Max Load Training in the Real World
by Scott Abel
Alan Cosgrove once said that although methods are many, principles are
few. What an insightful statement. What I see, however, is that these
"methods' are so varied that they're violating key fundamental
principles. The result is that you the trainee aren't getting
results from your gym time by following questionable methods that fly
in the face of real world principles. This is the frustrating thing for me. I train people in the real world.
I'm not sure what's being taught at certification courses these days,
but what is interpreted as "principles" is faulty at best. In this
article I want to use a real world example for those of you training to
gain size, muscle, and thickness, and have the mistaken belief that
this is accomplished with "max weights." This is another term I have
trouble with as it's quite misleading as we will see. The
other day I received an E-mail from a client, who sounded a little
confused. It seems that a so-called "personal trainer" walked by while
my client was training, and offered this brilliant advice: "You should
lighten the load substantially, and do 4-4-1 tempo, to get more out of the set!"
A personal trainer helps a trainee get more out of a set. Say what? My client was confused because I had advised to lift explosively, regardless of rep range. So who was right? Let's
take a look. If I lift 100 pounds for 5 reps, and you lift 100 pounds
for 5 reps; I do 5 reps in about 5 seconds, you use the tempo above and
take about 30 seconds to lift it. We both performed the same amount of work. But here's a question for you: whose set required more power? Whose set placed a higher metabolic demand on his body? The answer should be obvious. My set, of course. Power,
folks, is a rudimentary principle expressed in many ways, but is
essential to training for size, strength, thickness, etc. The simple
basic premise is that it takes more power to move a weight in one second than it does to move it in two seconds. Over the course of a workout this is seen as an expression of more work in the same amount of time, or the same amount of work in less
time. These are all expressions of the principle of power. You'll
notice, of course, that the "method" of tempo suggested above by the
moron "personal trainer" violates this principle. Next
question. In the above example which one of us achieved the most
overload? The answer is that it's a trick question. If that 100 pounds
is a weight we are used to performing, then neitherof us
achieved overload for that set. Therefore, the advice of lightening a
load you can already do explosively and take 4 times as long to do it,
is faulty logic that does not follow basic principles. It means
negating max load, and therefore negating the overload principle in
general. This is just one example of "methods" being not only many, but
also mistaken. Now if you follow this so far, then you may be
thinking that maximum load is therefore the way to abide by the
Overload Principle. Well yes, but only if you understand max load. I
want you to read the next sentence a few times and let it sink in
before we continue. Max load is not the same thing as max weight. Why
don't most people get this? I blame the industry for detailing external
cues as the be all and end all of performance. How much you "can" lift
is not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is how much stress a
muscle endures as overload. These are entirely different things, as
I'll explain below with a real-world example.
It's not how much you can lift, it's how much you can overload the muscle. First
let's understand these basic principles more clearly. Power is an
expression of force with speed. There are a few types. We're concerned
here with explosive power, and the power expression itself. Explosive
power can be defined as simply as force over time. It can also be
defined as the time it takes to get to max force output. Or it can be
expressed as recruiting fibers for strength performance in a context of
speed. So simple explosive power is expressed as F/t. Force is defined
as load or strength within this context. This is where all the
confusion on the gym floor begins. Inexperienced trainers and
trainees seem to think that the above solution means to use a "max
load" as in weight, and be explosive. This is untrue for forcing an
adaptive response. The example below illustrates my point and I'm sure
if you look around your gym you will see many people making this same
mistake. At one of my former gyms where I was training I
happened to be in close proximity to one of the gym's trainers and his
client. I had seen them before so I watched as they repeated a familiar
scenario. It was obviously deadlift day for them. Because I was
training in the same area I witnessed their classic training mistake. The
trainee was a kid of average size. I watched as he did a warm up set (I
presume) at 225 for 10 reps, and at a fairly explosive speed. I then
watched him do a set of 5 reps at 325, still trying to be explosive,
but the bar was moving a little more slowly regardless of intent. Next,
disaster. They moved the weight up to 365 pounds and rested a long
time, then after a lot of yelling and screaming he performed two very
slow reps that were agonizing to watch. Everyone yelled and cheered and
high fived each other. Finally they put four plates on the
bar for 405 pounds. He did one very difficult rep that seemed to take
forever. The two of them were screaming and a few on-lookers seemed
impressed by the effort. After he put the weight down the trainer
wanted to make sure everyone saw that and actually came up to me and
said, "Did you see my guy pull 4 plates? Isn't that great?" I said to him, "Well that depends on what your purpose was for this session." He said, "Oh, we're training for size and thickness." I shrugged. "Then you just wasted about 30 minutes of gym time!" He huffed at me, "Well, that's youropinion!" I replied, "No, it's a matter of fact, if you understand the principles." He
just wouldn't get it. But for those of you with open minds, let me
explain why this type of ego training is a waste of time for adaptive
response. First let's examine the power equation, shall we? Most of you
probably know it: power is equal to force times distance, divided by time.
P=Fd/t If
we examine the above example with that formula principle, then we will
see what a waste of time his "max load" sets were. For the sake of
argument, let's say that for this guy, the distance of his deadlift
from floor to lockout was 2 feet. If we address the loads used over
that distance, and the time it took to deliver them, we can gain an
understanding of the power equation, and of why this poor sod did
indeed waste a considerable amount of gym time. At 225
pounds, he lifted that weight 2 feet, and he did it explosively in
under a second, let's say eight-tenths of a second. Therefore for that
set he lifted 225 x 2 divided by .8 seconds. The total units of power
produced in one rep were 562.5. For the next set, he lifted 325
pounds x 5 reps. As I said, the weight moved a little slower but still
with ample explosive power. So let's say each rep took a full second.
Therefore we have 325 x 2 feet divided by 1 second. This gives us a
total power production figure of 650. At this point, looking at the
numbers, it seems his progressive overload is right in line with an
adaptive response (we'll come back to that in a second). His
next set was 365 pounds, and as I said, there was a noticeable slowdown
in how long it took him to hoist that weight. It took at least twice as
long each rep as the previous set. We'll call it two seconds, and
crunch the numbers. He lifted 365 x 2 feet, but it took two seconds, so
we divide that by 2. The total units of power produced by this lift was
365. Strange but true: his max load was increased, but his power
output, or overload response, decreased substantially. Finally,
he performed his last set at 405 for one max rep. This rep took
forever, and in my mind I did a slow three count while watching him. So
the numbers are: 405 x 2 feet, divided by 3 seconds (force times
distance divided by time). His final number here on his "max load" set
was actually only 270 total units of power! How can thisbe? His max single set of 405 elicited even less of an adaptive response than did his warm up set at 225. Take a look at this graph of the TEP of Power.