exerc Sport 73:485-488, 2002.
13. Schoenfeld, BJ, Grgic, J, Ogborn, D, and Krieger, JW. Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low-versus high-load resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 31:3508-3523, 2017.
14. Schot, P, Dart, J, and Schuh, M. Biomechanical analysis of two change-of-direction maneuvers while running. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 22:254-258, 1995.
15. Sigward, SM, Cesar, GM, and Havens, KL. Predictors of frontal plane knee moments during side-step cutting to 45 and 110 men and women: Implications for ACL injury. Clin J Sport Med 25:529-534, 2015.
16. Stone, MH, Hornsby, WG, Suarez, DG, Duca, M, and Pierce, KC. Training specificity for athletes: Emphasis on strength-power training: A narrative review. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol 7:102, 2022.
17. Stone, MH, Plisk, S, and Collins, D. Training principles: Evaluation of modes and methods of resistance training—A coaching perspective. Sports Biomech 1:79-103, 2002.
18. Stone, MH, Stone, M, and Sands, WA. Principles and Practice of Resistance Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2007.
19. Stone, MH, Suchomel, TJ, Hornsby, WG, Wagle, JP, and Cunanan, AJ. General concepts and training principles for athlete development. In Strength and Conditioning in Sports: From Science to Practice. New York: Routledge, 221-251, 2022.
20. Suarez, DG, Mizuguchi, S, Hornsby, WG, Cunanan, AJ, Marsh, DJ, and Stone, MH. Phase-specific changes in rate of force development and muscle morphology throughout a block periodized training cycle in weightlifters. Sports 7:129, 2019.
21. Suarez, DG, Wagle, JP, Cunanan, AJ, Sausaman, RW, and Stone, MH. Dynamic correspondence of resistance training to sport: A brief review. Strength Cond J 41:80-88, 2019.
22. Travis, SK, Mujika, I, Gentles, JA, Stone, MH, and Bazyler, CD. Tapering and peaking maximal strength for powerlifting performance: A review. Sports (Basel) 8:125, 2020.
23. Verkhoshansky, YV, and Siff, MC. Supertraining. Verkhoshansky, 2009.