More About Load: How much is too much?

January 14, 2008

The thread about HIT focused on a single set vs. multiple set debate. I

would like to broaden that just a bit, comparing multiple set regimens.

I'm not an exercise physiologist. However, my reading seems to suggest that

with respect to both hypertrophy and strength development, more training is

better except when it proceeds too fast, i.e., when an athlete's training

load exceeds the capacity he/she has developed to that point. To clarify,

I'm using " load " to mean (total number of repetitions) x (amount of weight

lifted per repetition). Moreover, I'm assuming a certain level of common

sense. Obviously, one can generate " load " in ways that are smart or not so

smart. But consider the following:

Zatsiorsky tells us that we make gains by forcing adaptation to greater

loads. Bompa tells us that to generate the greatest hypertrophy, we need to

handle the heaviest loads we can tolerate. On his website, Verkoshansky

states that

the volume of training loads achieved the limit of reasonableness. Today the

professional athletes are training about 8 hours per day, 2-4 times during

the day, near to 1,700 hours per year. It's quite impossible imagine any

further increase of load volume. We should look for models that assure a

most rational use of the training loads over the year cycle;

today there is the tendency to increase the intensity of the training work

to increase the effectiveness of the training process, especially for the

top class athlete. This is an expedient that needs to be used very carefully

according to the qualification of athletes, the level of their preparedness

and the calendar of competitions.

Similarly, Louie talks about his powerlifters working through 14

sessions per week.

Granted, in terms of logic alone, the mere fact that " professional athletes

are training about 8 hours per day " does not necessarily mean it's the best

strategy. However, there is certainly serious evidence to suggest that many

of the most knowledgeable and committed people think that very extensive

training regimens are worthwhile. The message I get is that the best

results are achieved when a well-prepared athlete, following a

well-conceived, well-managed program, extends his training load as far as he

can, commensurate with his level of preparedness.

In contrast, I was reading a book by Ditillo, *The Development of

Muscular Bulk and Power.* While " Ditillo " probably is not a household word,

Ditillo certainly achieved extraordinary muscular development and

strength. He worked out four times a week using basic multi-joint exercises

(squat, deadlift, bench press, press, some curls). I would estimate that

one of his workouts would take approximately an hour. Also, someone on the

forum recently mentioned 's Max-Stimulation program, which

involves a moderate load, certainly nothing like the 6-8 hours per day that

many elite Olympic weightlifters, powerlifters, and bodybuilders adhere to.

Yes, there are people with genetic gifts such that their strength and bulk

increase when weights just come into their peripheral vision. But are there

serious scientific arguments that explain why and under what conditions a

workout like Ditillo's or 's produces equal or better results than a

much more extensive regimen that involves a much heavier load?

Pitruzzello, Ph.D.

Chicago, IL

January 17, 2008

A colleague of mine once said that the difference between a full time

athlete and a part time athlete is not that the full time trains more, but

that they recover more.

A previous post has highlighted the concern regarding over reaching and

overtraining, which is key. Over reaching should be viewed on a continuum.

On one side is under developed, in the middle is optimum and the other side

is over-training.

Managing training intensity is a combination of active restoration,

assessment of the holistic capabilities of the athlete (physical, emotional

& psychological) and physical training. As previously stated that some athletes

train 8 hours a day, what needs to be understood is the difference between

being in training for 8 hours and training for 8 hours. For me that may

include 2-3 hours of exercise (3 sessions), meal times and restoration

activities.

What we must consider is that whatever exercise is prescribed, it is

valueless if what follows it is garbage. During an 8 hour training day there

will peaks and troughs of player capabilities. Training sessions should be

aimed at peak times. These sessions will then be interspersed with recovery

activities (optimise adaptation to previous bout + maintain athletes ability

to perform subsequent sessions) and meal times.

Furthermore one must understand how one session will affect what is to

follow, both in the short and intermediate days. For example, DOMS has been

shown to peak 48 hours after a novel exercise which is predominantly

eccentric in nature. Therefore, if you are aware of this, don't plan

anything other than restoration in this period.

Verkhohansky's work has discussed how to train multiple biomotor abilities

at the same time. Zatsiorsky & Kraemer (2006) discussed how to calculate

training load, not to mention the excellent chapter in Supertraining, the

more intuitive programmers integrate some kind of qualitative measure into

their planning progress. Siff discusses how RPE and ratings of technique

have been used by Eastern European coaches in cybernetic planning.

What I would say is that the very first exercise of the very first session

you do with an athlete will be the only one that follows the plan you start

with. Calculating the intensity of an exercise for an individual is a moment

by moment process. Those in the UKSCA will have read an interesting piece by

Ian s in a recent magazine regarding fatigue and recovery. In this he

says, quite rightly, that performance is affected by the physical, emotional

and psychological state of the athlete. Furthermore that problems in one

domain will transfer to others, we see this everyday that athletes when

tired concentrate less and find it hard to focus. This means that what an

athlete can do in one session, physically, they may not in the next despite

no loss of their physical attributes. Common to many athletes is an

accumulation of psychological pressures to perform which then manifest in

physical symptoms.

In short, whilst you should always have a progressive plan established for

an athlete, be aware of the state of that athlete and be able to accommodate

that within the demands of the session.

Mark Helme

Wakefield, UK