all posts post new thread

Barbell What's the difference between "training max" and "competition max"

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
antiquity said:
"Start too light, progress too slow". Most coming to barbell training do the opposite: they pick heavier weights than they should, grind out ugly reps, and then are quick to want to add more. This results in no gains, injuries, and all around failure.
Click to expand...
Starting Out Too Heavy

That is definitely a major issue with many lifters. The end result like you called it..."No gains, injuries and all around failure."

Ironically, when it occurs many lifter blame the program rather than accepting that they incorrectly inputted the program; "Garbage in garbage out".

Clarity On Starting Light

There nothing wrong with starting off a new program or exercise with something that is light.

The is a bit of an issue if you go to slow.

The General Adaptation Syndrome

This is the underlying mechanism behind Periodization Training.

In time the body adapts to a training program. When adaptation occurs, progress stops.

Many individuals stick with a program too long. The defining moment is when progress stop, you need to change something.

Training Age

The length of time you have been training (months, years) is one or the determinate factors for a Periodization Training Cycle.

Novice Lifter adapt slowly. They can perform the same program for 8 - 12 week before they need to change it. Training beyond this time period would be what I refer to as [progressing "too slow".

In other word, you weight increases is too conservative.

Advanced Lifter adapt quickly. The need to change their program about every 4 - 6 weeks.

New Training Cycles

Once a one Periodization Training Cycle is completed, the New Training Cycle need to start over with something that is light.

Doing so promotes...

Active Recovery

Research and anecdotal data have demonstrated that light training after pushing a Periodization Training Cycle to the limit or close to it evokes fast recovery than Passive Recovery; doing nothing.
 
watchnerd said:
Thus, what I will find at the meet, on the platform, will be exactly what I trained with.
Click to expand...
This is very sport specific. In PL, it is going to depend on the contest, and sometimes the equipment that arrives is not as advertised. Stuff happens. Sometimes a specific DL bar doesn't get there for some reason and now everyone is pulling on a stiff bar. I've seen it happen. In Strongman, there is NO standardization. WSM used to fabricate it's own equipment and ship it to the contest site. You are not going to know exactly what you will use until you touch it. Sometimes there's a testing/hands on day in advance of the contest for those that can make it. Usually there is not. You train and adapt. We made a lot of our own equipment to train. The last thing you wanted was something nicer/easier to use for than the comtest equipment. And you trained heavier than contest weights if possible, because you are always going to have less in the tank by the end of contest day. Your training is tested with fore at a competition. You see guys get blindsided by an event that is nothing like their training and never get their head back into it on the day. Other guys roll with it and do well. Th advantage of multiple attempts is the ability to start with something that just gets you in the meet and gets your head in the game with a good lift.
 
Hardartery said:
This is very sport specific.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

It's one of the benefits of competing in a sport that has enforced international equipment standards by the IWF that go all the way up to the Olympics themselves.

The number of different PL federations, the equipment differences, and different stances on drugs/PED, is staggering to me.
 
Last edited:
watchnerd said:
Absolutely.

It's one of the benefits of competing in a sport that has enforced international equipment standards by the IWF that go all the way up to the Olympics themselves.

The number of different PL federations, the equipment differences, and different stances on drugs, is staggering to me.
Click to expand...
Same for the IPF - you're guaranteed in-spec equipment.

-S-
 
Steve Freides said:
Oft-repeated advice about meet openers: pick a weight you've tripled in training.

-S-
Click to expand...
If you're still a novice, you can probably get away with opening on whatever you made at your previous competition, provided you've not been injured or taken a significant break from training.
 
Chrisdavisjr said:
If you're still a novice, you can probably get away with opening on whatever you made at your previous competition, provided you've not been injured or taken a significant break from training.
Click to expand...
I've watched novice lifters - first competition - bomb out because they never practiced all three lifts on the same day, and they didn't make their DL opener even though they'd done much more at home.

watchnerd said:
IMHO, if PL ever becomes an Olympic sport, it will be the IPF version.
Click to expand...
Undoubtedly. Based on what I've been hearing and reading, it's not impossible that there will be powerlifting and not Olympic lifting in the next Olympics - the word out there about drug use in the IWF ain't pretty, and the IOC isn't happy about it. (I think we discussed this here once before.)

-S-
 
Steve Freides said:
Undoubtedly. Based on what I've been hearing and reading, it's not impossible that there will be powerlifting and not Olympic lifting in the next Olympics - the word out there about drug use in the IWF ain't pretty, and the IOC isn't happy about it. (I think we discussed this here once before.)

-S-
Click to expand...

Yeah, the bribery scandal at the IWF HQ on covering up bad testing results / cheating is brazen and shameful.

I don't think WL will get kicked out this time (Tokyo 2021). I think the IOC is basically saying "This is your last chance to get your house in order."

I'm optimistic that this will actually make a difference -- a lot of the drugged up teams are done so with a nod-and-wink from their own national Olympic bodies, all in an effort to win national prestige via more medals in all sports. It sort of defeats the propaganda goal if they get kicked out entirely by the IOC.
 
Steve Freides said:
I've watched novice lifters - first competition - bomb out because they never practiced all three lifts on the same day, and they didn't make their DL opener even though they'd done much more at home.
Click to expand...
Might be a powerlifting v. weightlifting thing. three lifts in a meet is a whopping 50% increase over the two that weightlifters have had since 1972.

Having to do three lifts definitely gives you a bigger chance of bombing out if you're not careful so I can understand the need to be a bit more conservative.

I wonder how it would change in a single lift meet (e.g. para powerlifting)...
 
Last edited:
In the original Penn State publication of Zatsiorsky's textbook, Science and Practice of Strength Training, he discusses the concept of maximum vs maximum maximorum . Meet results or high level excitation training results (meet simulations for example) are generally considered maximum maximorum efforts (greatest possible amount) and as a rule of thumb are 10% higher than low excitation training maxes. For athletes with true MM lifts, I make sure they understand to call their 1RM training maxes 10% less than the MM. If they use MM as 1RM then all of sudden 70% training becomes 80%, 80% becomes 90% etc. New MMs give new training 1RMs automatically. If the athlete has a bad meet and doesn't lift what they should have based on training, with care you can project a somewhat heavier 1RM training max for next cycle. But, again, use care.
 
randyh said:
Zatsiorsky's textbook, Science and Practice of Strength Training,
Click to expand...
This is an excellent book.

randyh said:
maximum maximorum efforts (greatest possible amount) and as a rule of thumb are 10% higher than low excitation training maxes.
Click to expand...

Sounds right. Definitely a good general rule.

I need to re-read his book.

randyh said:
If they use MM as 1RM then all of sudden 70% training becomes 80%, 80% becomes 90% etc.
Click to expand...

Great Point

Information that I previously posted from Zatsiorsky noted the Russians based their Training Percentage of their Competition Max while the Bulgarians based their Training Percentages off their Training Max.

For some reason, people assumed the Bulgarians followed the Russian Training Percentage of their Competition Max. Many articles then incorrectly came to the conclusion that the Bulgarians training were performed with HIgher Training Percentages with longer more frequent training session than the Russians, anyone else.

The reality was the Bulgarian Training Percentages were essentially the same as the Russian; basing it off the Bulgarian Competition Max rather then their Training Gym Max.
 
randyh said:
In the original Penn State publication of Zatsiorsky's textbook, Science and Practice of Strength Training, he discusses the concept of maximum vs maximum maximorum . Meet results or high level excitation training results (meet simulations for example) are generally considered maximum maximorum efforts (greatest possible amount) and as a rule of thumb are 10% higher than low excitation training maxes. For athletes with true MM lifts, I make sure they understand to call their 1RM training maxes 10% less than the MM. If they use MM as 1RM then all of sudden 70% training becomes 80%, 80% becomes 90% etc. New MMs give new training 1RMs automatically. If the athlete has a bad meet and doesn't lift what they should have based on training, with care you can project a somewhat heavier 1RM training max for next cycle. But, again, use care.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of food for thought for me in there, Randy - thanks.

-S-
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom