Diag Side
Uncategorized February 4th. 2011, 7:44amDiag Side
 |
No items matching your keywords were found.
Bridge to the Other Side - Christian Caldeira/Oliver Boyd and the Remembralls
Intensity of Load in Olympic Weightlifting (Average Weight of the Bar)
Intensity of Load (Average Weight of the Bar).
So far as volume of training load is concerned, this is the sum of training work which is performed with various weights, naturally the effectiveness of training in a large part depends on what weight the lifter exercises with.
Modern weightlifting training is constructed thus; with the growth of the volume of load intensity increases, i.e. the lifter ignores the principle; growth of volume of load must outstrip growth of intensity.
The correlative relation of volume and intensity of load is at the level of 0.893. The close connection between volume and intensity of load is high and trustworthy (p<0.01).
In every weight category for every level of mastery there is a specific optimum intensity.
With growth of weight category and qualification, the intensity of load also grows:
Body Weight Intensity
52 kgms 95 kgms
56 " 99 "
60 " 103 "
67.5 " 108 "
75 " 117 "
82.5 " 124 "
90 " 127 "
110 " 130 "
over 110 " 133 "
If we look at the intensity in relation to the qualification of the lifter, it will be revealed that it rises with an increase of lifting qualification (Table 12).
From Table 12 it is seen that, for lifters of third rank, average training weight is at the level of 68+8.6 kgms, for lifters of second rank it is less than for lifters of first rank. The last place is that of Master of Sports. For highly qualified lifters of middle weight category, average weight is 15 kgms higher than for a Master of Sport.
Table 12
Value of Average Weight (Intensity) for Lifters of Middle weight
Category in relation to Qualification.
Qualification Intensity/Average Variation
Weight. Kgms. Kgms.
III Rank. 68 + 8.6
II Rank 85 + 3.4
I Rank 91 + 4.3
Master of Sport 100 + 3.8
Sporting results and average training weight for highly qualified lifters are in a highly correlated relationship: z = 0.904, r< 0.001. The relationship is a direct one: with the growth of intensity the sporting results increase.
But this fact, that sporting attainment depends on the size of the average weight of the bar which is lifted in training, is only correct in the condition that in training is maintained a definite optimum relationship of the work on the classical and assistant exercises. On the other hand, it can happen that a lifter with smaller intensity. For example, middleweight lifter A. R-s had a very high average weight of 127.t kgms, but lifter A. K-v had one of 118 kgms, but the result of the former was 15 kgms lower than that of the latter. Lifter R-s achieved such a high intensity in training as the result of the adoption of exercises in pulling and back squatting, which as a rule are performed with very heavy weights. But these exercises do not give such an effect on the increasing of results in the classical lifts as exercises performed with a greater amplitude: snatch, clean and jerk, power snatch and clean.
For lifters of lower qualification, e.g. lifters of third rank, the connection of intensity of load to sporting results is only medial, i.e. lower than for highly qualified lifters. This can be explained by the lack of knowledge of how to select the optimum size of the stimulant, i.e. the average training weight. High intensity, in the order of events, is received as a result of the performance of various assistance exercises with great weights (squats, pulls), but these exercises do not have sufficient effectiveness.
In the course of a year there is little change in average weight, the coefficient of variation being of the order of 4.6 to 5.1%. This is illustrative of a sufficiently high stability of intensity of load, at the time when the volume of load undergoes more significant changes (Cs~30%). The size of the variation of intensity in the weekly cycle in relation to the average monthly value is on average 11.2%.
In separate sessions, as is shown in Diag. 61, the intensity of load significantly changes. For example, the size of Zhabotinsky's average monthly intensity was 138 kgms. In different sessions intensity increased to 164 kgms and fell to 111 kgms. Today similar variations in the construction of training loads is characteristic of the majority of lifters.
As an illustration is produced Table 13, in which is shown the change in intensity of load of ten lifters in preparation for a crucial contest.
As seen in the table, the higher the intensity the higher the sporting result. The exception is S-v and K-v: for almost identical intensities the results are higher for K-v. In his training, side by side with significant resistance, small loads are made use of, which are also reflected in the intensity of load.
Today in the training of lifters an agreed tendency is seen to reduce the intensity in not more than two or three sessions, after which must follow an increase.
Despite the high correlation between the intensity of loading and sporting results,we can not preference to any one variant of the character of the change of intensity of load the last three to four sessions. Probably, the level of muscular strength, which the lifter has acquired as the result of training, can be mentioned, and further, in the last session, even with a significant reduction of the intensity of the load ( up to 15 %).
Moreover we regard intensity as a summary value, including the lifting of large and small weights. We consider that the volume of load has less significance than its intensity, and that single lifts of high weight in the final stages of preparation for a contest are shown to be sufficient for maintenance of definite levels of strength of the skeletal musculature.
Until recently experiments have not shown the optimum number of lifts of this or that training weight, in an exercise for a given maximum training effect. With the aim of elucidating the optimum number of lifts, two teaching experiments were carried out under our guidance by A.S Prilepin , with lifters of low qualification.
One of the experiments was a programme in which were entered sessions using only 70 % of maximum weight in all exercises ( including pulls ) In the second experiment lifter trained only with 80 % of the maximum weights. In both experiments a division into three groups of the lifters was adopted ( all experimental ). There were not less than 11 people in every group. Students of different ages, technical preparation and physical preparation and physical development were distributed among the groups equally. The duration of experiment was 2.5 months.
The effectiveness of different programme was determined by results in the snatch, clean and jerk, back squat, press, bench press and standing dynamometry.
Analysis of the results of the experiments revealed that in all groups, independent of the adopted method of training, a growth in the indices in all the controlled tests was observed. At the same time the average size of the growth of the attainment in the groups essentially differs. The growth of the average results, after the completion of the fifth week of the teaching experiment with the 80% programme, turned out to be higher in the tests of the second group (20.9 kgms) then in the first group (20.4, r<o.o1). The advantages of the programme of training of the second group are evident.
Now-a-days, some specialists consider that in the system of training weightlifters, light weights of 60-70% predominate. This point of view is not confirmed by our investigations into the given contingent of lifters. On the contrary, the adduced investigation showed that the most effective programme was with the greater intensity.
Lifters of high standard devote a lot of attention to lifting weights of 70-75% of maximum, training with which, to a large degree, perfects speed qualities. On average they make up 30% of the load.
Attention should be given to the fact that in the pedagogical experiment with a 70% programme, the average growth of the results of the second group, which in one month performed 960 lifts, was not only higher than the first group (720 lifts) but also of the third group (1200 lifts).
In several separate control exercises this regularity changed a little. This was especially noticeable with the results of the pedagogical experiment with the 80% programme. Here the average growth of results was also higher in the second group (720 lifts) than in the first group (480 lifts) and third (960 lifts). But in some separate exercises, like the classical press, clean and jerk, bench press, this advantage disappeared in comparison with the average growth of results in the first group. This fact is very important for planning the training load of weightlifters, which will often be higher than optimum.
Examining the effect of the 80 and 70% programme on the growth of results in every separate case, we found that the optimum quantity of lifts, giving the greatest training for lifters of second and third ran and novices, will be :-
1. Classical snatch. 80% weight 15 lifts.
70% weight 15-20 lifts.
2. Classical clean & jerk. 80% weight 15 lifts.
70% weight 15-20 lifts.
3. Back squat. 80% weight. 15 lifts.
70% weight 15-20 lifts.
4. Bench Press. 80% weight 10 lifts.
70% weight 15 lifts.
Comparison of the effectiveness of the programme showed that training with 80% of maximum weight gave the greatest effect in the biathlon and in other control exercises. As noted above, a 70-80% of maximum for the training weight has an important value in the training process, for both beginners and lifters of high standard. It is easier for beginners to acquire the technique of lifting with these weights, because with these weights it is possible to perform multiple repetitions. As is well-known, the technique of performing lifts is closely dependent on skill (in the first stages of study ), but skill in a large part depends on the number of repetitions.
Comparing various programme with 70, 80 and 90% of the maximum corresponding competition results, showed that the maximum growth of the sporting results was noted with the applied programme of 90% intensity. It turned out to be 10% more effective than the programme of 80% weight, and 40% in comparison with the porogramme of 70% intensity.
This points to the fact that the intensity of load in training has a very great meaning for the growth of sporting attainment.
Khizer Hayat Raja
Sr. Lecturer in Physical Education & Sports
International Weightlifting Coach & Expert
E mail: wlexpert@yahoo.com
About the Author
Affiliated with Olympic style weightlifting since 1989. First as player and from 1998 as a coach. Author of a book and keen in research work.
Presently serving as Sr. Lecturer in Physical Education and Sports at a College. Coaching and training many Juniors & Seniors in Olympic style weightlifting. Produced many National and International weightlifters within and out side the country.
