Quantifying Workloads in Resistance Training: A Brief Review

G. Gregory Haff, Ph.D., C.S.C.S.*D, ASCC, FNSCA

Summary
The ability to quantify training loads and volumes is of particular importance when working with periodised training plans. The ability to plan and monitor resistance training loads allows the strength and conditioning professional the ability to modulate training stressors and better manage fatigue which ultimately leads to a greater potential that performance is optimized. In order to better understand the methods available for monitoring resistance training variables, the present review is designed to explore the various methods for quantifying training volumes and intensities used in the design and monitoring of resistance training programs.

Introduction
Dr. Greg Haff is an associate professor in the Division of Exercise Physiology at the West Virginia University School of Medicine. He has published numerous research articles on sport science related topics and has been recognised by the National Strength and Conditioning Association as the Young Investigator of the Year in 2001. In 2008 Dr. Haff received the Distinguished Teaching Faculty Award at the West Virginia University School of Medicine. Dr. Haff has served as a strength and conditioning consultant for Team Arrow a Collegiate Cycling Team, Canadian Track Cycling champion Mark Ernsting, and several other national and international level athletes. Dr. Haff is a Fellow of The NSCA, a former NSCA board member, a Regional Level Weightlifting Coach, and a Level 3 Cycling Coach.
When designing and implementing a periodised training plan the ability to manage training stressors is an influential factor in determining the overall effectiveness of the training interventions.3,29 Through the modulation of training stressors, a periodised training plan can enhance the recovery adaptation process which will result in a dissipation of fatigue in concert with an elevation of preparedness, and ultimately, performance capacity at predetermined time points. The accomplishment of these goals is dependent on the ability of the coach to estimate and evaluate the workloads accomplished in the various aspects of the training plan. This ability allows the coach to appropriately sequence and integrate all of the athletes training stressors. If these factors are not considered and/or monitored, the likelihood that the training programme will result in less than optimal results will increase markedly. Depending upon the sport, there are several distinct components of the training plan including technical, tactical, metabolic conditioning, sprint agility, endurance and resistance training. The ability to estimate or directly calculate the training loads of each of these training factors allows for a better understanding of the workload encountered by the athlete and can give keen insight into the fatigue factors generated by the training plan. Of particular importance is the ability to estimate the amount of work that the athlete completes during the resistance training component of the overall training plan.19 Generally, the volume of resistance training performed is considered to be indicative of the work performed and proportional to the caloric expenditure that is accomplished in the training session, day or training cycle. Mathematically, the amount of mechanical work accomplished can be calculated by multiplying the force by the displacement during the resistance training exercise performed. For example, if an athlete were to perform 5 repetitions of the back squat with 150 kg and were to move through a vertical distance of 0.6 m, the work accomplished would be calculated with the following equation: Work = weight (kg) x vertical displacement (m) x number of repetitions Work = 150 kg x 0.6 m x 5 = 450 kgm-1 = 4413.0 J = 1.051 kcal In this example, the athlete would have accomplished 450 kgm-1 or 4413.0 J of work during the performance of this exercise. When this information is determined for an exercise or training session, it allows the strength and conditioning professional to gain an understanding about the amount of work or caloric expenditure accomplished.27 Generally, it is impractical and virtually impossible to measure the displacement accomplished for each repetition of every exercise undertaken in a UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk 31

resistance training programme. However, the ability to directly estimate or quantify workloads in the resistance training environment appears to be on the horizon. Emerging technologies such as accelerometers and linear position transducers may offer a mechanism for directly quantifying the work accomplished by allowing for the assessment of vertical displacements, which can then be used in conjunction with the training load and volumes to create a more reasonable estimate of workload and potentially caloric expenditure. While a direct assessment or calculation of work gives valuable information to the strength and conditioning professional at this time, it may be impractical to directly calculate it, especially when working with large groups of athletes. Therefore, the primary purpose of this brief review is to explore the various methods for estimating the training volume and intensity in resistance training. These methods may be used as part of the training programme design process or the athlete monitoring process in order to give the strength and conditioning professional or sports scientist information about the resistance training stressors encountered by the athlete. This may in turn allow for a better management of fatigue, which can increase the potential for optimising performance at predictable pre-determined time points.

Therefore, it is generally accepted that while the repetition method is very simple to calculate, it offers a poor estimate of the amount of work or volume of training completed in a resistance training bout or training programme.3,27 Even though this method is a poor method for estimating or quantifying the training volume and workload, it has continued to be used by several researchers who are exploring various resistance training models24,25 and practitioners who work directly with athletes. A more accurate approach would be to either directly quantify work accomplished,19 or use estimates which account for the actual weight lifted by the athlete27 when attempting to either quantify or equate training loads when comparing various training interventions. Volume Load: In an attempt to better estimate the workload that is encountered in a resistance training setting, the volume load is generally calculated.3,19,27,30 This estimate of workload expands upon the repetition method for determining volume or workload by accounting for the weight lifted during the resistance training exercise or session. Typically the volume of training is reported as a metric ton,1,3,9 a short ton,2 or the volume load.3,27 Where volume load is reported as a kilogramme value, while a metric ton is equivalent to 1,000 kg and a short ton is 1,102.3 kg. To calculate either the metric ton or short ton, one must first calculate the volume load and then divide by either 1000kg to get a metric ton or 1,102.3 to get a short ton (Table 1). In order to calculate the volume load there are two distinct methods which can be performed, one equation which utilises the absolute load lifted and one equation which utilises the percentage of 1-repetiton maximum (% 1-RM).3,9 The first equation for calculating the volume load is accomplished by multiplying the number of repetitions completed in an exercise by the actual resistance encountered. This equation can be represented as the following: Equation 1: Volume load (kg) = number of sets x number of repetitions x weight lifted (kg) If, for example, an individual were to perform 3 sets of 10 repetitions in the back squat at 150 kg, the calculation would be performed with Equation 1 as follows: Volume load (kg) = 3 x 10 x 150 kg = 4500 kg The second equation for calculating the volume load is accomplished by multiplying the number of repetitions by the percentage of 1-RM.9 This equation is represented as the following: Equation 2: Volume load (kg) = number of sets x number of repetitions x %1RM Another way of looking at this equation would be to consider the percentage as a factor of 100 kg. For example, if the athlete were to lift at 67% of their maximal capacity, the %1RM number would be represented as 67 kg. Therefore, if the same individual as presented above performed the back squat for 3 sets of 10 repetitions at 150 kg and this load represented 67% of their 1-RM, the calculation would be performed with Equation 2 as follows: Volume Load (kg) = 3 x 10 x 67 = 2010 kg Once this factor is calculated, it can then be quantified in terms of the actual maximum capacity for the exercise. For example if the athletes maximum back squat is 200 kg then the individualised volume load would be calculated as follows: Volume Load (kg) = 3 x 10 x (200 x 0.67) = 4020 kg

Methods for Estimating Training Volume

When examining the periodisation literature, there are three main methods that can be used for the estimation of training volume in resistance training: 1) determination of total repetitions completed10, 2) calculation of the volume load3,9,27, and 3) calculation of the volume index.1 Repetition Method: The most basic method for quantifying the volume of resistance training and estimating the work accomplished, is the calculation of the total repetitions that have been completed in an exercise, during a training session or training cycle. Based upon this method of determining work, 3 sets of 10 repetitions would result in the same amount of total repetitions as 10 sets of 3 repetitions. While both loading paradigms result in 30 total repetitions, the two protocols would actually result in vastly different amounts of total work or physiological stress. This contention is supported by a recent study by McCaulley et al.20 in which various repetitions and set schemes had their mechanical work equated in order to quantify the physiological responses to each loading structure. In order to equate the mechanical work accomplished with 4 sets of 10 repetitions performed at 75% of 1 repetition maximum (1-RM) (work = 84.2 8.5 J x 103 ), a total of 11 sets of 3 repetitions were performed at 90% of 1-RM (work = 84.2 19.7 J x 10-3). Careful inspection of this data reveals that one loading structure resulted in 40 total repetitions, while the other resulted in 33 repetitions even though both structures resulted in similar work outputs. Additionally, each protocol resulted in vastly different hormonal profiles, suggesting that even though the volume of work was equated, the physiological stress encountered was very different. The differentiating factor appears to be the load encountered, thus the best estimate of volume or workload must consider the amount of weight lifted and not simply rely on the total repetitions completed. UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION 32

UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk

Table 1: Methods of Volume Conversions Exercise Power Snatch Snatch Pull (from floor) Snatch Pull (from knee) Snatch Grip RDL Sets 3 3 3 3 Repetitions 5 5 5 5 Load (kg) 100 120 130 90 Volume Load Metric Ton (kg) 1500 1800 1815 1350 6465 1.500 1.800 1.815 1.350 6.465 1.367 1.633 1.647 1.225 5.865 Short Ton

Training day totals=

Note: to get metric ton divides the volume load by 1000. To get the short ton divide the volume load by 1102.3.

Table 2. Comparison of the methods for calculating training intensity. Volume Load Calculation Volume Index ** Exercise Back Squat Back Squat 1-Leg Squat Behind Neck Press
Note:

Sets 3 3 3 3

Repetitions 10 10 10 10

Load (kg) 150 180 50 60

% 1RM 67 60 22* 50

Total Repetitions 30 30 30 30 120

Equation 1 Equation 2 (kg) 4500 5400 1500 3000 14400 (kg) 2010 1800 660 1500 5970

Equation 4 Equation 5 45 54 15 18 132 205.7 246.8 68.6 82.3 603.4

Training day totals=

*= the 1-leg squat was calculated as a percent of the 1-RM back squat. Based upon a 1-RM back squat of 225 kg and the athlete weighs 100 kg ** = note the volume index calculations are based off of the volume load calculated with equation 1. Equation 1: sets x repetitions x load (kg) Equation 2: sets x repetitions x %1RM Equation 4:sets x repetitions x load/body mass (kg) Equation 5:sets x repetitions x load/body mass (kg)0.67

Another approach would be to calculate the individualised volume load by multiplying the estimate calculated with Equation 2 by a factor of 2. This factor is selected because the maximum capacity in the lift is 2 times greater than the 100 kg factor used in the estimation. When comparing the two volume load equation, it is important to note that they results in very different estimates of workload (Table 2). For example, when examining Table 2, it is clear that method 2 consistently results in lower volume load estimates when compared to method 1 if it is not modified in the context of the maximum capacity. This poses a significant issue if the method for calculating volume load is not specifically addressed in the methods of research articles or reviews of literature on training. Therefore, it is imperative that the method for calculating volume load is clearly outlined. It may be useful to use method 2 as a planning tool when writing a training plan because it allows one to work with percentages9 and then use method 1 as a monitoring tool to see what the athlete actually accomplished.3 Even though the calculation of volume load does not typically include a measure of distance traveled during the exercise it should be considered a reasonable estimate of workload.27 Support for this contention can be found in the work of McBride et al.19 where various methods of determining the volume of resistance training were assessed and the volume load equation (Equation 1) resulted in a reasonable estimate of work. It is important to note that when comparing the volume load of an exercise to a direct calculation of work performed that the distance the barbell travels will significantly impact the amount of work performed. As a result, the volume load estimate may result in an underestimation or overestimation of the workload accomplished depending upon the exercise performed. The fact that the distance the bar travels is not considered in either volume load calculation can create

a potential error in the estimation of workloads completed during a resistance training bout. It is possible that there could be an under or overestimation of workload depending upon the exercise being performed.5,30 For example, when looking at Table 2, the back squat resulted in a volume load of 4500 kg (Equation 1), while the back squat resulted in 5400 kg (Equation 1). Clearly the squat required the movement of a larger load and thus this accounted for the higher volume load estimate. However, this is likely an overestimation of the work performed because the distance traveled is significantly less in a squat than in a full back squat. Typically the squat is performed by lifting the barbell from blocks which decreases the distance the barbell travels when compared to a full squat. In this instance, Equation 2 for calculating volume load may be a better method of estimating workload because the percentage of 1-RM is relative to the lift being performed. For example, the back squat would have a volume load of 2010 kg, while the squat would result a volume load of 1800 kg. While method 2 creates a value that better represents the workload because it is tied to the 1-RM of each exercise, it is limited because it most likely underestimates the actual workload performed. Ideally, it would be best if the actual distance traveled during each exercise was quantified and yielding a more accurate method of estimating workload. Because the volume load is significantly affected by the distance the bar travels it may be warranted to re-write the volume equation to the following: Equation 3: Volume load (kgm-1) = sets x repetitions x load (kg) x distance (m) If the distance traveled by the barbell were determined for each exercise the athlete performs, this volume load equation would give a better depiction of the overall training loads encountered. Bosoc4,6 suggests that the ultimate quantification of training loads would require the direct monitoring of

UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk 33

the dynamics of the lifting task including displacement, force, velocity, and power characteristics. There are several methods that can be used in this task including the use of the V-Scope,13,15 force plate-linear position transducer systems,7,20 video analysis12,26 and potentially accelerometers. Many of these devices, such as the force-plate linear position transducer and video analysis systems are used in research settings but have not typically been used in the applied settings of coaching because of their cost and the time commitment necessary for collecting and analysing data. In the applied setting, the training environment requires instantaneous feedback, portability, and relative ease of use.26 In the early 1990s, there was an attempt to address this need with the development of the V-Scope weightlifting analysis system. This system was designed as a coaching tool in order to provide instantaneous information about a lift, but because of the need for multiple devices when working with large teams and the corresponding cost of the device, its application did not become popular. More recently, the development of accelerometer technologies may result in a monitoring break through which will allow for the direct quantification of training workloads.26 Sato et al.26 recently reported the validity of the acceleration measures determined during a high pull. However, no data was reported on the ability of the system to quantify displacements, and further scientific inquiry is required in order to verify the ability of the accelerometer to measure displacements and ultimate quantify workloads. If accelerometer technologies are proven by future scientific inquiry to be both accurate and valid with the quantification of displacement they will unlock an ability to better grasp the workloads accomplished in the resistance training environment. One potential alternative to high tech devices would be to actually measure the displacement of specific exercises with a tape measure and place this rough estimate into Equation 3 when attempting to calculate the volume load.8 This rudimentary method for calculating displacement expands upon the basic volume load calculation but contains one potential confounding factor. Specifically it assumes that the displacement is consistent between each repetition of a set or across a loading spectrum. The fact that the displacement may change across a set for a specific exercise is supported by work by Haff et al.13 In this study it was determined that the vertical displacement varied across a set of 5 repetitions at both 90% and 120% of the 1 repetition maximum power clean during the performance of a clean pull. Therefore, while a basic measure of displacement improves upon the basic volume load calculation, a more accurate approach would be to have a method or technology which measure displacement for each repetition of every set. While the volume load is generally a useful tool for quantifying work encountered by the athlete during resistance training, the inclusion of displacement in the equation may be necessary to maximize the accuracy of the estimation. Additionally, when looking at power exercises, the volume load without the inclusion of vertical displacement may underestimate the workload accomplished during the exercise19 while partial movements may result in an overestimation of work accomplished. Even with these potential limitations, UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION 34

research studies, as well as example training programmes, should at least report the basic volume load estimate as it is still a better representation than only reporting the number of repetitions performed. This practice should be encouraged because it gives a more accurate picture of what is planned for or has been accomplished in the training session. Volume Index: When looking at the volume load estimate of work, it does not account for the athletes size, which may significantly impact the amount of work the athlete has performed. Depending upon the athletes size, the amount of work that is actually performed can vary significantly. One method for accounting for an athletes size in the calculation of volume is the calculation of what has been termed the volume index.1 The volume index calculation method results in significantly different estimates of workload when compared to the traditional volume load calculations (Table 2). There are several potential methods or equations for calculating the volume index which can be used when attempting to evaluate the volume of training. The first equation that can be used to normalise the volume load to body mass is to divide this volume load by the athletes body mass (Equation 4)1: Equation 4: Volume index = (sets x repetitions x load (kg)) = Volume load (kg) Body mass (kg) Body mass (kg) If, for example, a 100 kg athlete were to perform 3 sets of 10 repetitions with 150 kg the equation would be formatted as follows: Volume index = (3 x 10 x 150) 100 = 4500 100 = 45

If, for example this athlete were to lose 2 kilogrammes (body mass = 98 kg) and perform the same workout, the volume index would be able to address this change: Volume index = (3 x 10 x 150) 98 = 4500 98 = 46

The basic assumption that is made when dividing the weight lifted by body mass is that strength levels are proportional to body mass and how that muscle mass is distributed.11 However, it has been recently suggested that to normalise strength measures, allometric scaling needs to be employed.11,16,17 The principle of geometric scaling serves as the foundation for the concept of allometric scaling, which suggests that the load lifted should be divided by some variable related to body size. This effectively will remove the effect body mass on the training load.16 The most common methods for normalising is divide the force by body mass to the 2/3 power. Therefore, the next equation that can be used when attempting to normalise the volume load would utilise an allomterically scaled force value (Equation 5) and be calculated with the following formula: Equation 5: Volume index = (sets x repetitions x load (kg)) = Volume load (kg) Body mass (kg)0.67 Body mass (kg)0.67 If, the athlete described above was 170 cm tall and weighed 100 kg and performed 3 sets of 10 repetitions

UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk

Table 3: Comparison of Method for Calculating Training Intensity Warm-up Sets Method % 1-RM Kilogram Exercise Back Squat Back Squat Set 1 30 5 67.5 5
5 Repetitions

Target Sets Set 5 Set 6 60 5 135 5 135 60 60 5 135 5

Volume Load Total 1550 3488 Target Sets 900 2025

Training Intensity Total 52 116 Target Sets 60 135

Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 45 5 101 5 55 5 124 5

Note: 60 = % 1-Repetition Maximum , percentages are based off of a 225 kg back squat maximum. %1-RM = percentage of 1 repetition maximum.

at 150 kg, the normalised volume index would be as follows: Volume index = (3 x 10 x 150 (kg)) = 4500 (kg) = 205.7 100 (kg)0.67 21.9 (kg)0.67 If the athlete then lost 2 kg and performed the exact same workout, the volume index would be: Volume index = (3 x 10 x 150 (kg)) = 4500 (kg) = 208.5 98 (kg)0.67 21.69 (kg)0.67 By allometrically scaling the body mass and then calculating the volume index the coach is able to compare the training loads encountered by athletes of different sizes and effectively monitor the training stressors encountered as the athletes body weight changes. Ideally, this estimation would be stronger if the volume load calculated was based upon the actual distance traveled by the bar during the lift. This would be accomplished with the following equation:
Equation 6: Volume index = (sets x reps x load (kg) x distance (m)) Body mass (kg)
0.67

considered when attempting to evaluate training workloads.

Methods for Quantifying Training Intensity

The ability to represent the training intensity of an exercise or training bout is essential when evaluating a training plan. When examining the periodisation literature it is clear that there is a distinct interplay between the volume of training and the intensity of the training bouts encountered.3,14,18,21,22 Traditionally there are two methods which can be used to quantify intensity during a training session: 1) the training intensity, and 2) the intensity index. Training Intensity: Training intensity is considered as the average kilogrammes lifted for an individual exercise or overall training session. Typically this estimate of intensity is calculated as follows: Equation 7: Exercise intensity = Volume load Repetitions For example, if an athlete were to perform three sets of 5 repetitions at 135 kilograms the volume load could be calculated with Equation 1 yielding a volume load of 2025 kg and plugged into Equation 7 as follows: Exercise intensity = 2025 kg Total Repetitions = 2025 kg 15 = 135 kg

Volume load (kg) Body mass (kg)

0.67

If, for example, the same lifter above moved the barbell a total of 0.6 m during the back squat performed in the previous example, the volume load equation would be calculated as follows:
Volume index = (3 x 10 x 150 (kg) x 0.6 (m)) 98 (kg)0.67

(2700 kgm-1) 21.69 (kg)0.67

= 124.5

Comparing the results of the volume load calculated with Equations 5 and 6 reveals a slightly different workload value for this exercise. This small difference in the quantification of work for an individual exercise can be meaningful when a total training sessions volume load is calculated and, therefore, should be

If the calculation was performed based upon the percentage of 1-repetition maximum (RM) method, then volume load would be calculated with the use of Equation 2 and the volume load determined would then be plugged into Equation 7. If the athlete, in this example, had a maximum back squat of 225 kg, the target loads of 135 kg would represent 60% of their 1-

Table 4. Example calculation of volume load and training intensity for a workout. Method 1 Load Exercise Back Squat Back Squat 1-Leg Squat Behind Neck Press
Note:

Method 2 Volume Load 2010 1800 660 1500 5970 Training Intensity kg 67 60 22 50 50

% 1RM 67 60 22* 50

Total Repetitions 30 30 30 30 120

Volume Load Equation 1 (kg) 4500 5400 1500 3000 14400

Training Intensity (kg) 150 180 50 60 110

Sets 3 3 3 3

Repetitions 10 10 10 10

(kg) 150 180 50 60

Equation 2 (kg)

Training day totals=

*= the 1-leg squat was calculated as a percent of the 1-RM back squat. Based upon a 1-RM back squat of 225 kg and the athlete weighs 100 kg ** = note the volume index calculations are based off of the volume load calculated with equation 1. Equation 1: sets x repetitions x load (kg) Equation 2: sets x repetitions x %1RM Method 1: uses Equation 1 in the calculation of volume load Method 2: uses Equation 2 in the calculation of volume load

UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk 35

Intensity

Training

RM and Equation 7 would be as follows: Exercise intensity =

(kg) 116 137 88 15 30

900 kg Total Repetitions

Total

= 900 kg = 60 kg 15

and Training Intensity

Total Volume Load

Table 5: Example of Examining the Volume Load and Training Intensity Based upon the Type of Exercise or Category of Exercise.

If you examine Table 3 closely, it is clear that when the training load is held constant at the target sets, the kilogrammes lifted or the %1-RM represents the exercise intensity. However, if the load fluctuates this will not be the case. For example, looking at the total workload, which includes the warm-up sets the exercise intensity is represented as either 52 or 116 kilograms depending upon the method of quantification. The training intensity for individual exercises can then be used to calculate an overall intensity for the training day (Table 4).3,27,28 In Table 4, for example, the athlete performed a basic 4 exercise training day which was part of a strength endurance block of training. After calculating the volume load the training intensity for the day was determined. It is important to note that the training intensity is an average intensity for all the exercises performed, and thus, smaller muscle mass exercise will result in a decrease in the average intensity for the training day. One strategy that can be used to deal with this issue is to calculate the volume load and training intensity for the warm-up, target sets and down sets while examining the results based upon the whole workout or by exercise type. For example, when looking at Table 5 there is a difference between the total session volume load of 10900 kg and the target set volume load of 6900 kg. Additionally, the inclusion of the warm-up sets in the calculation of the training intensity will result in a lower training intensity value as will combining auxiliary and core exercise in the calculation. In this example, the volume load for the core exercises is 10225 kg and the training intensity is 114 kg while the auxiliary exercises have a volume load of 675 kg with a training intensity of 23 kg. Regardless of how the training intensity and volume load are subdivided, it is important that the method is clearly defined and consistently applied. By examining the training intensity depicted in the various aspects of the training session (i.e. warm-up, target sets, down sets, and total workout) the strength and conditioning professional can garner a more accurate picture of the training stressors encountered by the athlete.

Volume

3475

4100

2650

Load

(kg)

225 15 225 15 5 15 5 15 5 Front Raise Auxiliary Exercises Bicep Curls

Intensity

Training

(kg)

145

170

100

Target Sets

Volume

2175

2550

1500

Load

(kg)

Intensity

Training

(kg)

103

87

Warm-up

Volume

1300

1550

by Exercise Classification

Total Volume Load

145 5

170 5

100 5

Set

1150

Load

(kg)

77

Target Sets

145 5

170 5

100 5

Set

145 5

170 5

100 5

Set

110 5

140 5

Set

Warm-up

110 5

Set

90 5

Total Volume Load

by Exercise Type

Set

60 5

Power Clean 60 5

Back Squat

Strength

Exercise

UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION 36 UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk

Core Exercises

Category

Exercise

Strength

Type of

Power

Push Press

Exercise

60 5

80 5

90 5

30 5

30 5

30 5

450

30

450

Table 6. Example calculation of volume index and intensity index for a workout. Method 1 Exercise Back Squat Back Squat 1-Leg Squat Behind Neck Press
Note:

Method 2 Equation 4 Equation 5 206 247 69 82 603 6.9 8.2 2.3 2.7 5.0

Sets 3 3 3 3

Repetitions 10 10 10 10

Load (kg) 150 180 50 60

% 1RM 67 60 22* 50

Total Repetitions 30 30 30 30 120

Equation 1 Equation 2 (kg) 45 54 15 18 114 (kg) 1.5 1.8 0.5 0.6 1.1

Training day totals/averages=

*= the 1-leg squat was calculated as a percent of the 1-RM back squat. Based upon a 1-RM back squat of 225 kg and the athlete weighs 100 kg and is 170 cm tall. Method 1: uses Equation 4 [sets x repetitions x load/body mass (kg)] to calculate volume index Method 2: uses Equation 5 [sets x repetitions x load/body mass (kg)0.67] to calculate volume index

Table 7: Example use of Volume Load and Training Intensity Projections in the Planning Process.

Load (%1M) Day Monday Exercise Squat Power Clean Bench Press Wednesday Power Snatch Snatch Pull (FL) Overhead Squat Friday Front Squat Power Clean Incline Bench Press Sets 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Reps 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Week 1 70 70 70 65 65 65 60 60 60 Week 2 75 75 75 70 70 70 65 65 65 Week 3 80 80 80 75 75 75 70 70 70 Week 4 73 73 73 63 63 63 63 63 63

Total Block Values Volume Load 4470 4470 4470 4095 4095 4095 3870 3870 3870 Training Intensity 75 75 75 68 68 68 65 65 65

Intensity Index: The intensity index is another method of representing the intensity of the training bout or exercise.1 Typically, the intensity index is calculated with the following equation: Equation 8: Intensity index = Volume index Total repetitions When employing this equation the volume index can be calculated with either Equation 4 or 5 and then divided by the total number of repetitions performed in the various aspects of the training session. For example, looking at Table 6, it is clear that allometric scaling (method 2) alters the volume index, which in turn, alters the intensity index when compared to the more traditional method for computing both variables (method 1). With this method, the intensity index allows for the quantification of an intensity which accounts for body size and shifts in body mass that can occur as a result of weight gain or weight loss, and thus, may have an impact on training stressors.1

Applying Methods of Quantifying Volume and Training Intensity

The ability to accurately plan, track and monitor the volume and intensity of the resistance training programme allows for a better understanding of the training stressors encountered by the athlete. Specifically employing basic calculations allows the strength and conditioning professional the ability to more accurately determine the dosage of training and ensure that the athletes level of preparedness is tracking in the appropriate direction. Conceptually, the application of the materials presented in this brief review can be considered in the context of either the planning or monitoring process. Planning Training: When the strength and conditioning professional is designing the periodised training plan it is important that he/she understands the variations in the workloads and patterns of loading contained in the various phases of their overall plan. One method that can be used to accomplish this goal is to use Equation 2 to project the volume loads of

UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk 37

Table 8: Example Use of Volume Load and Training Intensity as a Monitoring Tool.

Load (kg) Day Monday Exercise Squat Power Clean Bench Press Wednesday Power Snatch Snatch Pull (FL) Overhead Squat Friday Front Squat Power Clean Incline Bench Press Sets 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Reps 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Week 1 154 112 95 78 85 78 108 96 72 Week 2 165 120 101 84 91 84 117 104 78 Week 3 176 128 108 90 97.5 90 126 112 84 Week 4 161 117 99 82 88 82 113 101 76

Total Block Values Volume Load 9834 7152 6034.5 5004 5421 5004 6966 6192 4644 Training Intensity 164 119 101 83 90 83 116 103 77

Notes: Based upon the following actual and estimated 1-repetition maximums: Back squat = 220, power clean = 160, bench press =135, power snatch = 120, snatch pull = 130, overhead squat = 120, front squat=180; and incline bench press = 120.

Table 9: Example Use of Allomertically Scaled Volume Index and Training Index as a Monitoring Tool.

Load (kg.kg-0.67) Day Monday Exercise Squat Power Clean Bench Press Body Mass Wednesday Power Snatch Snatch Pull (FL) Overhead Squat Body Mass Friday Front Squat Power Clean Incline Bench Press Body Mass 3 3 3 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 Sets 3 3 3 Reps 5 5 5 Week 1 104.1 75.7 63.9 102.1 53.1 57.5 53.1 101.2 73.4 65.2 48.9 101.4 Week 2 111.4 81.0 68.4 102.3 57.2 62.0 57.2 101 79.2 70.4 52.8 102 Week 3 118.3 86.0 72.6 103 60.9 65.9 60.9 102.1 85.5 76.0 57.0 101.5 Week 4 108.7 79.1 66.7 101.9 55.4 60.0 55.4 101.6 77.1 68.6 51.4 101.2

Total Block Values Volume Load 442.6 321.9 271.6 226.5 245.3 226.5 315.2 280.2 210.1 Training Intensity 7.4 5.4 4.5 3.8 4.1 3.8 5.3 4.7 3.5

Notes: Based upon the following actual and estimated 1-repetition maximums: Back squat = 220, power clean = 160, bench press =135, power snatch = 120, snatch pull = 130, overhead squat = 120, front squat=180; and incline bench press = 120.

UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION 38 UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk

training and Equation 7 to project the expect training intensity that will be encountered by the athlete. This method can be especially useful when working with large numbers of athletes as individualisation can occur after the basic planning is completed. For example, if a 4-week block of training was being designed with a 3:1 loading paradigm, the basic volume load and training intensity would increase across the first 3 microcycles of training, and then, the 4 microcycle would represent an unloading week (Figure 1). The basic daily programme may look like the example presented in Table 7. By using percentages of the athletes 1-RMs for each of the exercises planned, a basic training intensity variation can be visualised during the planning process. While this is only an estimate of the intensities, it does give the strength and conditioning professional a rough idea of what the training load variation might be. Looking at the basic structure of the mesocycle presented in Figure 1 and Table 7, it is clear that a classic model of periodisation has been structured based upon the examples presented by Plisk and Stone23 in the planning process. Careful inspection of the example plan demonstrates daily and microcycle fluctuations in volume load and training intensities. Even though Figure 1 and Table 7 allow for the ability to visualise the basic loading structures, it is important to note that the actual accomplished work may be slightly different depending upon the ability of the athlete to complete the prescribed workloads and their 1-RMs for each exercise. Monitoring Training: From a monitoring perspective the actual lifts completed and the kilogrammes lifted should be used in the calculations of both volume load and training intensity. Using the same basic exercises and loading patterns as presented in planning training section (Table 7) of this article could be completed by an athlete. Based upon the number of repetitions completed and the athletes maximal capacity in the lifts planed, the basic 3:1 loading pattern was completed (Figure 2). While this basic pattern is slightly different than the one used in the planning process, it still represents what the structural pattern established. Further inspection of the training plan and results can be done by looking at Table 8 where the actual weights lifted are recorded. While it is highly unlikely that the athlete will make every lift at a prescribed load for this example, lets assume that they have. Based upon the basic volume load and training intensity calculations we can see that daily and microcycle variations in volume and intensity of training are created. However, the exercise selected and the athletes maximal capacities in these lifts, the Wednesday workout had a lower volume and intensity then planned in Table 7. Another potential method for monitoring the training programme is to calculate the allometrically scaled volume and intensity index (Table 9). Central to the ability to employ this monitoring tool is the daily determination of body weight. In this example, the same programme as presented in Table 8 is re-analysed with the use of the volume and intensity indexes. As with the previous examples, a 3:1 loading paradigm has been performed (Figure 3). Careful inspection reveals that the basic loading pattern depicted in Table 8 is only slightly altered when presented in the context of the volume and intensity index values. The small difference in loading patterns is largely a result of the fact that the athlete in this example only demonstrated

Figure 1: Example 3:1 Loading Paradigm.

Figure 2: Example 3:1 Loading Paradigm Based upon Volume Load and Training Intensity Values From Actual Training Results.

Figure 3: Example 3:1 Loading Paradigm Based upon Volume Index and Intensity Index Values From Actual Training Results.

UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk 39

small changes in body weight across the block of training. If the athlete had been attempting to lose weight for a weight class based sport, the variation in the results would be much greater.

Conclusions and Practical Applications

When working with periodised training programmes, it is useful to employ methods for estimating volumes and intensities of resistance training in the planning process. By doing this, the strength and conditioning professional will be able to better plan for higher volume or intensity training days. Any one of the methods presented in the brief review could be used in this process, but using actual loads based upon 1-RM may be problematic when working with large groups of athletes. In this case, it may be warranted to use Equations 2 and 7, which are based upon percentages of 1-RM. In the monitoring process, it is best to use the actual sets, repetitions, and weights lifted in the analysis of what has been done in the training plan. By using these values, a more accurate depiction of the training plan can be presented. If possible, the inclusion of displacement (Equation 3) should be used to increase the accuracy of the evaluation. While including displacement may be warranted in most cases it is not necessary or easy to accomplish. Therefore, using the Equations 1 and 7 would be an acceptable alternative. Regardless of the method used to analyse the training plan, it is important to be consistent in the application of the various methods. Additionally, if presenting research on periodisation or training models it is important that the volume load, training intensity and total repetitions be reported. If only repetitions are reported, the volume of training will be clearly misrepresented and open to misinterpretation. Adding the volume load and training intensity to the programme analysis will allow for a better understanding of the model of training being employed.

References:
1. 2. Ajn, T. and L. Baroga. Weightlifting: Fitness for All Sports. Budapest: International Weightlifting Federation.1988. Bompa, T.O. and M.C. Carrera. Periodization Training For Sports: Science-based strength and conditioning plans for 20 sports. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, p 258.2005. Bompa, T.O. and G.G. Haff. Periodization: Theory and Methodology of Training. 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.2009. Bosco, C. Eline neu Methodik zur Einshtzung und Programmierung der Trainings. Leistungsport 5:21-28. 1992. Bosco, C., A. Belli, M. Astrua, J. Tihanyi, R. Pozzo, S. Kellis, O. Tsarpela, C. Foti, R. Manno, and C. Tranquilli. A dynamometer for evaluation of dynamic muscle work. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 70:379-386. 1995. Bosco, C. A new training method with Ergopower - Bosco System. Acta Academia Olympiquae Estoniae 5:24-34. 1997. Cormie, P., J.M. Mcbride, and G.O. Mccaulley. Validation of power measurement techniques in dynamic lower body resistance exercises. Journal of applied biomechanics 23:103-118. 2007. Dvorkin, L.S. Weightlifting and Age: Scientific and Pedagolofical Fundamentals of a Multi-Year System of Training Junior Weightlifters. Livonia, MI: Sportivny Press, p 125.1992. El-Hewie, M.F. Essentials of Weightlifting & Strength Training. 1st ed. Lodi, NJ: Shaymaa Publishing Corporation, p 524.2003.

3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

9.

10. Fleck, S. and W.J. Kraemer. Designing Resistance Training Programs. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, p 375.2004. 11. Folland, J.P., T.M. Mc Cauley, and A.G. Williams. Allometric scaling of strength measurements to body size. Eur J Appl Physiol 102:739-745. 2008. 12. Garhammer, J. A review of power output studies of Olympic and powerlifting: methodology, performance prediction, and evaluation tests. J. Strength Cond. Res 7:76-78. 1993. 13. Haff, G.G., A. Whitley, L.B. Mccoy, H.S. O'bryant, J.L. Kilgore, E.E. Haff, K. Pierce, and M.H. Stone. Effects of different set configurations on barbell velocity and displacement during a clean pull. J Strength Cond Res 17:95-103. 2003. 14. Harre, D. Principles of Athletic Training. In: Principles of Sports Training: Introduction to the Theory and Methods of Training. D. Harre, ed. Berlin, Germany: Sportverlag, 1982. pp. 73-94. 15. Hiskia, G. Advanced electronic technology for real-time biomechanical analysis of weightlifting. In: Proceedings of Proceedings of the Weighlifting Symposium. eds. Greece, 1993. p. 89-95 16. Jaric, S. Muscle strength testing: use of normalisation for body size. Sports Med 32:615-631. 2002. 17. Jaric, S., D. Ugarkovic, and M. Kukolj. Evaluation of methods for normalizing muscle strength in elite and young athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 42:141-151. 2002. 18. Matveyev, L. Periodization of Sports Training. Moskow, Russia: Fizkultura i Sport.1965. 19. Mcbride, J.M., G.O. Mccaulley, P. Cormie, J.L. Nuzzo, M.J. Cavill, and N.T. Triplett. Comparison of methods to quantify volume during resistance exercise. J Strength Cond Res 23:106-110. 2009. 20. Mccaulley, G.O., J.M. Mcbride, P. Cormie, M.B. Hudson, J.L. Nuzzo, J.C. Quindry, and N. Travis Triplett. Acute hormonal and neuromuscular responses to hypertrophy, strength and power type resistance exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 105:695-704. 2009. 21. Ndori, L. Training and Competition. Budapest: Sport.1962. 22. Ndori, L. and I. Granek. Theoretical and Methodological Basis of Training Planning With Special Considerations Within a Microcycle. Lincoln, NE: NSCA.1989. 23. Plisk, S.S. and M.H. Stone. Periodization strategies. Strength and Cond 25:19-37. 2003. 24. Rhea, M.R., S.D. Ball, W.T. Phillips, and L.N. Burkett. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res 16:250-255. 2002. 25. Rhea, M.R., W.T. Phillips, L.N. Burkett, W.J. Stone, S.D. Ball, B.A. Alvar, and A.B. Thomas. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for local muscular endurance. J Strength Cond Res 17:82-87. 2003. 26. Sato, K., S.L. Smith, and W.A. Sands. Validation of an accelerometer for measuring sport performance. J Strength Cond Res 23:341-347. 2009. 27. Stone, M.H., H.S. O'bryant, B.K. Schilling, R.L. Johnson, K.C. Pierce, G.G. Haff, A.J. Koch, and M. Stone. Periodization: effects of manipulating volume and intensity. part 1. Strength and Cond 21:56-62. 1999. 28. Stone, M.H., K. Pierce, W.A. Sands, and M. Stone. Weightlifting: program design. Strength and Cond 28:1017. 2006. 29. Stone, M.H., M.E. Stone, and W.A. Sands. Principles and Practice of Resistance Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, p 376.2007. 30. Viru, A. and M. Viru. Biochemical Monitoring of Sport Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.2001.

UK STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION 40 UKSCA | Issue 19 | Autumn 2010 w: www.uksca.org.uk e: info@uksca.org.uk