Science for practice

On Programming the Training Load of Weightlifters

A. S. Medvedev, Cand. Sc. (Pedagogy), Docent; V. V. Marchenko, Postgraduate, GTsOLIFK

English summary of Tyazhelaya Atletika. Ezhegodnik 1984 (Moscow: Fizkultura i Sport, 1984), pp. 58–62: the text is paraphrased, not translated; data tables are given in full with English labels.

Managing training needs feedback on how the planned load changes an athlete's condition and technique, so the programme can be corrected. Weightlifting has very few studies of this, chiefly of urgent information (G. A. Titov, 1965; M. S. Khlystov, 1974; A. A. Lukashev and others, 1979; L. I. Ruvinsky, 1980; V. N. Deniskin, 1981; V. N. Rogozyan, 1979), and the pre-competition stage is especially neglected. It requires the relationship between prescribed load, speed-strength fitness and technique in the classic lifts.

Method

The subjects were the Moscow team of young lifters preparing for the 16th All-Union Schoolchildren's Spartakiad (Table 1). On the model of uniform session-by-session programmes for elite lifters (A. S. Medvedev, 1978–1983), the team received a four-week pre-competition programme fixing means, methods and load for every exercise and session; athlete and coach corrected it individually.

Table 1. Characteristics of the subjects

Snatch structure was analysed by Lukashev's principles (1972): knee angles at phase boundaries were recorded by electrogoniometer at camp start and a week before competition, with 80% of best snatch. Before every session, speed-strength fitness was tested by four Abalakov jumps:

1. vertical jump from a squat after a 2-second pause, hands behind the head;
2. standing vertical jump, hands behind the head;
3. jump from a squat after a 2-second pause, with arm swing;
4. standing jump with arm swing.

The better of two attempts was recorded. Variation in repeated measurements is 2–5%, reliability 0.822–0.966, and jumps 1, 2 and 4 correlate significantly with snatch and clean and jerk results (r = 0.610–0.775).

Result-based groups: 1, improved snatch (4 athletes); 2, improved clean and jerk (8); 3, same or worse snatch (9); 4, same or worse clean and jerk (5).

Total load and its structure

Successful lifters did slightly fewer barbell lifts (BL) and sets than unsuccessful ones, not significantly (Table 2). The programme was overshot most in groups 3 and 4, by 137–152 lifts; other parameters did not differ materially.

Table 2. Planned and actual load by group

All groups did more lifts than planned in the 50+ and 60+ zones, fewer in 70+ and 80+, and added unplanned 110+ and 120+ lifts; the 90+ and 100+ zones and the count of 90–100% lifts stayed as planned (Table 3).

Table 3. Planned and actual BL by intensity zone, and 90–100% lifts

* 50+ means 51–60%, and so on in 10% steps.

Successful lifters did more one-to-two-repetition sets and fewer of five or six; exercise volumes matched the plan (Table 4).

Table 4. Share (%) of total BL by repetitions and exercise group

In pulls, groups 3 and 4 used heavier weights than groups 1 and 2 (Table 5).

Table 5. Average relative weight in pulls, % of maximum

Groups 1 and 3 differ significantly in both pulls (p < 0.05). The excess came from pulls above 100%, especially above 110%: groups 3 and 4 made 138 and 141 such lifts, over twice the planned 55.

Weekly cycles

All groups peaked in week 3 at 37% of BL, as planned (Table 6). Weekly average weight followed the plan, about 3% over, in weeks 1 and 3, and in week 4 for groups 1 and 2; groups 3 and 4 ran about 9% over in week 4 (Table 7). Counting volume and intensity, groups 1 and 2 had one heavy week, groups 3 and 4 two in a row.

Table 6. Planned and actual load in BL by weekly cycle

Week 1 is nearest the competition.

Table 7. Planned and actual intensity (weekly average weight, %)

Functional state and technique

Table 8. Change in jump heights, week 4 to week 1, %

As printed; the source gives only three values for group 1.

Jump 1 did not change materially. Jump 2 improved in groups 1 and 2 (p < 0.01) and tended to fall in groups 3 and 4. Jump 3 rose in groups 1 and 3, significantly in group 2 (p < 0.05), and tended to fall in group 4. Jump 4 rose everywhere, significantly only in groups 1 and 2. Jumps 2 and 3 are thus more informative. Groups 1 and 2 averaged 9% higher in all jumps than groups 3 and 4, hence a higher functional state.

Technique matched: in groups 3 and 4 snatch knee angles at phase boundaries fell significantly (p < 0.01), while in lifters who improved the snatch they rose (p = 0.05). These class III and II boys lack optimal technique, so their angles are well below elite values.

Table 9. Knee angles (degrees) in the snatch, groups 3 and 4 (x̄ ± σ)

Table 10. Knee angles (degrees) in the snatch, improvers (x̄ ± σ)

The programmed volume over weeks 4 to 1 was 21, 37, 25 and 17%, and the athletes kept this pattern in BL. But groups 3 and 4 exceeded week-4 intensity by 9% against 3%, so had two heavy weeks in succession. All groups cut the load after week 3 and had equal recovery time, yet only groups 1 and 2 competed well; the rest recovered insufficiently, as the fall in jump 2 and the 9% lower results in all jumps show, i.e. worse reactive ability of the leg muscles.

Group 1 averaged 5% higher in jumps than group 2, so a good snatch seems linked to higher speed-strength fitness. The excess load hurt jump 2 most; it reflects storing elastic energy in the yielding phase for later use, which matters more for the snatch. For the clean and jerk jump 3 matters more, reflecting use of muscle-contraction energy and vertical inertial forces from arm swing.

Conclusions

• A uniform session programme raises the training effect if corrected rationally for the individual.
• Over four pre-competition weeks about 1000 BL can be distributed as 21, 37, 25 and 17% (weeks 4 to 1), if average barbell weight follows the same scheme.
• More than 87 lifts in snatch and especially clean pulls at 100–120% over the four weeks harmed speed-strength qualities and snatch technique.
• Simple feedback tests: (a) standing vertical jump, hands behind the head; (b) jump from a squat after a 2-second pause, with arm swing. The weekly average must not fall, and finally should rise.