More Food

[Guest guest]

TRAINING SPECIFICITY - NO VALUE IN WEIGHTS

Bell, G. J., sen, S. R., Quinney, A. H., & Wenger, H. A. (1989).

The effect of velocity-specific strength training on peak torque and

anaerobic rowing power. Journal of Sports Sciences, 7, 205-214.

Eighteen varsity oarsmen from the University of were divided

into three training groups:

high-velocity repetition (HVR) training,

low-velocity repetition (LVR) training, and

a no-training control.

Rowing-specific exercises were performed on Hydra-Fitness machines in

a repeated circuit format with the HVR group performing 18 to 22

repetitions and the LVR group performing six to eight repetitions of

each exercise.

Training effects were measured on a rowing ergometer. A 90-seconds

maximum performance was measured every 15 seconds with the 15 to 30

seconds interval being used as the measure of peak power output. The

high lactic acid levels recorded in the subjects validated the test

as being a measure of anaerobic capacity and power output.

It has been estimated that the contribution of anaerobic energy to

rowing ranges from 14 to 23 percent. Usually, those contributions are

greatest in the starting and finishing efforts of a race. The point

behind this study's resistance training program was that it should

increase power and rowing ergometer performance should improve since

the exercises used the muscles that are involved in the sport. The

investigation assessed how much of the specific-resistance training

effects transferred to ergometer work and thus, reflected the benefit

of such training for rowing performance.

The results showed that there were specific changes in the

performance of the specific resistance exercises, that is, the

athletes became better resistance exercisers. Those changes were

specific to the velocities of training. The HVR group performed

better in the high velocity range of movements while the LVR group

was better at low velocity actions. Contrary to what has been

reported by Moffroid and Whipple (1970), each of the training groups

changed specifically, that is, the high-velocity group did not show

any improvement in low-velocity movements.

[Moffroid, M. T., & Whipple, R. H. (1970). Specificity of speed of

exercise. Physical Therapy, 50, 1692-1700.]

The control group worsened in performance. There was no change in

either training group in peak power output or lactic acid levels.

This finding was surprising because the strength program was

specifically designed to enhance the strength of the muscle groups

involved in rowing. Since power is dependent on both force and

velocity, the observed improvements in torque with resistance

training should, theoretically, have contributed to an increase in

rowing power. That theoretical position was not supported by the

results of this study in these high-caliber athletes. The lack of

improvement contradicts the recommendations of many coaches and the

content emphases of many rowing training programs. This negative

finding might be explained by the fact that the movement patterns

involved in rowing are very complex and require a high degree of

skill. The training effects that were observed in this study were

specific to the resistance-training mode and did not transfer to the

more complex action involved in the sport. This restriction supports

the training principle that training effects achieved on simple

activities (such as specific resistance exercises) do not transfer to

complex activities.

This study failed to show performance benefits that are supposed to

result from resistance training programs. It supports the absolute

specificity of training principle and suggests that an emphasis on

resistance training in high-level athletes is not useful for

improving performance. Such programs may even restrict the volume of

beneficial specific training that can be achieved because of the

level of fatigue that results from their execution. Neither modern

training theory nor the mounting evidence of the ineffectiveness of

specific resistance training programs supports the continued emphasis

on this type of training as a means of generating performance

improvements in high-caliber athletes.

Implications for Programming

Traditional use of resistance training programs that are " meant " to

improve performance should be questioned. The only time that

resistance training may be of value would seem to be in the

transition (off-season) for basic preparatory training phases. There

is the possibility that fatigue generated by strenuous resistance

activities will:

diminish the physical resources that can be applied to specific

beneficial training;

detract from the amount of available training time so that the volume

of specific beneficial training is reduced; and

the training effects from resistance training will be incompatible

and interfere with beneficial specific training effects (principally

those of aerobic adaptation).

Return to Table of Contents for this issue.