Becoming
stronger is useful for most of us, never mind where strength is on the list of
qualities required for girevoy sport. The question is, how to correctly fit
strength training into the already physically challenging schedule of training
for girevoy sport.
GS is primarily
and endurance activity, and it has been shown many times that concomitant
strength and endurance negatively affect each other. This has been coined an
interference phenomenon. Research has come up with various reasons for this
phenomenon, but I am more interested in the practical side of things. In 2000
two Canadian researchers came up with the model of training that could possibly
overcome the effect of interference. In their article they set up four goals:
- To review the effects of training methods used to increase aerobic power and their physiological adaptations
- To review methods used to increase strength and consequent neuro-muscular responses
- To identify which combinations of training protocols used to enhance aerobic power and strength produce maximum or minimum interference
- Finally, to come up with the model that may be used to study the interference phenomenon in a systematic and controlled manner.
Training for Aerobic Power
There are several parameters to consider
in this section. Maximal aerobic power (MAP) is the maximal rate at which
energy can be produced in a muscle primarily through oxidative metabolism.[18] The
most
common measurement of MAP is maximal
oxygen consumption, or VO2max.
Transportation of oxygen is dependent upon the cardiopulmonary system, referred
to as the central component, and the adaptations that occur at the muscle
tissue level, referred to as the peripheral component.
Central component. The efficiency of the cardiopulmonary
system to de
liver oxygen to the muscle tissue is dependent on
pulmonary
diffusion, cardiac output (Q) and haemoglobin affinity.
Peripheral component. Glycogen stores in muscle, capillary
density, mitochondrial volume and density, aerobic enzymes and myoglobin
content all influence the utilisation of oxygen in the muscle.
Another
useful parameter that reflects the ability to generate aerobic power is Maximal Aerobic Capacity. It refers to
the maximal amount of work that can be performed using oxidative metabolism.
The indicator that reflects maximal aerobic capacity is lactate threshold.
There are
various training protocols used to improve aerobic capacity. The most important
point for me is that depending on the intensity of training resulting
adaptations are different. At lower intensities, the physiological adaptations
occur primarily in the central component, while high intensity interval
training leads to the improvement of the peripheral oxygen utilization.
Lower
intensity training is associated with changes in the cardiopulmonary mechanics,
such as pulmonary diffusion, cardiac output and haemoglobin. As training
intensity increases the location of adaptation appears to shift to the
peripheral components with changes in muscle capillarization, increase in
oxidative enzyme activity, mitochondrial volume and density, and myoglobin
concentration. Interestingly enough, strictly speaking interval training is not
“cardio”. It is also clear from the information above that statements by
fitness gurus in regards to HIIT being more productive than LSD are simply
illiterate. Both central and peripheral mechanisms are important for improving
aerobic capacity, and therefore both should be employed for that purpose.
As
depicted on the diagram above, training at intensities close to the maximal as
during HIIT elicits peripheral adaptations, while training below aerobic
threshold (AT) leads to adaptations in the central component.
Training Muscular Strength.
Muscular
strength is measured by the force produced during a maximal voluntary
contraction (MVC). Two factors can improve strength: an increase in muscle
cross-sectional area (CSA) – growing a bigger muscle - and the ability to
effectively activate motor units. Muscle
growth is the result of protein synthesis, which produces a greater number of
contractile units. More efficient motor unit activation (MUA) occurs when a greater
number of fibres are recruited, firing frequency increases, co-contraction of
antagonists decreases, motor units are better synchronized and various
reflexive mechanisms that limit the amount of generated force are suppressed.
Again,
various training regimes lead to different adaptations in terms of strength.
Muscle hypertrophy has been shown to occur in training with loads of 6RM or
greater; however,
the greatest increases in CSA have been found to occur with 8 to 12RM loads.
In
addition, muscle hypertrophy is also optimized when there is sufficient training
volume and there are multiple exercises per muscle group. Time under
tension is also considered an important factor in enhancing the size of muscle.
Finally, 8 to 10RM loading protocol has also been found to produce the highest
circulating levels of growth hormone (GH), which has been associated with
protein synthesis.
Training
at higher loads - 4 to 6RM – also increases strength, but achieves less muscle
hypertrophy. This strength gain is attributed to neural adaptations that
include increased muscle unit activation, faster firing frequency of motor
units, improved synchronization and decreased co-contraction of antagonists. It
has also been suggested that these training protocols are in wa way
antagonistic: as the training stimulus promotes muscle growth, the
contributions from the neural mechanisms to force production diminish.
The
diagram below illustrates the principle: higher repetition training increases
muscle size, while training with lower RMs mostly elicits neural adaptation.
A Model for the Interference Phenomenon
According
to the authors of the article there has been no systematic approach to studying
the interference phenomenon, with particular reference to the components of
strength and aerobic power. Because various protocols for strength and
endurance have been used in different publications, the outcomes have been all
over the place: it has been shown that combined training of strength and
aerobic power results in compromised strength gains, uncompromised strength gains and uncompromised
gains in muscular power, with no apparent compromise in the development of aerobic power.
So these
guys come up with the model of interference, which is presented in the next
diagram.
The basic
premise of the proposed model is the idea that there is an inverse relationship
between the intensity and volume of training. Normally, as the training
intensity (resistance and percent of VO2max) increases, the volume (sets and
repetitions) would decrease.
From the
model it would be hypothesized that interference would be maximized when
athletes use high intensity interval training to improve aerobic power and an 8
to 12RM multiple set resistance training protocol to increase strength. The strength training protocol would be
attempting to enhance protein synthesis in the muscle and stress the anaerobic
energy system with corresponding increases in muscle lactate. Aerobic interval training would create
hypoxia in the muscle, requiring the muscle to increase its oxidative
capability. In this situation the muscle
would be required to adapt in distinctly different physiological and anatomical
ways, which may reduce the adaptation of one of the systems.
If
aerobic interval training was combined with high intensity - 3 to 6RM - resistance training, the model would predict
less interference because the training stimulus for increases in strength would
stress the neural system and not place metabolic demands on the muscle.
Presumably the muscle could increase its oxidative capability without affecting
neural adaptation such as increased firing frequency, more efficient
synchronization of motor units, decreased inhibition and co-contraction of
antagonist muscles.
Continuous
aerobic training would be predicted to have minimal interference on strength
development using either high load or medium load strength training protocols.
The physiological adaptations associated with continuous aerobic training would
be centrally mediated, involving increased cardiac output, haemoglobin and
greater pulmonary diffusion. Consequently, it should not interfere with either
neural adaptation or muscle hypertrophy since the location of physiological
adaptation and metabolic response would seem to be different.
Testing the Model
According
to the existing literature, there is some evidence that this model may be
valid. You can read full analysis at the link provided at the beginning of the
post.
Implications for Girevoy Sport
I train
for GS snatch only, and my training sessions generally consist of high
intensity set with heavier bell and higher cadence, followed, after a short
break, by 10 minute set with the light bell. High intensity set sends my heart
rate through the roof, and it takes a while to catch a breath after it. Long
sets vary in terms of RPE, but they are seldom easy. When they get easy I
increase the weight of the bell. So, I would call both of these sets high
intensity exercise.
After GS
sets I do circuits, and this is where the model above may detect a problem.
Circuit sets are multiple repetition barbell or body-weight exercises, and
according to this model they may cause interference. I wonder if moving the intensity/volume
towards the right side of the spectrum – 3 – 5 reps with heavy weight – could be
more beneficial.