In order to be successful in most sports, a high amount of force has to be displayed in a relatively limited timeframe. Sporting actions such as jumping, running, sprinting, and throwing are good examples. Two quantifiable measures linked to sporting success are power (F x V) and rate of force development. In fact, Stone, Stone, and Sands (2007) note, “Power production may be the most important characteristic in sport: thus its measurement becomes a priority”. Additionally, higher level athletes generally display greater power outputs than lesser level athletes. Therefore, it would make sense to train with exercises and loads which maximize power output, simple as that right? Unfortunately, sports training is more complex than we all wish.
The connection between power outputs and sporting success has led to an increased emphasis on power production during training. Often, decisions between exercises, loads, sets, and reps are based on power production. Even more so, entire training philosophies have been born based on training with loads that maximize power production. As Haff and Nimphius (2012) pointed out, there are generally three schools of thought. Those who feel light weights develop power best, those who feel heavy weights develop power best, and those who feel combined training is best. Personally, I would like to add a fourth category to those who like to train with ‘optimal’ power outputs. So what does the literature hint at in regards to developing power?
Haff and Nimphius (2012) rightly point out an examination of mechanical power output reveals a high dependence on maximal strength: “Muscular strength is maximized because of its direct relationship with the ability to express high rates of force development and power outputs…overall strength levels serving as the main driver for the ability to express high power outputs”. The issue with continually focusing on heavy strength training is a.) the law of diminishing returns indicated athletes will plateau and b.) little gains in power and RFD (Stone, Stone, and Sands, 2007). Thus, training only at heavy loads with relatively low velocities does not appear to be the key optimizing power output. On a side note, intentionally slow training is more likely even worse for power production. This type of training results in even more diminished strength, RFD, and power production.
What about training at ‘optimal’ or maximal power outputs? While this type of training is often cited as the best method to maximize power. However, there is little evidence to support it: “It is suggested that the optimal load is an effective stimulus for improvements in power output. However, there are very few studies that have supported this contention” (Haff and Nimphius, 2012). The issue with this train of thought is power training is relatively specific to the load. Sports generally require power outputs under a variety of loading conditions. Furthermore, training at the optimal load, “results in a muted ability to improve strength levels” (Haff and Nimphius, 2012).
Direct studies on maximal power loads verses a combination approach generally reveal positive results favoring the combined approach. Stone, Stone, and Sands (2007) advocate the use of sequenced training (heavy resistance training using heavy/light combo followed by a reduced load of heavy training in combination with speed/strength exercises). The authors note this produces superior gains across a wide spectrum of performance variables (Stone, Stone, and Sands, 2007). Lyttle, Wilson, & Ostrowski (1996) studied training at an optimal power output for 8 weeks verses a combined heavy and plyo group. The authors found no differences in measurable but the results point towards the combined group performing better in movements that invoke a stretch-shortening cycle. These results are consistent with the view of Haff and Nimphius (2012): “The use of a mixed-methods approach to optimize power-generating capacity allows for a superior increase in maximal power output and a greater transfer of training effect because of a more well-rounded development of the force-velocity relationship”.
In summary, using a horizontally sequenced organization of training with an appropriate vertical sequence (heavy, speed-strength, plyo) is an effective method for developing power without having to focus intently (or become obsessed with) on ‘maximal power loads’. The use of a wide range of training loads ensures improvements in power across the force-velocity continuum. A potential usefulness of ‘maximal’ power outputs is with the use of speed-strength exercises in the aforementioned horizontal sequence.
Haff, G., & Nimphius, S. (2012). Training Principles for Power. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 34(6), 2-12. doi:10.1519/ssc.0b013e31826db467
Lyttle, A. D., Wilson, G. J., & Ostrowski, K. J. (1996). Enhancing Performance: Maximal Power Versus Combined Weights and Plyometrics Training. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 10(3), 173. doi:10.1519/1533-4287(1996)010<0173:epmpvc>2.3.co;2
Stone, M. H., Stone, M., & Sands, B. (2007). Principles and practice of resistance training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
No comments yet.