HISTORY WAS MADE

Jeff Everson... has been an outstanding track and field athlete, a top ranked Olympic Sifter, a 500 plus pound bencher, and now he and his wife Cory participate very successfully at the highest level of physique competition, while Jeff continues his work at the University of Wisconsin.

I think the thing that I miss most since Fred Hatfield has left the University of Wisconsin to fashion his entrepreneurial empire at Fitness Systems, is the invigorating twenty minute argument we used to have daily. Actually, we agreed on 90% of training subject matter but boy, that other 10%! I guess ya gotta know Fred to realize he is a sharp cookie but he tends also toward stubbornness and is a tad opinionated (I can hear all those who know Fred chuckling). Fred once told me, 'Yeah, Jeff, I know those other methods work but it's just that mine work so much better! Well, give the man his due; after all, his lifting is nothing short of spectacular, and Lord knows, he certainly has a propensity to develop new theories. Since Fred isn't around to argue with me anymore, I'll do it here. Consider this article to be the powerlifting counterpoint to Fred's point (just like 60 minutes.)

In the October issue, under Compensatory Acceleration, Fred has maintained that by increasing contraction speed one can offset the decrease in effective resistance that takes place when the external leverage in any movement becomes more favorable (shorter resistance arm). He maintains that 'pushing as hard as you can throughout the movement is tantamount to overloading throughout the entire movement. The overload he is referring to here is probably not an increased tension overload but is an overload in the sense that force and distance are constants and the time is shortened. Thus the expression of power is increased. I say expression, merely because lifters think of power metaphorically, as being synonymous with strength; it is not, however. While power (the rate of doing work) may be increased, it may not be due to any increases in muscle tension. How so? In physiology, we know from the classic work of A. V. Hill (force-velocity curve) that muscle tension decreases as velocity of contraction increases and conversely at zero velocity we have a maximum isometric tension. Undoubtedly, powerlifters get so strong because their heavy movements are ultimately quite slow. Furthermore, in 1885 Beaumis firstly reported that in a fast, accelerative movement, that the muscle can actually throw the limb into motion with an impulse, or what he called a contraction ballistique and then relax as the limb, exhibiting kinetic energy from the muscle, proceeds by momentum. This is where the concept, 'ballistic movement' developed. Perhaps, compensatory acceleration increases expressed formula power by means of inducing momentum.

In a landmark study, Thorstensson in 1976, demonstrated that the highest muscle power (Force times Distance per unit time) is attained when the velocity of contraction is approximately 25% of maximum value. At these velocities, power optimizes because the force developed is optional. At higher velocities, tension falls off too much.

Formulas can be quite deceptive, though. For instance, it is generally assumed that powerlifters are a lot stronger than Olympic lifters yet Olympic lifters exhibit much greater power values than powerlifters. Example:

Alexeev 560 Clean & Jerk x 7 ft.
equals 3920 Ft-lbs. Divided by
3 seconds (2 sec - clean; 1 sec
- jerk. equals 1307.

Kazmaier 880 DL x 3 ft. equals
2640 Ft-lbs. Divided by 4
seconds to complete lift equals
660.

Remember, the powerlifter is more interested in increasing strength whereas the Olympic lifter wants to increase power. Confused? Don't blame me that powerlifting is misnamed.

By doing what Fred suggests, namely increasing velocity by pushing as hard as possible, momentum develops in excess (this is on any poundage less than approximately 85-90% of maximum) by the initial motor unit muscle impulse. Thus, excess inertia partially moves the load. Perhaps we should, alternatively, aim for a compensatory deceleration as we pass the sticking point!

Additionally, Bergold, using integrated EMG, has demonstrated increasing action potentials (which represents motor unit recruitment) as tension increases and only at a constant tension does motor unit activity increase with increasing velocity. Constant resistance equates with an isokinetic resistance not isotonic. Isotonic is not truly constant; it is rather dynamic, reflecting changes in muscle force, lever arm changes and effective tension-resistance changes. Tension cannot be increased commensurately with increasing velocity (thus the development of isokinetics). Komi reported that integrated EMG is the same anyway, in maximal contraction at all types of different speeds, so you are probably not recruiting any more motor units at fast speeds. This again reflects changes in the muscles expressed strength through lever arm changes. Motor units appear to be recruited by demands of increased tension and not by increased velocity. The issue of whether one can learn to recruit more fibers (beyond simply practicing the event - which lowers impulse traffic that reaches the motor-neuron) by training at faster velocities is, at best, unresearched. The ability to generate tension and exhibit high power is due to nervous innervation and the myofibrillar activity of the muscle fibers (both genetic).

Injuries? I would suggest much carefulness in accelerating with less than maximum training weights. Fred realizes this also and advises slowing the movement near the ends. Otherwise there may be a lot of hyperextended elbows and knees. By the way, if you have a maximum squat of 700, and are doing a set of 4 with 90% (630) how much can you compensatorily accelerate anyway? The weight seems to move slowly at all points; regardless. My feeling is with the heavy weights (90% and over) you should try to move fast, to explode, but the weight will actually move slowly. Lesser weights should not be accelerated because of momentum inducement and the danger of injury.

At any rate, Fred, I miss ya, buddy, what else can we argue about?

References:
Astrand, Per Olof. Textbook of Work Physiology.
Beaunis. Gazette Medicale de Paris, 1885, 56, 340.
Buskirk. Structural and Physiological Aspects of Sport.
Fenn.Tension and Velocity in Human Muscle. Amer. J. Phy. 1931, 97, 1-14.
Milav., J. Phy. 1922, 56, 19-41.

COUNTERPOINT.-.a response to Jeff Everson's comments on Compensatory Acceleration as told by Dr. Fred Hatfield.

Ah, how I've longed for the din of battle, if only of wits. The pleasure never was mine, however, particularly with Jeff, because our discussions were generally one sided; that is, me learning from him. He'd dispute that because I did have a nasty habit of opening my big mouth too much and the pleasure never was with anyone else because I never had the wit with which to do battle. In any case I would like to respond to the article by Jeff appearing in this issue. I feel that despite both of our propensities for engaging in one battle or another, that this is a case where there is little if anything to do battle over. We are, you see, very much in agreement, with a few relatively unimportant exceptions.

Let me go through Jeff's article paragraph by paragraph. I will attempt to clarify our points of agreement (so we'll never argue about points of agreement again) and our points of disagreement (in the hopes of fostering future agreement). About 60 minutes -- you rotten -- how could you -- well, let's start with the next paragraph.

It's true that I did say that one should increase speed of contracture as leverage improved. Please bear in mind, however, that this increase will be necessarily very minimal owing to the extremely heavy weights slowing speed to nearly imperceptible variability. There is no doubt that power is defined as force times distance per unit time. In the real world, swinging a baseball bat or put-ting a shot is not the same thing as lifting a near maximum weight straight up from the ground or squat-ting with it. The difference is the speed of movement due to differences in the level of resistance. One can not exert maximum force throughout the full motion of the baseball bat swing because the bat is too light and the speed of movement too great. One can, however, exert maximum force against the bar through the full movements of squat-ting, benching, and deadlifting, but only if, as Jeff has suggested, the weight is such that it is moving at less than 25 per cent of the potential maximal speed of movement, which would be squatting maximally fast with no weight on the shoulder or putting it another way - vertical jumping. This brings up another important point and Jeff alluded to this late in his article. In fact, he said the same thing that I'm saying. He and I are quite definitely in agreement to a point but then the clincher was said and I quote: Tension cannot be in-creased commensurately with in-creasing velocity.' Jeff then later says, and I quote: 'You should try to move fast, to explode, but the weight will actually move slowly.'

In truth the weight is moving slowly but it is still moving faster near the top than near the bottom of the squat. There appears to be a bit of confusion here or perhaps misunderstanding here. Jeff quoted Thorenson's study which showed that at low velocity force can be applied effectively throughout a given movement, however, at faster velocities the ability of a muscle to generate tension falls off. I agree and Jeff agrees and we're all happy. Jeff later disagrees by saying that tension cannot be increased with increasing velocity. He must have forgotten that he agreed that tension could indeed be increased with increasing velocity but only at speeds not in excess of about 25% of maximum. That friends, is the speed at which most training lifts are performed - under 25% max speed. Sorry Jeff, I have the advantage since I was given the opportunity to respond in the same issue. I trust you will either become as convinced as I that compensatory acceleration does work at a typically slower speed encountered in powerlifting training or come back with a more erudite and consistent rebuttal than the last one. On the other hand, I do agree that one can become strong through compensatory deceleration; however, my way is better.

Now that I've had my fun getting in a few friendly licks, I'm sure that most readers are thoroughly confused if not disgusted over the apparent differences between Jeff's research interpretations and my own. In fairness to the reader then, let me restate the topic a bit, something I perhaps should have done in the October issue when the article first appeared. I think the main area of confusion is movement speed differences between various sports movements. In the squat the weight obviously re-mains the same throughout the movement but the amount of effort varies. The weight can be moved with greater ease as one's leverage increases. In other words, you must recruit more muscle fibers near the bottom of the squat than at the top.

What I proposed in the October article is to continually recruit as many muscle fibers as possible throughout the movement, thereby compensating for the normally lower level of effort required to complete the lift near the top of the movement. This increased recruitment will, together with improved leverage, result in a slight increase in the speed of movement as one approaches completion of the squat. However, the speed in-crease is only slight because the weight is so heavy. This compensatory increase in muscle fiber recruitment was coined by me as Compensatory Acceleration. The emphasis is on compensatory rather than acceleration. The acceleration factor is not significant; rather, the increased recruitment causing it is. I don't mean to belabor the point but this so called compensatory acceleration will not work at high movement speeds. Jeff agrees with me there. Such speeds are in any event only possible with leg weights and leg weights are the scourge of any self respecting powerlifter and the delight of pencil necked geeks. You must train with heavy weights and you must attempt to jam the bar hard through every inch of the movement. This is what I mean by compensatory acceleration. So Jeff is accurate in his contention about compensatory acceleration being a waste of time with lighter weights. Light weights would probably best be used in compensatory deceleration as Jeff contended, but the heavy weights can be accelerated throughout the movement and in so doing allow increasing levels of force to be applied as leverage increases. With the lighter weights such increasing force would, as Jeff indicated, be impossible. So, train heavy.

To wrap this somewhat convoluted discussion up, one more clarification is offered. The term I have been using 'increased recruitment' is somewhat confusing. You see, mainly because of improved leverage, fewer motor units need to be recruited nearer the upper ranges of most powerlifting movements. I didn't mean to imply that more motor units can be recruited in the better leverage ranges than in the lower, most efficient, ranges. Rather, I meant more than normal for that particular range of motion. It may be that at the lower range of motion there are indeed more motor units firing than in the upper ranges of motion; however, by sheer power of will, recruiting more than you ever did in those higher ranges will surely result in improved overload throughout this normally neglected range of motion.

Jeff is right about many things. Of particular note is his comment regarding the fact that it is relatively unresearched area. So go to it, Jeff. Now you have a hot thesis topic for some of your graduate students.