EXAMPLE OF FORCE PROGRAMMING USING THE VELOCITY OF EXECUTION AS A REFERENCE PART II
RESULTS OBTAINED AFTER THE 11 WEEKS OF TRAINING
First, in Figure 1, it shows how the estimate of the 1 has been fluctuating RM throughout the training sessions. As can be seen, they are obtained values between 132kg (session 3) and 151kg (sessions 18 and 22), almost 20kg of variation between the beginning and the end.
It is interesting to note that although the general trend has been the increase in value of the estimated 1RM, there are 7 sessions (32% of the total) where a value is obtained lower than the previous session, so it is vital to be able to adjust the load of training in those days where the body accumulates fatigue in any of its forms and not give a greater stimulus than at that time we can recover from effective form for the next session, unless this overload is planned with anteriority.
Graph 1. Fluctuation of the value of the 1RM over 22 sessions of training.
In Graph 2 the changes in the velocity applied to each load in each heating and PPA can be visualized. It is remarkable the correlation that exists between the loads within each session, being common that the days that the velocity applied to a load increases or decreases, are also those in which a higher or lower mark is obtained than usual in the rest .
Graph 2. Velocity applied to loads 80, 100, 110, 120 and 130 kg throughout the 22 training sessions
It includes the absolute improvement in cm / s for each load, and what percentage of increase represents the same with respect to the initial velocity of the first session
It is interesting to note that, although at an absolute level, the increase in velocity with each load is just 6 cm / s (10-16 cm / s), these changes suppose very different percentages of improvement, due to the decrease in the velocity applied with higher loads.
In this way it can be seen that the improvement has been higher with loads of 80 kg and above, which coincides with the range of weights used during the actual repetitions in the sessions (65-80% RM), so it seems that It improves to a greater extent on the same loads with which you usually work.
Table 3. Comparison of the velocity applied to each load in the PPA of sessions 1 and 22.
-Conceição, F., Fernandes, J., Lewis, M., Gonzaléz-Badillo, J. J., & Jimenéz-Reyes, P. (2016). Movement velocity as a measure of exercise intensity in three lower limb exercises. Journal of sports sciences, 34(12), 1099-1106.
-González Badillo, J. J. (2017). La velocidad de ejecución como referencia para la programación, control y evaluación del entrenamiento de fuerza. Ergotech.