When designing programmes for soccer players, it is important for strength and conditioning coaches to take a holistic view of the athlete and their sport. Strength and Conditioning coaches should classify the exercises they prescribe in a logical manner that allows them to construct a programme that is all encompassing. Anatoliy Bondarchuk is a well-known training researcher and former Soviet athlete that has devised numerous athlete training programmes. The extensive content of his work is outside the scope of these three articles but the exercise classifications that Bondarchuk uses and how they can be applied within a soccer training programme, will be discussed.
The Bondarchuk categorization of exercises (Bondarchuk, 2007) lead to what he terms as ‘sports form’, the point at which the athlete is performing optimally, and the order of these categories are such that the athlete is training from general to specific. Each category is monitored by test exercises and these indicate if the athlete has attained a level of development that will warrant progress (Bondarchuk, 2007). Over the course of these three articles the special preparation, special development and competition exercise categories will be discussed. There is one remaining category called the general preparation phase, which carries no less importance than the others; these exercises improve the capacities of muscles by using mean that do not mimic competition intensity. These articles do not aim to critique the work of Bondarchuk but instead bring to the fore some training methods that can maximise the exercises in his categorisations.
The special preparation category determines that movements should use similar muscle groups in form and function but not at competition intensity or with similar equipment (Bondarchuk, 2007). Form is the movement at one or multiple joints in a given plane and function is the action of the muscle for example, isometric or eccentric (Bondarchuk, 2007). Olympic lifts and their derivatives fit in to special preparation because triple extension of the hip, knee and ankle joints feature in soccer performance and develop player strength. Olympic lifts can also utilize eccentric, isometric and concentric muscle actions but not at the same intensity as a match or training. Such exercises build the strength of muscles so to allow for progression to the next phase of training using special development exercises.
Olympic lift derivatives are used to increase force producing capabilities and they include barbell based exercises such as squats, deadlifts and other similar movements. Development of these movements is maximized by selecting the correct intensity for athletes to work at inducing the appropriate neuromuscular and structural adaptations (Folland & Williams, 2007) without promoting excessive metabolic stress and fatigue (Linnamo, Hakkinen & Komi, 1998). Movement velocity can be used to monitor the intensity of training by selecting the appropriate loads that elicit the optimum velocity. Movement velocity monitoring can be applied easily to the exercises included in the special preparation categories.
To understand movement velocity and strength training it is important to consider that there is a very strong inverse relationship between load and velocity (Turner, Unholz, Potts & Coleman, 2012). Therefore, in order to attain the desired adaptation from the training programme, practitioners should know where movement velocity ranks in comparison to maximum intensity. To gauge relative intensity, the velocity at which a maximum load is lifted must be tested first and this figure is known as the minimum velocity threshold (MVT). Mimimum velocity threshold values for lower body lifts have been reported as 0.29m/s for full squats (Conceicao, Fernandes, Lewis, Gonzalez-Badillo & Jiminez-Reyez, 2016) and 0.18m/s for bench press (Gonzalez-Badillo & Sanchez-Medina, 2010). As the load-velocity relationship is linear, positive deviation from the MVT will result in a reduction of intensity.
Selecting the appropriate velocity for a given repetition range is necessary when giving different training prescriptions for example, if the aim is to train maximum strength, which may well be within the special preparation programme, then movement velocities are likely to be lower so that they can be performed for 1-5 repetitions. However, if the aim is to develop explosive strength then 1-5 repetitions can still be prescribed but movement velocity will need to increase so to hit the appropriate spot between the force-velocity relationship. In the case of strength training, mean movement velocities will be between 0.15-0.5m/s (Sanchez-Medina, Gonzalez-Badillo, Perez & Pallarez, 2014) whereas in the case of explosive lifts mean movement velocities could range from 0.7m/s and above deepening on the nature of the exercise. It can often be the case that the movement velocity is too high and the athlete is not maximizing their strength against a load that is too low.
Movement velocity is also used to gauge the changing intensity of the movement within a set and practitioners can adjust the training volume accordingly. Velocity loss (VL) is used to stop training sets at the point where a velocity in comparison to the first repletion can no longer be maintained. There is a strong linear relationship between training intensity and VL (Gonzalvez-Badillo, Yanez-Garcia, Mora-Custodio & Rodriguez-Rosell, 2017). For example, Pareja-Blanco, Sanchez-Medina, Suarez-Arrones and Gonzalez-Badillo (2017) found groups that worked to a VL of 15% performed significantly less repetitions compared to a 30% VL group that trained with the same load. That finding is obvious but, Pajero-Blanco et al (2017) also found that the 15% group to significantly improved vertical jump scores in comparison to the 30% group which could be attributed to the participants exposure to greater movement velocities and less accrued fatigue. Similarly, Pajera-Blaco et al (2016) observed significant increases in muscle cross sectional area in groups that trained with a VL of 40% over those that trained with 20% and the same load. These studies indicate that using VL to determine volume can help elicit a desired training adaptation be it explosive strength, speed, or hypertrophy. It is worth noting that within Bondarchuk’s thirty-two periodization models there is little manipulation of training variables such as volume or intensity (Bondarchuk, 2007). However, within the principles of his programmes movement velocity monitoring would potentially allow coaches to observe changes in intensity with the same loads and training volume. Positive changes in movement velocity would indicate neuromuscular adaptations to training.
Special preparation exercises are important to develop the strength required in other movements that resemble sports form. This article has attempted to give examples of how the velocity of special development exercises can be manipulated and maximized so to achieve the aim of the training programme. This is done so by understanding the relationship of load and velocity, selecting velocity to drive adaptation and monitoring velocity change so to determine training volume. The next article in this series explores the principles of special development exercises and how they are utilized to improve speed in soccer.
References
Bondarchuk. A. (2007). Transfer of training in sports. Michigan, USA: Ultimate Athlete Concepts.
Conceiacao, F., Fernandes, J., Lewis, M., Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J., & Jiminez-Reyes, P. (2016). Movement velocity as a measure of intensity in three lower limb exercises. Journal of Sport Sciences, 34, 1099-1106.
Folland, J. P., & Williams, A. G. (2007). The adaptations to strength training: morphological and neurological contributions to increased strength. Sports Medicine, 37, 145-168.
Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J., & Sanchez-Medina, L. (2010). Movement velocity as a measure of loading intensity in resistance training. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 31, 347-352.
Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J., Yanez-Garcia, J. M., Mora-Custodio, R., & Rodriguez-Rosell, D. (2017). Velocity loss as a variable for monitoring resistance exercise. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 38, 217-225.
Linnamo, V., Hakkinen, K., & Komi, P.V. (1998). Neuromuscular fatigue and recovery in maximal compared to explosive strength training. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 77, 176-181.
Pareja-Blanco, F., Rodriguez-Rosell, D., Sanchhez-Medina, L., Sanchis-Moysi, J., Dorado, C., Mora-Custodio, R., Morales-Alamo, D., Perez-Suarez, I., Calbet, J. A., & Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J. (2016). Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 27, 724-735.
Pareja-Blanco, F., Sanchez-Medina, L., Suarez-Arrones, L., & Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J. (2017). Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on performance in professional soccer players. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 12, 512-519.
Sanchez-Medina, L., Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J., Perez, C. E., & Pallares, J. G. (2014). Velocity- and power-load relationships of the bench pull vs. bench press exercises. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 35, 209-216.
Turner, A. P., Unholz, C. N., Potts, N., & Coleman, S. G. (2012). Peak power, force and velocity during jump squats in professional rugby players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26, 1594-1600.
Comments