Training methods and planning

Comparative Analysis of Monthly Load in the Preparatory and Competition Periods

R. A. Roman, Cand. Sc. (Pedagogy), Moscow State University; E. E. Rysin, Central Sports Club of the Trade-Union Sports Societies

English summary of Tyazhelaya Atletika. Ezhegodnik 1985 (Moscow: Fizkultura i Sport, 1985), pp. 33–36: the text is paraphrased, not translated; data tables are given in full with English labels.

To compare training load in the two periods, the authors analysed the two months of training before improved results in 32 trade-union lifters from all ten weight classes. The first month was called preparatory, the second competition, each with four weekly cycles. Snatch exercises and snatch pulls were expressed as a percentage of the best snatch, all else of the best clean and jerk, with the best result before the period, in training or contests, as 100%. The lifters averaged 22 years of age, 7 years of training and 391 conventional units of skill (M. V. Starodubtsev’s table). Their gains, measured by the best result at the end of the period, were 6.6±5.2 units in the snatch, 8.1±6.2 in the clean and jerk and 14.7±8.9 in the total. Comparing only with contest results would be wrong, since contests may not show the higher results (after weight cutting, for instance); the interest was the effect of the training. Table 1 gives the load parameters.

Table 1. Training load in the two periods (means x̄ ± σ, athletes of 86.7 kg)

* In parentheses, lifts by the athletes who use the exercise. The large σ shows variable use: some do none, others far more than the mean.

A high result comes when volume falls and intensity rises or holds. Total volume fell in the competition period by 31% on average, but unevenly: by 25.8% in the main exercises (snatch, clean and jerk, clean pulls, squats), which decide the result most, and by 45.3% in the rest. Within the main exercises the snatch fell 8.5% and other snatch exercises 26.5%; the classic clean 5% and other cleans 40.5%; the classic jerk 14.5% and other lifts from the chest 26.5%; clean pulls 27.7% and squats 31.8%. So the cut came mostly from exercises that matter less.

Intensity dipped slightly in the snatch but rose in other snatch exercises, and in all snatch exercises from 65.6 to 67.4%. It rose slightly in classic and other cleans (overall 66.5 to 67.8%) and in the classic jerk, and fell in other lifts from the chest and in all lifts from the chest (65.3 to 64.7%). Clean pulls gained 2.1% and squats 2.3%; the snatch pull, presses and other squats rose slightly, standing bends fell and lying bends held.

Intensity depends on work at 70% and above in snatch and jerk exercises and 90% and above in pulls and squats (Table 2).

Table 2. Monthly high-intensity load in the main exercises (means x̄ ± σ, athletes of 86.7 kg)

As printed (“57+26” is evidently 57±26).

The preparatory period looks more intense, but it merely holds more high-intensity lifts per month. Per week, competition-period lifters should train intensely for three weeks, then intensity falls markedly: the fourth week averages 10% of the monthly volume (34 lifts) in snatch and jerk exercises, 9% (5) in squats and 8% (3) in clean pulls. By Table 3 the first three competition weeks are somewhat more intense than the preparatory average.

Table 3. High-intensity lifts per weekly cycle

Total lifts show no link with the gain, so volume need not rise. But lifts in presses, bends and other squats correlate negatively with it (r = −0.49), so the main exercises should increase and the others decrease. The result correlates with lifts at 70% and above in snatch and jerk exercises (r = 0.52 and 0.68) and at 100% and above in clean pulls and squats (r = 0.32 and 0.28), so high-intensity lifts should also increase.

By calculation, and from the athletes who improved most, the approximate high-intensity content for each weight class was worked out (Table 4). With the other parameters above it promises a gain of up to 24 units in the total, against 14.7 on average, for lifters aged 19–25 with comparable results of 360–420 units.

Table 4. High-intensity lifts needed to raise results

As printed (the third preparatory column, “80% and above”, is evidently 90%).